Imagine Mexico joined an alliance with China, complete with funding and transfer of weapons, that said any attack on any other Chinese aligned territory (or say taiwan) obligated Mexico to strike the US. This would never be tolerated in a million years. This doesn't make Russia in the right, but get real here---there are degrees of actual sovereignty, and few nations have class A shares.
This analogy would have some semblance of meaning if the US had plans to invade Mexico, or had made statements to that effect, or if there was even a latent desire in the US for that kind of action. It would then make sense for Mexico to find alliances with other countries for protection.
The situation in Europe is completely different, with close to half of Europe having been under Russian domination for decades if not centuries. Once those countries got out, they decided that never again would this be possible.
There is also a misunderstanding of how NATO works. Countries in Europe have not been forced to join the alliance, but they have been quasi begging to join NATO to get protection from the Russian aggressor. The process of joining NATO requires a formal application and the unanimous agreement of all existing members, not just the US's (see Turkey's move to block Sweden's entry for a concrete example of how that works).
There is also the notion that NATO applicants must follow requirements, including [1]:
- a functioning democratic political system based on a market economy;
- the fair treatment of minority populations;
- a commitment to the peaceful resolution of conflicts;
- the ability and willingness to make a military contribution to NATO operations; and
- a commitment to democratic civil-military relations and institutional structures.
In other words, the values defended by NATO are values which I consider positive. An alliance of autocratic nations (say Russia and China) would be a very different one.
Finally, if you haven't followed the discourse in Russia, there really is a discussion there of taking back not only Ukraine, but the Baltic states, Kazakhstan, and other former soviet republics (and yes, even parts of Poland). That is taking, as in invading under false pretense, not the peaceful recreation of a union with the consent of said countries. Luckily Russia will be unable to do so, but the need for protection remains real.
Thank you for actually rebutting the analogy and providing at least one link. I have found every thread on HN about this war is extremely lacking in links and there's all these things that have been "obvious" since the beginning that don't seem that obvious to me.
The US has invaded Mexico before (and taken half of its land in the subsequent treaty). Mexico is also substantially under US domination since (along with much of Latin America), it is just that our domination has been softer and maybe more beneficial. The situation is certainly not the same, but there are significant risks of very similar border conflicts arising in the coming 2-3 decades, and the US will absolutely respond in as dominant a way as it can. The US would absolutely not tolerate a border country joining a binding oppositional alliance. I don't think the analogy is so bad as you make it out to be and I think the US would try a series of actions to diffuse the situation similar to what we have seen in this conflict (but the US would probably be more capable and more likely to avoid the final escalation).
Do you actually think the US would preemptively invade Mexico in this scenario?
As an American, that sounds ludicrous, and I cannot imagine anyone in the US supporting that plan with the enthusiasm that Russians currently support the invasion of Ukraine.
I think the US would attempt to destroy the Mexican government. If it came to it, yes they would invade, although first they would simply try to install a friendlier government through a coup of some sort (it has been US policy to oppose any such actions since Monroe doctrine). As for the feelings of the US public, they can be swayed to war, as history shows.
The US did preemptively invade Panama in the past, at the first sign of General Noriega's shift toward the Soviet bloc, after his soliciting and receiving military aid from Cuba, Nicaragua, and Libya.
In your scenario, the triggering event is if/when the US attacks a Chinese aligned territory. NATO is a defensive alliance. When the US attacked Iraq, NATO did not follow. The only time NATO reacted was when Bin Laden attacked the US. Your scenario will only happen if China is the belligerent party.
Actually that's a great analogy. It would be like if the US tried to invade and conquer parts of Mexico and turn it into a new state in the year 2023. You know, that thing that will never fucking happen. We also invaded Canada a couple times back when we were dumber, but notice how Canada and Mexico are actually pretty pleased to be our allies, despite our faults, and they aren't seeking protection from foreign alliances to prevent us invading them again, because they largely believe we would never do that again, because the world is very different and we are very intertwined and wish to be cooperating countries.
This was a response to a question asking why Russia has any influence over Ukraine's alliance choices. The US exerts similar influence over the foreign policy of its neighbors, as does China, which is right now aggressively pushing on Taiwan for this reason. It is the reality of larger powers interacting with smaller ones. No one said the current situation in Canada or Mexico is the exact same. Nor did I say any of this justifies Russia's choices. But IF, say Mexico, started to flirt with an oppositional alliance, this would be countered, with war as a last resort if the other strategies failed. This has been done several times before in US history (eg in Cuba, we backed a local revolt against Spain to take control of the island and other Spanish possessions. In the 1960s we again threatened nuclear war against the Soviets for expansion there and embargoed the country for half a century). And the fact you are so dismissive of US action in Mexico is a big blind spot. The cartels in Mexico control significant territory adjacent to the US. US federal agencies have been deeply intertwined with the Mexican government's efforts to curtail the cartels, but these have failed. Special forces already operate there. The likelihood of direct US action is not high right now but is certainly plausible within 20 years, especially if the cartels make further inroads within the offical government. US congressmen have just this year proposed legislation allowing "military capabilities" against the cartels. The world is different, but some things don't change, and more powerful countries dictating some of the policy of their less powerful neighbours is one of them.
You know, that thing that will never fucking happen.
Exactly. To the extent that there's any validity in looking at the current situation between the US and its larger neighbors, it completely demolishes the idea that we should have some understanding or other respect for Russia's actions in Ukraine.
Based on it being "unavoidable", or "what else did you expect Putin to do?" or any of that crap.
Have you read Bill Barr's opinion piece in the WSJ about the use of military force against Mexican cartels, in support of the bill authorising such use of military capabilities by Reps Waltz and Crenshaw? I never said this war was unavoidable--actually it was very avoidable. Nor did I say Putin had no other choice, so I don't know what youre on about there.
What are the wishes of Ukraine? Are you talking about Zelensky or People of Ukraine?
Not very long ago US orchestrated a coup in the country so it is all meddled.
Yes, it is all meddled. Victoria Nuland was one of the main orchestrators regarding the Ukraine coup, quite clear when hearing the leaked phone call in which see also stated "fuck the EU" (might help people find the audio when Googling).
A spy, no. Just unfortunately living in the bubble of whatever blogs and other ideologically warped news sources you're reading.
No one in (mainstream) Ukrainian society believes in the "coup" or attaches any special significance to that allegedly pivotal and far-reaching Nuland exchange.
You know that just because some professor somewhere says something (in a way that makes it sound high-minded and respectable) -- that doesn't make it so, right?
Correct and same applies to you me and everyone else. The bottom line is you are an idiot if you flat out deny the perspective of people who are more knowledgeable than you are on this topic.
I don't deny Mearsheimer's views on Ukraine at all. On the contrary, I believe we should let them stand for what they are - as a shining example of Orwell's famous mamxim:
“One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool.”
