4 ms·
It's sort of the reality of geopolitics though. How would the US respond to Mexico joining some adversarial pact with China? And keep in mind the Ukrainian con
by yucky 5y ago
It's sort of the reality of geopolitics though. How would the US respond to Mexico joining some adversarial pact with China?
And keep in mind the Ukrainian constitution forbade this as well, until the coup/revolution in 2014, and the further laws passed recently bringing this closer to reality all but guaranteed a Russian response.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago> How would the US respond to Mexico joining some adversarial pact with China? I do not think the US would invade Mexico as a result. How do you think the US would respond?
- yucky 5y agoThere is 0% chance that the US would not respond to eliminate that adversarial pact, with violence if necessary. The US just wrapped up two 20 year wars, one of which had nothing to do with anything.
- nickpp 5y agoAnd yet it is Russia invading and killing its neighbors as we speak, not the US (which admittedly is quite far from perfect too). As someone who lived under Soviet occupation, we never had any doubt which one is the evil empire. Joining NATO is just good sense for countries unlucky enough to be geographically close to Russia. One does not just live next to Mordor.
- yucky 5y ago>Joining NATO is just good sense for countries unlucky enough to be geographically close to Russia. The issue is for the good of the world, they can't be allowed to join NATO. If the price to pay to avoid WWIII is that Ukraine just doesn't join NATO, that's worth it. It worked for years. Clearly Russia views it as a direct threat, since NATO is really just an extension of the US military.
- nickpp 5y agoThe price to stop a madman with nukes and drunk with power increases with time and appeasements. You may hope that sacrificing people and countries now to his insane desires will buy the rest of the world time, but in reality that time will be used in the dictator's favor since he is the one with a terrible purpose: getting to you. The price to stop Putin in 2014 would've been a local war with NATO losses. The price to stop him now is to risk walking the nuclear line. The price to stop him in another 10 years will be guaranteed nuclear war.
- yucky 5y ago>The price to stop Putin in 2014 would've been a local war with NATO losses. The price in 2014 was just to not overthrow the democratically elected government in Ukraine, and rewrite the Constitution to change their stance on joining NATO. What is the value in skipping past that part and pretending it doesn't matter?
- nickpp 5y agoOh you mean the government that won the elections promising to bring Ukraine into Europe, then made a full 180 into Russia's waiting arms - thus proving itself Putin's puppet and betrayer of its people? The same government Putin wants so badly to reinstate that he is willing to bomb women and children for it?! No, Ukrainians knew why they took it down. Eastern European people are not so easily fooled, we see quite easily through Russian deception and propaganda.
- yucky 5y agoPoliticians lie all the time, that doesn't legitimize having a coup. You throw them out at the next election if you don't like how they ran the country. That is how democracy works.
- nickpp 5y agoInvading peaceful countries, bombing innocent women and children and threatening nuclear apocalypse is how Russian "democracy" works.