6 ms·
and the american policies of putting weapons next to russia while they would totally invade mexico if mexico did have russian weapons.
by fredestine 4y ago
and the american policies of putting weapons next to russia while they would totally invade mexico if mexico did have russian weapons.
- polotics 4y agoCitation needed. What weapons are you on about?
- arethuza 4y agoMexico does actually appear to have purchased weapons from Russia? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico%E2%80%93Russia_relations#Russian_Federation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico%E2%80%93Russia_relation...
- nradov 4y agoWhich weapons are you referring to? Mexico has purchased Russian weapons. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mexico-russia-military-idUSKBN20105O https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mexico-russia-military-id...
- fredestine 4y agoI meant american weapons operated from american army bases. just like in europe, turkey, middle east
- vinay427 4y agoAre you referring to the cooperative policies between the US and various European countries? I'm not aware of the US unilaterally moving weapons to the Russian border without an arrangement with the host country.
- themgt 4y agoThere was a cooperative agreement between the USSR and host country Cuba in 1962 to move nuclear missiles to 90 miles from the US mainland.
- vinay427 4y agoYes, and I believe the US response to that should be condemned to the extent that it escalated the conflict, not used as a whataboutism to excuse Russia's actions today.
- meepmorp 4y agoAre you still pretending that NATO expansion had anything to do with the conflict in Ukraine? It is, and always has been, Russian imperialism.
- fredestine 4y ago"President Viktor Yanukovych rejected a deal for greater integration with the European Union , sparking mass protests, which Yanukovych attempted to put down violently. Russia backed Yanukovych in the crisis, while the US and Europe supported the protesters. " why do you think he rejected it? greater integration meant NATO bases. And this guy knew (because putin and russia always said it) that NATO next to russia was a big no go. the next logical steps are easy to understand. europe and USA backing protesters meant that if russia did not act they would be NATO bases next to them. fair elections should have happened and people should have voted for yes/no they want to join europe. then putin wouldn't have been able to attack Ukraine. Instead USA just used their old playbook like they did in middle east
- contravariant 4y agoYou'll have to clarify the link between EU memberships and NATO bases. The only thing that seems likely to lead to NATO bases in Sweden and Finland seems to be the invasion of Ukraine, not their long EU membership.
- fredestine 4y agolet's say mexico joins the shangai corporation. let's see how many days their president stays in power.
- contravariant 4y agoYou're making less sense, try moving your argument in the other direction.
- dale_glass 4y agoThat's a whole bunch of nonsense. You get NATO bases by joining NATO, completely independently of how close to the EU you are. Putin would have always been able to attack Ukraine. He's not bound to some sort of world government contract. He can do anything in his power as the President of Russia, and that includes attacking Ukraine, even if for stupid or inconsistent reasons. There's nothing that could make him unable to, other than stopping being President.