4 ms·
> Even with USSR gone, they were in Russia's sphere of influence, and making those overtures would be provocative. What is provocative about joining NATO ? It
by Aaargh20318 4y ago
> Even with USSR gone, they were in Russia's sphere of influence, and making those overtures would be provocative.
What is provocative about joining NATO ? It is a purely defensive alliance. They are absolutely no threat to Russia. The only reason to be against anyone joining NATO is if you were planning to invade them. And guess what happened ?
- avmich 4y agoIt's not as much "NATO expanded", as countries, which became "more free" after Gorbachev decided that they'd have a better protection from a repeat of the recent past. It's not a good idea to deny protection to those who asks for it, given the reasons.
- unsupp0rted 4y agoIt’s no more provocative than Mexico joining a Russia-lead defensive alliance.
- yks 4y agoBut Mexico neither needs nor plans to, despite even having wars with the US in the past. This alone might tell you something. Surprisingly there exist countries whose neighbors do not run into defensive alliances excluding their neighbors at the first opportunity, why is that?
- unsupp0rted 4y agoIt was an example. The point is having an adversary’s rockets on one’s border makes a country nervous. Mexico’s real life stance relative to Russia isn’t relevant for the example to hold.
- innagadadavida 4y agoYou probably are referring to Cuban missile crisis. They wanted to get USSR missiles purely for defensive purposes and that clearly wasn’t perceived that way.
- Aaargh20318 4y agoInstalling missiles and joining a defense alliance are two completely independent things. Ukraine can install missiles without joining NATO or join NATO without installing missiles. The two have literally nothing to with each other. Also, how were the missiles on Cuba defensive ?
- europeanguy 4y agoLol except that mexico doesn't want that. You see, that's what you "both sides do it" people keep missing. Both sides aren't equal. One side tramples their own neightbors, so their neighbors hate them. The other side tramples other people's neighbors so that their enemies are really far away. Russia is a losing nation playing losing strategies, and you Russia lovers are losers too.
- unsupp0rted 4y agoOP couldn’t understand why Russia would be provoked by a defensive alliance on its border. I gave a hypothetical example to illustrate how America would be provoked by a defensive alliance on its border. Nothing more or less than this and the “you X people” rhetoric doesn’t apply.
- europeanguy 4y agoNo, your hypothetical doesn't apply. It's like if I said "well but if we could time-travel, then X". But we can't! That hypothetical has no connection to reality. And neither does yours.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- joecot 4y agoLook up the history of the Monroe Doctrine for the US. The US overthrew (or attempted to overthrow) any government in the Western Hemisphere that allied with the USSR. Even now, imagine how the US would react if Mexico declared a military alliance with a US enemy, while sharing thousands of miles of border with the US.
- avmich 4y agoMexico is a frequent counterexample, but I'm not sure what would happen if, say, USSR would still exist, and would manage to create a union with Southern American and Central American countries. Like, Cuba, then Venezuela, then, imagine, Colombia... I wouldn't think that USA would immediately jump to nukes.
- yucky 4y agoFamiliar with the Bay of Pigs?