3 ms·

It’s no more provocative than Mexico joining a Russia-lead defensive alliance.

yks 4y ago
But 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 ago
  It 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 ago
You 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 ago
  Installing 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 ago
Lol 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 ago
  OP 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 ago
    No, 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]

yks 4y ago

But 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 ago
It 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 ago

You 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 ago
Installing 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 ago

Lol 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 ago
OP 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 ago
  No, 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]