4 ms·

>> That USA would in fact tolerate chinese military in mexico? This is such a poor rhethorical question. Why play with hypothethicals like Mexico and China, if

>> That USA would in fact tolerate chinese military in mexico? This is such a poor rhethorical question. Why play with hypothethicals like Mexico and China, if Europe already has direct Russian nukes in Kaliningrad enclave in the middle of Europe with constant threats of destroying Warsaw and London? And yet, that's tolerated, unlike what people like you suggest and imagine. Relevant maps: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/11/23/these-maps-show-how-russia-has-europe-spooked/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/11/23...

hutzlibu 3y ago
I happen to live in europe, so I am quite aware of our situation. But europe is not the US, as far as I know. And the US diplomatic stance towards EU inofficially was something like "fuck the EU". I also know how "the west" moved further east step by step. Which is in general very fine by me, as I do prefer living by western standards (and I was born in the east). So I certainly would not stand in the way, if Ukraine wants to go pro west. If I would not have little children I seriously would have considered going to the war as a volunteer. So much for context of "people like me" But that doesn't change one thing how the US plays this geopolitics game. Or our governments, sure. They are not better, just weaker.
- chrysler 3y ago
  >> But europe is not the US, as far as I know. Doesn't really change anything in the equation. Russian missiles in Kaliningrad can hit key US military installations like Ramstein AFB and RAF Lakenheath with practically no warning. They are a direct threat from a hostile country that keeps making threats about using them, this is far more serious than any imagined Mexican alliance. And yet, the reaction is... what? Where are B52s bombing Kaliningrad? >> I also know how "the west" moved further east step by step. I am sure you do. Can you tell me why Russian apologists always phrase it as if a shadowy cabal in Washington forced countries into international cooperation, instead of portraying as it actually was?
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    "Can you tell me why Russian apologists always phrase it as if a shadowy cabal in Washington forced countries into international cooperation " Because it was verbally promised by different high ranking officials, that the NATO would NOT move further east. This does not create trust.
    - chrysler 3y ago
      >> Because it was verbally promised by different high ranking officials, that the NATO would NOT move further east. Not according to the Soviet foreign minister at the time. He also explains why this conspiracy theory is nonsense: at the time when that verbal promise was allegedly given, no-one could even imagine that Warsaw Pact would cease to exist. According to him, NATO status of Warsaw Pact countries was not discussed with Western officials, not discussed within Warsaw Pact, and not within Communist Party circles in Moscow either. https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/interview-with-eduard-shevardnadze-we-couldn-t-believe-that-the-warsaw-pact-could-be-dissolved-a-663595.html https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/interview-with-e... Nor did you answer my question. Why do Russian apologists try to word this as NATO was somehow forced upon Eastern Europe instead of integration into international institutions being their own long-term goal?
      - hutzlibu 3y ago
        It is not a conspiracy theory that german foreign minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, assured "NATO will not expand to the east".
        chrysler 3y ago
        As Shevardnadze clarifies, all they talked about NATO was strictly in the context of German reunification and attempts to take quotes out of context are anarchronistic. What assurances did the USSR need if it had a large nuclear-equipped group of forces in Poland? And besides that, many years later, but months before former Warsaw Pact countries started official NATO negotiations, NATO and Russia signed a treaty that gave a green light. So one one side of the conspiracy theory, you have a handful of scraps arranged to look like something, and on the opposing side you have actual written agreements and recollections from key people directly involved in those events.
pydry 3y ago
Monroe doctrine has nothing to say about Kalingrad. The US invaded Grenada so for sure they would invade Mexico.
- RealityVoid 3y ago
  I invite you to look at a map if you think the US would be so cavalier about invading Mexico as it was about Grenada. I'm not saying it couldn't, I'm just saying it's not a thing you do lightly.
- ffgjgf1 3y ago
  Mexico is a huge country, Grenada is a tiny island so no, probably not “for sure”. Also it’s hypothetical and and entirely absurd scenario barely worth discussing.

hutzlibu 3y ago

I happen to live in europe, so I am quite aware of our situation. But europe is not the US, as far as I know. And the US diplomatic stance towards EU inofficially was something like "fuck the EU". I also know how "the west" moved further east step by step. Which is in general very fine by me, as I do prefer living by western standards (and I was born in the east). So I certainly would not stand in the way, if Ukraine wants to go pro west. If I would not have little children I seriously would have considered going to the war as a volunteer. So much for context of "people like me" But that doesn't change one thing how the US plays this geopolitics game. Or our governments, sure. They are not better, just weaker.

chrysler 3y ago
>> But europe is not the US, as far as I know. Doesn't really change anything in the equation. Russian missiles in Kaliningrad can hit key US military installations like Ramstein AFB and RAF Lakenheath with practically no warning. They are a direct threat from a hostile country that keeps making threats about using them, this is far more serious than any imagined Mexican alliance. And yet, the reaction is... what? Where are B52s bombing Kaliningrad? >> I also know how "the west" moved further east step by step. I am sure you do. Can you tell me why Russian apologists always phrase it as if a shadowy cabal in Washington forced countries into international cooperation, instead of portraying as it actually was?
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  "Can you tell me why Russian apologists always phrase it as if a shadowy cabal in Washington forced countries into international cooperation " Because it was verbally promised by different high ranking officials, that the NATO would NOT move further east. This does not create trust.
  - chrysler 3y ago
    >> Because it was verbally promised by different high ranking officials, that the NATO would NOT move further east. Not according to the Soviet foreign minister at the time. He also explains why this conspiracy theory is nonsense: at the time when that verbal promise was allegedly given, no-one could even imagine that Warsaw Pact would cease to exist. According to him, NATO status of Warsaw Pact countries was not discussed with Western officials, not discussed within Warsaw Pact, and not within Communist Party circles in Moscow either. https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/interview-with-eduard-shevardnadze-we-couldn-t-believe-that-the-warsaw-pact-could-be-dissolved-a-663595.html https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/interview-with-e... Nor did you answer my question. Why do Russian apologists try to word this as NATO was somehow forced upon Eastern Europe instead of integration into international institutions being their own long-term goal?
    - hutzlibu 3y ago
      It is not a conspiracy theory that german foreign minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, assured "NATO will not expand to the east".
      - chrysler 3y ago
        As Shevardnadze clarifies, all they talked about NATO was strictly in the context of German reunification and attempts to take quotes out of context are anarchronistic. What assurances did the USSR need if it had a large nuclear-equipped group of forces in Poland? And besides that, many years later, but months before former Warsaw Pact countries started official NATO negotiations, NATO and Russia signed a treaty that gave a green light. So one one side of the conspiracy theory, you have a handful of scraps arranged to look like something, and on the opposing side you have actual written agreements and recollections from key people directly involved in those events.

pydry 3y ago

Monroe doctrine has nothing to say about Kalingrad. The US invaded Grenada so for sure they would invade Mexico.

RealityVoid 3y ago
I invite you to look at a map if you think the US would be so cavalier about invading Mexico as it was about Grenada. I'm not saying it couldn't, I'm just saying it's not a thing you do lightly.
ffgjgf1 3y ago
Mexico is a huge country, Grenada is a tiny island so no, probably not “for sure”. Also it’s hypothetical and and entirely absurd scenario barely worth discussing.