NATO is not a threat to Russia, and Putin knows it.

What?

Oh, then let Russia put a base in Mexico in Canada, no problem.

What?

Oh, then let Russia put a base in Mexico in Canada, no problem. — Manuel

Russia, as they've shown with this invasion and nuclear saber rattling, is a threat to the world, and esp. their neighbors. I wouldn't want to live near them. Would you?

I'm not being right lipped about assessments. Here is one for the current conflict I quoted at length earlier, as opposed to say, a blurb about Syria, where Russia faced a band of infighting militias that were also getting attacked by Turkey, the US, the Peshmerga, and the Gulf States, while getting considerable support for its side from Hezbollah and Iran.

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-april-9

They can have a crap army, it doesn't matter. North Korea's apparently is pretty crap. They don't get invaded.

Wouldn't want a hostile military nation living next to me, no. Obviously.

Which country would you rather live in, Russia or U.S.?

What does that have to do with anything? Like at all?

Clearly the US, but that's immaterial to this.

What does that have to do with anything? Like at all?

Clearly the US, but that's immaterial to this. — Manuel

What country would you rather have as a neighbor? Russia or the U.S.?

That's a good diversion.

Ask Cuba, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, in fact all of South America.

You would rather live in America than Russia. You would rather have America as a neighbor than Russia. America (and the other NATO countries) are not perfect, but having them on your doorstep is not even close to having Russia on your doorstep.

Ask Cuba, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, in fact all of South America. — Manuel

Ask them what? Why they're desperately trying to get in to the U.S.? Why do you think so many people in those countries are fleeing to America? Because it's so awful?

Yeah. No.

That's for another thread.

https://www.ft.com/content/dc70777f-05d9-4e44-8217-30f448e2b64f

Finland to decide within ‘weeks’ whether to join Nato

This is scary. It makes sense. But damn, what a mess.

Or more recently, Libya. Given modern war's tendency to send millions of people fleeing into Europe, and the political meltdowns this has caused, NATO, or at least EU nations, do seem to have something of a stake in preventing dire situations from cropping up near their borders (at the level of grand strategy at least). But, clearly they have a problem of not wanting to commit the resources needed to actually ensure stability in these areas; it's more a gropping attempt to find a path towards the lesser evils (in terms of humanitarian optics and the political/economic realities of migrant flows).

Russia/Belarus's tactic of giving migrants passage to EU borders to try to cause a rift in the EU goes along with this new reality.

As for Chinese missiles in Mexico, something like this has already happened. The Soviet's problem in Cuba was that they lacked the blue water navy to challenge a US blockade, dooming the project. China would face a similar problem for the foreseeable future.

China could try for such an arrangement, but it seems like that would just be a good way for them to drastically increase the risk of Taiwan, South Korea, or Japan developing their own deterrent to deal with a China taking an aggressive nuclear posture towards their main ally. Not to mention, China would have to somehow offer benefits that outweigh the costs of US sanctions, which is likely to be a very high cost, one they could only realistically support by pouring aid into a small country. Mexico, with its huge trade relations with the US, obviously isn't going to work, not to mention that their large population means the aid to make the deal a net benefit to them would be outside even China's (or the US's) price range. Maybe Venezuela would work, but there you have to worry about internal stability, and now you're far enough out that US missile defense becomes an issue again.

All that is sort of besides the point. Did Russia invade Ukraine in 2022 because the US set up missiles in Europe decades ago to counter the USSR?

The invasion and threatening nuclear war is the best thing Russia could have done to ensure those missiles stay there. The US isn't investing in new missiles to target Russia. Quite the opposite. The big investments have been in extending missile defense to Europe.

Russia has reason to be concerned there, in that the Aegis Ashore network has thousands of launchers capable of using the SM-3 Block IIA, which can demonstrably down ICBMs, and which can field a host of options for taking out intermediate range missiles at all parts of their flight path (by contrast, the high end ICBM Interceptors up in Alaska aren't redeployable easily, and have cost multiple times Russia's annual defense budget). But the irony here is that this would not be as much of a threat to Russia is they didn't need to keep pounding the table and threatening to nuke civilian targets across Europe when their adventurism goes bad.

Were they developing a modern economy, instead of now falling behind China in per capita GDP, and had they not hemorrhaged over five million mostly young, mostly educated young people to emigration (mostly to the evil West, mostly, in their own words, because they were fleeing Russia's backwardsness) even before this war... maybe they could just develop new hardware to deal with the issue, instead of counting on 1980s weapons to keep them a "superpower."

The problem for Russia boosters is that their actions are absolute shit even from a realpolitik, grand strategy perspective. They are the actions of an insular, incestuous leadership class that is high on their own propaganda and disconnected from reality.

Not that it'll be any time soon, but from a grand strategy perspective, there is also the issue that their entire economy will go truly up in smoke if any sort of reliable non-fossil fuel energy source is developed if they don't develop other industries. ITER in France, a tocamak with a 10:1 return on power, not Aegis or Minutemen, is Russia's biggest threat on its current path.

Finland to decide within ‘weeks’ whether to join Nato

This is scary. It makes sense. But damn, what a mess. — Manuel

What is scary? It's scary for us in Sweden and Finland as the invasion of Ukraine showed us how the only way to be safe from the crazy people in Russia is to be part of Nato.

What's scary right now is that Sweden still hasn't 100% decided and it would be a clusterfuck if we didn't join while Finland did. Russia would probably invade Gotland to keep a buffer zone in the Baltic sea if that happens.

If we both join, then I'm glad that we at least have some protection against the degenerates in Kremlin.

I find the argument that the NATO is purely a defensive alliance rather naïve. As if the US would accept a defensive pact between Mexico and China where China places ballistic missiles in Mexico. — Benkei

In this scenario, why is Mexico interested in a defensive pact with China?

On a less political note, is Russia's performance in this conflict, particularly the heavy losses for armored units just inductive of the quality > quantity tend of modern warfare and the need to upgrade hardware continuously, or is it the death knell of the main battle tank?

I've seen quality analysis on both sides. That the US is throwing billions into M1s doesn't say much; it drops money into bad hardware all the time. Case in point, turning their rear echelon mobility vehicle, the Humvee into a $250,000 gas guzzling, quasi-IFV, mound of armor that now sucked at all its roles, using a logic of "more casualties = let's weld even more armor on to it! Why do drivers need to be able to see?"

The new M1 had the ability to stream in overhead drone video, intercept incoming missiles and drones, detect when it is being painted by lasers, radar, etc. However, given the enhanced recon drones offer, and the advances in smart munitions, it seems like a survivable tank-like vehicle focusing on guided mortars and rockets might make more sense. And is a tank still a tank if it loses the main gun and turret?

I guess the next phase of the war might point one way or the other. Infantry anti-tank weapons and artillery seem to be working well for Ukraine on defense, but the argument for tanks is also on your ability to push on the adversary's positions, something infantry anti-tank weapons are not ideal for. This seems to explain the shift in aid to more IFVs, APCs, and tanks (videos from Poland shoe trainloads headed east).

You have a valid point that America has not been a vey good neighbor.

What's scary is a nuclear war.

What Russia is doing is criminal, no doubt at all about it.

But if they're cornered without being offered a decent way "out", is very dangerous, regardless of what one may think of the situation.

Oh, I don't know, because of the US war on drugs, attempts at regime change in countries nearby, rhetoric suggesting Mexicans are sub-human (they're all rapists remember). The fact the US has broken more treaties than any other country in history (every treaty with native americans ever) might be a reason too and has started more aggressive wars in the past 40 years than any other country. They have extensive covert operations since the Cold War and this has hardly abated or it just pretends it's all one big "war on terror" and has military operations, regularly without local authority (talk about "sovereignty") in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Kenya, Liberia, Mauritius, Rwanda, Seychelles, Somalia, Tanzania, Uganda, Algeria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, CHad, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Tunisia, Philippines, Belize, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Honduras, Trinidad & Tobago, Guyana, Suriname, Georgia, and Kyrgyzstan.

Of course, when the US does it, it's called "foreign intervention" instead of "use of force" and "aggression".

Mexico in particular is further confronted with clandestine US military interventions in the war on drugs or has the US bankroll political opposition groups.

Oh yeah, we're supposed to be allied and the US things international law is important, except if we would try a US american citizen at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, in which case they can invade the Netherlands (an ally) without a recognised ground in international law. So if there's one country that has exactly zero standing to complain about any other country about "breaking the rules" it's the US.

Of course, once we forget about the rules, we realise the rules are whatever power can enforce them to be. So they will change and our chance to develop a system of universal rules after WWII has been squandered.

As @Olivier5 put it succintly: the US stabbed the UN system in the back when it attacked Iraq (and even before that with the illegal war in Afghanistan).

Right. There are two things I'd like to get you to see about the USA-Mexico comparison to Russia-Ukraine.

1. In the USA-Mexico scenario where Mexico wants to ally itself with China, the aggression actually started with the USA, not China. MEXICO WANTS A STRONG ALLY BECAUSE IT'S BEEN ABUSED.

So the USA can't really complain that it feels threatened by China. It's rather that its regional authority is threatened.

So this translates to:

Ukraine wants to join NATO because Russia is a real threat. If NATO is interested in this alliance, this does not mean NATO is threatening Russia.

I'll go on to number 2 (if that's OK) if you agree with 1.

'Seems' to whom? I've pressed frank, @ssu and @Count Timothy von Icarus for some expert opinion on which they're basing their assessment, but all are being suspiciously tight-lipped. — Isaac

Tightlipped? If I remember correctly (I may remember incorrectly), you are the one making accusations of me keeping here a blog and putting links and that I should go and see a therapist. :roll:

Your falling to just ad hominems here.

What?

Oh, then let Russia put a base in Mexico in Canada, no problem. — Manuel

If the US states that they are artificial countries, they belong to the US and would
continue annexing parts of their territory, I guess both Canada and Mexico would look for help from Russia and China. Likely they would be happy about it. And of course Russia has basing rights in Cuba, for your information.

(From 2019:)


Mexico actually has took a brilliant stance with being non-aligned. It has sent it's troops only to the US, actually. Quite telling how you can smartly reason with the US being your neighbor.

That's neither here nor there. Nobody in this scenarios cares what the Mexicans think - I just indulged your question because listing US crimes is a hobby so that nobody forgets how everything it touches becomes worse.

The point is the USA would not accept (and did not during the Cuban missile crisis) that countries it considers dangerous or hostile sets up military bases and equipment on its border. Neither does Russia. And surprise, there's war.

Obviously some impute more sinister motives or argue it's not the main reason but it's enough of a reason by any standard that the US would apply itself.

Doesn't make it pretty or morally just but it is entirely in line with expectations and exactly what most countries would do if they had enough power.

@frank Btw, had an interesting discussion with a friend today who paraphrased recent history of Europe as: we have to thank the Russians for not speaking German and thank the Americans for not speaking Russian.

I do agree. So thanks for that, now convince your oligarchic overlords to stop with the empire building and maybe take global warming seriously.

I just don't think you're focusing on what's probably true.

What? That the US and Russia are both to blame for this war thanks to them waging a decades long proxy war there? Based on stuff people predicted 25 years ago, repeatedly repeated and now we have to buy that there's a new set of conditions and motivations because Putin made a speech even if NATO withdrawal and cessation of expansion was the demand right before the war?

Why don't you tell me what you think is true and argue why the above is false instead of handwaving at it?

Why don't you tell me what you think is true and argue why the above is false instead of handwaving at it? — Benkei

I just meant your belief that NATO was threatening Russia isn't based on what's most probable. It's something about Mexico.

Well, if you overlook the fact that the US stole half of Mexico. It's not as if "San Francisco", "San Diego" or "El Paso" are English names, afer all.

Yeah, Cuba and Russia have a history, which could have destroyed the world. The US (correctly), did not want nuclear weapons in Cuba.

Well, Obama and Trump weren't too nice to Mexico, incidentally.

All I'm saying, is something that I think should not be controversial: no big power would want a hostile military nation on its border. Some countries are forced into this situation, like China with Taiwan, or India with Pakistan.

But it's not as if any of these countries would be say "great, let's have our enemies living next to us."

I mean, the US went to war in Iraq for WMD's (that's what they stated) and that country is not even close to US borders. Not to mention the sanction on Iran, also extremely far away from the US.

What Russia is doing is still awful and criminal, they shouldn't have done it, the punch is coming back with interest added. But from a "realpolitik" perspective, it makes sense.

It's not as if "San Francisco", "San Diego" or "El Paso" are English names, afer all. — Manuel

They're not Mexican, either. Lol