Tankies are never in shambles. If Ukraine doesn't join NATO they'll say "See, NATO was just using Ukraine" and if Ukraine joins NATO they'll say "See, NATO is expanding east again". Tankies are never wrong when it comes to believing their own delusions.

I mean, I've seen tankies spin anything to fit their narrative, I'm sure they'll continue to do so. Remember, anything resembling support of Ukraine is an act of aggression against Russia, and tantamount to unilaterally starting WWIII.

As an American I think that would all be reasonable...if the official US position was that Mexico has no right to exist, the Mexican people should be forcibly integrated into our society as 2nd class citizens, and the US Army was in the process of a "peacekeeping operation" in Mexico to carry all this out.

For all our flaws, we respect the borders of our neighbors and don't have irridentist aspirations that belong in the 19th century. Russia is the aggressor here, and they have demonstrated that they have little interest in global peace or human rights, only increasing their sphere of influence.

Continually rolling over for thugs because it's what avoids nuclear conflict will only lead to a global order based on thuggery, and it likely won't even avoid nuclear conflict in the end.

I think your downvotes are because your "reversal" is not particularly valid, not because your opinion is contrary.

As others have said, it would need the US to first be invading Mexico before Russia or other countries start propping Mexico up militarily.

Cuba (country right next to the US) aligned itself with the USSR after Castro's revolution, and the US has attempted to coup them, invade them, murder their leaders, then sink them in isolation and starvation. I've always defended that Cuba had the right of self-determination for their own foreign and domestic policy, and that the US was in the wrong for retaliating against them.

It would be extremely hypocritical of me to defend that Ukraine has no right to self-determine whether they want to be in a defensive pact or not, and whether they want to join the EU or not, just because a third country would like them not to do so - just as it's extremely hypocritical of tankies and campists to say that Cuba had the right to choose their own future but Ukraine doesn't.

For your hypothetical scenario to make more sense, the US would have had to annex Baja California just a decade prior, then straight up have gone to forward invasion war with Mexico to annex more, bombing the shit out of the country including children’s hospitals.

In that scenario, fuck yes Mexico would be justified in finding allies to help them maintain sovereignty and protect themselves.

That’s what happens when nations invade one another.

It's all on Russia. Maybe if they weren't terrible neighbors to neighboring countries, this wouldn't happen. NATO doesn't force countries to join, nor does it seek other countries to join. If the country wants to be a part of NATO, they have to apply. I'm tired of seeing this tired talking point.

Yeah if the US had invaded Mexico maybe it would be understandable if they sought Russian help. Your whole comment ignores the fact that Russia invaded a sovereign country in 2014 and continues to kill people every day there trying to take it over. There's no arguing with bullies like Putin, we learned this lesson with Hitler. Burying them in the ground is better than appeasing them.

False premise. "A military pact against".

While it looks that way because Russia is a military invader and overall aggressor, NATO is a defensive pact. If the US decided to attack someone to be a dick, it doesn't draw NATO in automatically....but if someone attacked a NATO member obligations trigger and everyone dogpiles the foolish attacker. Yes Russia was the boogieman use to get people to join, but it was not "against" Russia exclusively, it was against aggressors.

I get the cuban missile crisis parallel too. But this would be more like Russia and Mexico doing a "we will protect you if the US actually attacks" agreement and the US would just be annoyed with Russian bases that close and halt trade with Mexico as whiney punishment or some such. However, the US doesn't seem to want to conquer Mexico, so it doesn't parallel well to reality. Cuba was "let's put offensive capabilities next to you during a war (cold....but it was a war)" that is self defense and very different.

No matter what, there will be hostile borders around the world and deterrence is all we can do to keep it quiet. Ukraine war would have never happened if it was in NATO, and the US woulda just let Russia sleep despite the strategic advantage of having Ukraine right there. The US has plenty of other horrible shit it does, we don't conquer with military might.

I also know the story about how Putin tried to play nice with the world and got shit on and not let into the club fully, and this is part of him acting out for that. There is some very small legitimacy, or at least a logic to that claim....but you just don't take countries anymore, especially if it makes you a threat to the EU.

That's not an opinion. That's the lack of it. Plus a few grams of whataboutism. You're a victim of Russian propaganda agents.

find sensible solutions

For example? How do you do that with terrorists?

If the US invaded Mexico, I would fully support any and every country that supported Mexico in pretty much any way.

Wild that you call out posturing with violence, but seem fine to forgive actual violence.

Yeah, right after Russia invades one country, capturing and killing men, women, and children while threatening other countries. Weird...

So? They are not forcing anyone to join. Unlike certain other countries