I dont think we should interfere if mexico decides that they want to change their government.
Sent from my iPad using
JazzFanz mobile app
But what if that change was decided by Russia pushing lots of influence/interference to make it happen? We have seen how the U.S. responds to weapons on our doorstep. Unreasonable or not, we did it in Cuba. I don't agree with Putin, but I am not surprised, he just followed through on what he said he would do. Hell, we went to Vietnam to try and stop Communism. According to a 2020 study, Americans "are more likely to condemn foreign involvement, lose faith in democracy, and seek retaliation when a foreign power sides with the opposition, than when a foreign power aids their own party. At the same time, Americans reject military responses to electoral attacks on the United States, even when their own political party is targeted." Tomz, Michael; Weeks, Jessica L. P. (2020).
"Public Opinion and Foreign Electoral Intervention".
American Political Science Review.
114 (3): 856–873.
doi:
10.1017/S0003055420000064.
ISSN 0003-0554.
Putin inferred he was fine with Ukraine becoming a western democracy, as long as they were not part of the EU and NATO, that was his line. He doesn't want NATO on his doorstep. I really don't think the U.S. would react any differently if the roles were reversed.
We went full war mode during the Cuban missile crisis until they disarmed. We are safer because our borders are not a threat.
This article does not touch on everything I mentioned above, and brings up others, definitely worth a read:
For years, the political scientist has claimed that Putin’s aggression toward Ukraine is caused by Western intervention. Have recent events changed his mind?
www.newyorker.com
Mearsheimer has been analyzing the Ukraine situation for years, and I think his analysis is spot on.
I fully support Ukraine, and based on the Bangladesh Accords alone I think we have a duty to protect them. Even more so as we have influenced their current political climate. To say we didn't foresee this, or even contribute to the tension that lead to this war does not mesh with reality. We continue to influence countries at a political level, with differing levels of interference. The CIA provided Saddam with arms, money and political backing, which of course was a major backfire. We funded insurgents, which allegedly included Osama Bin Laden when Russia was fighting in Afghanistan. According to a 2016 study, either through covert or overt actions, the U.S. intervened in 81 foreign elections while Russia intervened in 36, which a follow up study found the interventions determined "in many cases" the identity of the winner.
- Levin, Dov (2018). "A Vote for Freedom? The Effects of Partisan Electoral Interventions on Regime Type". Journal of Conflict Resolution. 63 (4): 839–868. doi:10.1177/0022002718770507. S2CID 158135517.
From Putin's view, our influence in the 2014 Ukraine coup, removed a pro-Russian president for an anti-Russian president which we also had influence in getting appointed, and this interference has led to potential border issues which he has responded to. I don't agree with Putin, I don't think NATO is going to attack Putin, but this is his reasoning, which has been consistent for decades regarding how he would respond if this happened. If we had never interfered with the 2014 coup and follow-up elections, then perhaps we would have no culpability, but you when inject yourself into foreign policy to this degree, the outcome will partially rest on your shoulders.
So while Ukraine made their own decisions, they did so with our influence. As such, we owe them much more than what we are currently providing.
It is a fact that Russia and China both have a cold war mentality. If we ignore this, the results will not be pretty. President Xi has stated that the U.S. and NATO both have a cold war mentality, and believe Russia is permanently threatened by NATO, and both oppose its expansion. In a joint statement,
the leaders said they opposed the "further expansion of NATO," while calling on the alliance to "abandon its ideologized Cold War approaches, respect the sovereignty, security and interests of other countries and the diversity of their civilizational, cultural and historical backgrounds, and adopt a fair and objective attitude toward the peaceful development of other countries."
Bill Perry, Clinton's Defense Secretary understood:
Russia’s president is trying to hide his poor leadership by becoming a nationalist avenger.
www.nytimes.com
