While The Mexican and U.S. economies are deeply intertwined.
…
Mexico will not impose any economic sanctions on Russia for invading Ukraine, Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador said on Tuesday.
We are not going to take any sort of economic reprisal because we want to have good relations with all the governments in the world," Lopez Obrador told a news conference.
AMLO is advertised as leftist leader Lopez Obrador
Russia’s Lukoil and Aeroflot have financial interests in Mexico.
This move does not surprise me. As far back as I remember LatAm politics, Mexico has always had a leftwing tilt but maybe more non-aligned like India. As an example, while Cuba meddled in foreign nations (Che in Bolivia, Angola, Grenada, and Venezuelan) Mexico minds its own business.
I call it ‘backyard politics.’ America has a couple of big oceans to define their backyard. Much harder to define in landlocked Russia. Was it a good idea to let eastern Europe nations join NATO? Probably. Was it a good idea to put missiles on Russian borders? Less so, longer range missiles work as good and are less provocative.
Was it a good idea to let eastern Europe nations join NATO? Probably.
Not only that, NATO has not gotten closer to Russia in 18 years. Russia’s claims that NATO keeps getting closer to their borders is bollocks.
Was it a good idea to put missiles on Russian borders?
Given the events of the past week, I’d say yes. This is just another Russian talking point, making up excuses for their criminal invasion.
But, I’ll let NATO answer in more detail:
Claim: NATO missile defense threatens Russian security Fact: NATO ballistic missile defense is not directed against Russia and cannot undermine Russia’s strategic deterrence capabilities. It is designed to protect European Allies against missile threats from outside the Euro-Atlantic area.
The Aegis Ashore site in Romania is purely defensive. The interceptor missiles deployed there cannot be used for offensive purposes. The interceptors contain no explosives. They cannot hit objects on the Earth’s surface – only in the air. In addition, the site lacks the software, the hardware and infrastructure needed to launch offensive missiles.
NATO invited Russia to cooperate on missile defense, an invitation extended to no other partner. Unfortunately, Russia refused to cooperate and rejected dialogue on this issue in 2013. Russian statements threatening to target Allies because of NATO’s ballistic missile defense are unacceptable and counterproductive. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_111767.htm#c101
NATO invited Russia to cooperate on missile defense, an invitation extended to no other partner. Unfortunately, Russia refused to cooperate and rejected dialogue on this issue in 2013.
I remember this, and even at the time it made zero sense to me. Here we are offering to include them under the umbrella if they’d just let us put some Middle East-facing radar stations on their turf, and Putin gives us the finger…
I call it ‘backyard politics.’ America has a couple of big oceans to define their backyard. Much harder to define in landlocked Russia. Was it a good idea to let eastern Europe nations join NATO? Probably. Was it a good idea to put missiles on Russian borders? Less so, longer range missiles work as good and are less provocative.
Far better would have been for Russia to continue on the path of opening up, embracing individual freedom, and becoming more democratic. In other words, avoiding Putin would have made Russia a much better place than it is.
Far better would have been for Russia to continue on the path of opening up, embracing individual freedom, and becoming more democratic. In other words, avoiding Putin would have made Russia a much better place than it is.
I agree entirely but that is a Fairy Tale, not reality, which is what we have to deal with. This is why Utopias fail.
Russians see it and they are risking 20 years in jail by protesting.
Very few. I have to wonder what would happen if half the Russians protested in various ways (no work, block the roads, whatever). In theory, the percentage of opposition would be similar in military (though not in security services).
But in dictatorships the Putins call the shots. Literally!
I have a hard time accepting this. First of all, for 2 decades, Putin enjoys VERY strong support by the people. This is from western, relatively unbiased, media polling. Maybe right now his numbers are down, but he generally has had very strong support.
In general, those who subscribe to this view are essentially saying that dictatorships can never end, and that the country remains dysfunctional forever. And the west isn’t helping by draining all the “good people” from each country in turmoil. By “good people” I mean those strong enough, clever enough, or with enough resources, to leave. So a “Russia” attacks somewhere, and whoever has the ability tries to escape, and the most clever ones get a spot somewhere in the west. And very quickly, if they work hard, they do far better in the west than they can ever do at home, and will never go home. The result is that the “dregs” remain in their country, and then is much easier to be taken over by the aggressor. We may even be seeing that in Hong Kong right now to some extent.
First of all, for 2 decades, Putin enjoys VERY strong support by the people.
And why was/is this? Apparently, after the Soviet Union ‘disunionized’, things didn’t go that well? The 1990s were not an improvement for most Russians, but in the Putin years, despite the corruption and oligarchs (in part, because of them) Russians as a whole were better off - certainly not as good as other Western Europeans, but better than what they had.
No wonder they still like dictatorship. They messed up their chance at some form of democracy early on and may not get another one until things get very bad.
Russia has the world’s 11th largest economy by GDP, according to the IMF’s 2021 estimates of purchasing-power parity.
Germany, France, Britain, and Italy each have larger GDPs.
Drop Russia into a list of US states by GDP, and it lands in 4th place - just ahead of Florida, but behind California, Texas, and New York.
In GDP per capita though, Russia is behind EVERY state of the US by a wide margin. The poorest state by this measure, Mississippi, is 45% wealthier. The US national average is about 135% wealthier than Russia. (That said, Russia is more than twice as well off as Ukraine, in the 2021 data.)
First of all, for 2 decades, Putin enjoys VERY strong support by the people.
Support is neither perpetual nor unquestioning. Just because you support what Putin does for Russia does not mean you support invading Ukraine and getting your boys killed.
In general, those who subscribe to this view are essentially saying that dictatorships can never end, and that the country remains dysfunctional forever.
StrawMan to the Rescue!
Brain Drain moves from tyranny to liberty, from poverty to wealth.
Brain Drain moves from tyranny to liberty, from poverty to wealth.
Yep, that’s what I described. And because the “brains” leave, the tyranny will remain “forever”. And we, the west, cede that territory (sometimes large parts fo the world) to the tyrants.
The question is - in previous generations sometimes the tyranny could be converted to more liberty with the “brains” remaining in place, yet seemingly that isn’t being encouraged today. Instead we encourage the removal of all the clever/resourceful people to the west and allow the tyranny to remain.
The question is - in previous generations sometimes the tyranny could be converted to more liberty with the “brains” remaining in place, yet seemingly that isn’t being encouraged today.
Can you cite some examples?
Instead we encourage the removal of all the clever/resourceful people to the west and allow the tyranny to remain.
Darwin at work. But it’s not “we encourage.” It’s “they are attracted.”
Imagine trying to reduce the attractiveness of America.
Just every single country that we consider “free” today. Their people were all “subjects” in some previous generation. Including the USA.
Darwin at work. But it’s not “we encourage.” It’s “they are attracted.”
I was not referring to the general stream of emigration by people seeking a better life elsewhere. I was referring to after an attack, taking all the resourceful people who managed to sneak across a border in as refugees … who almost invariably remain forever and never return to their country to heal/improve it. Look at it this way, if you have a country, and it gets attacked by an evil neighbor, and all the “good” people leave, what’s left? The world has essentially ceded that country to the evil neighbor. And with enough power, the evil neighbor can chew their way through the region. Especially if they are patient enough to wait generations (like China for example, they waited 5 generations for Hong Kong, they may be willing to wait a few generations for Taiwan, etc).
Just every single country that we consider “free” today. Their people were all “subjects” in some previous generation. Including the USA.
Roll eyes! We got kicked out of the Garden of Eden for disobeying the dictator. Survivors we were flooded to death. Etc. Etc. Next destination, Mars thanks to Elon Musk.
Countries are just temporary residences, if there is better on offer elsewhere that’s where people go. Having lost my country of birth and having lost my adopted country I have zero sympathy for your argument.
