The Gaslighting of the Masses

Rina Mexico doesn’t own a single tank.

Why?

The entire budget of the Mexican army is about $9 billion. This dwarfs what Guatemala and Belize combined ($125 Million + $12 million) but is about 1% of the US military budget

Actually the Mexican military budget is actually lower than the US coast guard budget ($ 13.5 billion)

If Mexico was to fight Guatemala AND belize, it would crush them, while fighting against the USA in conventional war would be insane and they're not even going to try them

The Mexican army prefers to spend on infantry carriers

To be effective against the USA in a conventional war, Mexico would need to spend trillions - and it is not worth it

A strong Mexican army would lead to coups - and that's more reason not to spend on the military

Mexico is an independent nation. There are no US bases, US military personnel in missions or anything remotely like that. It’s more like the relationship of the US with Canada in today’s world. There are no US troops “massing against” Mexico. And Mexico is at peace with its largest trading partner, the US.

what was the last border dispute that Mexico and the USA had? It was resolved in 1963 - the Chamizal dispute

The Chamizal dispute was a border conflict over around 600 acres (240 ha; 2.4 km2) on the Mexico–United States border between El Paso, Texas, and Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua. It was caused by a shift in the Rio Grande,

The dispute was formally settled on January 14, 1964, when the United States and Mexico ratified a treaty that generally followed the 1911 arbitration recommendations. The agreement awarded to Mexico 366 acres (148 ha; 1.48 km2) of the Chamizal area and 71 acres (29 ha; 0.29 km2) east of the adjacent Cordova Island. Although no payments were made between the two governments, the United States received compensation from a private Mexican bank for 382 structures included in the transfer. The United States also received 193 acres (78 ha; 0.78 km2) of Cordova Island from Mexico, and the two nations agreed to share equally in the cost of rechanneling the river.

===================================

That is how neighbors resolve issues - not by invasion, but by discussion

Heck, even India and Bangladesh resolved their border complexities (enclaves within enclaves within enclaves) in which India gave up territory to Bangladesh - the bigger country gave up to the smaller country (just as the USA and Mexico) - setting up a good relationship pattern.

I think - not predict but guess - that by 2050 (this is pure speculation) we would have
1. an older Russian Federation - or a broken set of ex-Russian states
2. an older China not interested in military adventures
3. a younger India still angry over the 1962 war.

red - you made the statement “NATO of course wants to expand.”

With zero reasoning or proof.

The evidence contradicts you - the accession of various states was long drawn and only after those states since 1990 jumped through hoops.

and all of them - whether Poland or Albania - made changes and really wanted to join. Why? Because there was a fear of a renewed Russia

Wow. India.

Yeah, they are a question. Most of their population are ‘untouchable’. That’s also going to be an issue (first) before revisiting the sixties.

Name me one government agency in the US, Europe, international (NATO/UN etc), that does not want to expand?

What government agency asks for less money, less people, and less power/authority?

Name me one please? In Germany, France, the US...

But, specifically NATO, they have been trying hard to justify their existence post Cold War, because frankly the threat they were created to deal with, no longer exists.

An article from 1999 where they try to argue against shutting it down: https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/defining-natos-purpose

Post Cold War there were indeed calls to close NATO down (political, not from NATO internally), which didn't happen because as one wise US politician once said, “the closest thing to eternal life on earth is a government program.”

https://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-the-closest-thing-to-eternal-life-on-earth-is-a-government-program-ronald-reagan-92-19-63.jpg

There are many, many articles on this topic, and in fact it was all over the media in Europe when the US pushed for expanding the role (not just Eastward) of NATO, which started in earnest under Bush W. and Rumsfeld and of course 2001 was what breathed new life into the alliance: https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-xpm-2004-02-06-0402060076-story.html

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/new-alliances-for-a-new-century

NATO internally is 100% on board with expanding their role, and many in the US political and uniformed military world agree with this! https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1162&context=nwc-review Of course we would love to have NATO be able to assist in Asia. After all, the “A” in NATO could mean “Atlantic” or “Asia,” right?

But a couple things happened. The US realized that it is through NATO where they have a significant impact/influence in Europe. NATO is good for us.

And, while not everyone is on board all the time (even now Hungary and others do NOT support our efforts in Ukraine, but our one sided media doesn't report that), something is better than nothing and NATO did assist a lot in Afghanistan, and a little in Iraq: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93_Iraq NATO still helps us even outside of what was their intended purpose (roles or geographic area).

I do not doubt that many people in Poland fear and more so detest the era of Soviet occupation. Why Poland is a staunch US ally. But that era is dead, over, history. There is no more Soviet Union, there is no more Warsaw Pact. The threat you have in your mind is a proverbial: boogieman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogeyman

Russia does not have the realistic, conventional military force to stand up to NATO, not even with slackers like Germany only spending 1.2% GDP on defense. They just don't have the manpower, industry, tech, to make that happen.

You can't have it both ways. You can't argue that Ukraine is kicking Russia's ass, but at the same time pretend Russia is this power that's about to roll to the Rhein. Do you even see the contradiction here?

Russia compared to the US is in terms of conventional forces less than 1/2 our size.

I'll explain it again, even though I have done several times and it isn't soaking in what this means. Russia has 55% our ground forces. 47% our air forces. 43% our naval forces. They have 44% our population. 40% the amount of men reaching military age annually. Their GDP is LESS than California and Texas combined. They have less industry than the US, less high tech than the US. They have few allies. All their allies are weak. OTHER THAN THEIR NUCLEAR FORCES, THEY POSE NO CONVENTIONAL THREAT TO US.

Their strongest ally is Belarus, which has 1/2 the population of the Netherlands, an army slightly bigger than the Netherlands and equipped with junk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_Armed_Forces

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Forces_of_Belarus#Equipment

Put your money on Netherlands. Russia has no allies that compare to France, the UK, or even Germany which isn't pulling its weight.

Just because people have “fears,” doesn't mean Russia actually has a sizable force of well equipped, high morale, well trained, well selected troops. They do not. Although they are achieving their goals, they're struggling in the Ukraine.

Not really.

According to their last census, 17% are untouchables.

Many of the untouchable caste are also highly educated.

“Name me one government agency in the US, Europe, international (NATO/UN etc), that does not want to expand?”

NATO does not want to. That’s why the accession of Ukraine and Georgia were rejected by Germany and France in 2008.

You still haven’t given any evidence for your statement that NATO wants to expand.

“Eighty years from now I hope my grandchildren won’t wonder why we didn’t stop Putin in Ukraine.”

And ten years from now you’ll probably wonder why we didn’t stop the DSEW Democrats (the Deep State Enemy Within) in New Amerika. The answer will be just as complex, yet simple.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug2468hDl6E

Sure, NATO is “forced” to expand. The bueorcrats and military personnel within this buerocracy don’t want to see it grow. They don’t want to see the budget increased. They only reluctantly expand East, expand their roles to entire new theaters of operation (Afgahistan, Libya i.e. Africa, Iraq, talk about even operating in the Pacific rim, etc), new roles in cyber warfare, new roles in missile defense, new roles...

The NATO narrative: ““cooperative-security” organization whose mandate is to include two main objectives: foster dialogue and cooperation with former adversaries in the Warsaw Pact and to “manage” conflicts in areas on the European periphery, such as the Balkans.” Bla bla bla. That’s the public sound-good billboard mission statement. Total BS.

Truth is, its role is whatever we want it to be, today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya

NATO apparently also means: North “Africa” and “Asia!” (sarc)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_Training_Mission_%E2%80%93_Iraq

But do not worry, the “sovereign” government in Iraq 2004 “requested” help by NATO!!! (sarc)

They should rename it to N-A-A-A-TO (North Atlantic, Africa and Asia Treaty Orgnaization). Seeing how Iraq and Afgahistan are in Asia, that new brand would still hold up.

NATO is slowly becoming the brand name for a Western global police force through which our collective agenda which are normally “economic interests” are pursued.

The French position on NATO is simple. They would rather see it die. Even though a member, they see NATO as weakening their EU position. As the most military powerful EU nation, with some strategic intel, naval, air, and nuclear capabilities and NATO being a US club, it diminishes their influence. By killing NATO, thier influence increases and the US influences decreases.

For the Germans it’s a bit more complicated. They support NATO at a macro level, rely on it heavily when convienent for them, example the Balkans conflict and war against Serbia. But they are essentially in a moocher position where they do not want to spend on defense and will reject spending, or personal military involvement, while wanting to reap all the benefits of it. They today have the advantage that just like Russia wants, they de facto have “buffer states!” Germany is insulated like Switzerland was in the Cold War and it’s easy for them to essentially let others pay for their security or collective security interests. They can do nothing, and still reap all the benefits of their ships navigating the seas, planes flying in open airspace, major canals being secure, certain regional threats to stability being dealt with, access to the worlds resources, etc. No where was this relationship more apparent than during the early era of missile defense where as the Germans were publically trashing this idea, bad mouthing it in their own media, pretending to be opposed to it publically, behind closed doors they were “demanding” that they too be covered by a missile defense shield.