.
Posted on 06/25/2024 9:31:57 AM PDT by EBH
Kremlin propagandists have claimed that countries in Latin America, including Mexico, could host missiles that can strike American targets.
(snip)"Russians on Kremlin State TV yesterday declared that Mexico was their military ally and they are wanting to place their missiles on Mexican territory so Mexico can attack the United States," Jake Broe a former U.S. Air Force nuclear and missile operations officer, posted on X next to a screen grab. "This is insane."
Mexico has condemned Putin's invasion of Ukraine but has adopted a policy of neutrality and refused to participate in sanctions against Moscow. Newsweek has contacted the Mexican foreign ministry for comment.
One guest, Alexei Fenenko, a research fellow at Moscow's Institute of International Security Studies, asked Popov: "I keep thinking, when will we finally show a map of where our missiles can strike the U.S. and not where their American missiles are striking us?"
This proposed map could show how "Anchorage, Honolulu, Seattle, Guam and San Francisco are within our reach. Why don't we show them this kind of a map?"
"They will scream that Russians are villains and scoundrels," Fenenko said. "Yes, you are risk of a retaliatory strike."
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...
Between 1848 and 1917 the relative military strength between Mexico and the United States had changed dramatically, and not in a manner favorable to Mexico. The Mexicans firmly rejected Germany's entreaties. When a sympathetic U.S. reporter suggested to Foreign Minister Zimmerman that the telegraph message was a British forgery, he dismissed the suggestion. Denial would have been an even worse insult.
The origin of he Zimmerman telegraph is intriguing. Germany had lost telegraphic contact with the Americas when Britian severed her transatlantic telegraph cables in the opening days of the (not-so-)Great War. The Germans asked the American ambassador to relay a message to the German embassy in Washington, which would give instructions to the German ambassador to the United States to conduct negotiations for an armistice being sought by President Wilson.
The encrypted telegram actually contained instructions to be relayed to Mexico offering to reverse the territorial losses suffered by Mexico in 1848, if Mexico would assist Germany in the event that the United States became involved in the Great War on the Allied side. The telegraph was relayed via the U.S. embassy in London.
British intelligence was watching all telegrams originating from the U.S. embassy, and were surprised, if not actually delighted to see a telegram in German diplomatic code. The British had penetrated both U.S. and German diplomatic ciphers, so they immediately recognized the importance of the telegram.
However, the British were naturally reluctant to inform the U.S. that they were intercepting communications from the U.S. embassy. Therein, they formed a plan. They arranged to have agents in Mexico City steal a copy of the decrypted telegram from the German embassy in that city. It wasn't hard to arrange to bribe Mexican officials to turn over a copy of the decrypt, with all the route markings, including through the U.S. embassy in London, and then foist it on a Mexican working in the German embassy.
The British could then "honestly" say that they got the copy from the German embassy in Mexico City. The German duplicity outraged American public opinion. An American naval officer was allowed in the British Chamber Noir, where he was granted access to British code books and cipher keys. He could honestly say that he had personally decrypted the German message sent from the U.S. embassy, and reveal its contents.
On such events, the fate of nations turns.
Mexico would be insane to accept Putin's offer. In the event of a nuclear exchange between Russia and the West, Mexico intends to be an observer, not a participant. Even after the Cuban missile crisis and the U.S. embargo, Castro wanted Russia to attack the United States, from Cuba. He had a suicidal hatred of the United States, and cared little about the death of tens of thousands, perhaps millions of Cubans.
We were never really “neutral”, we pretty much relied on the Royal Navy for the Atlantic, because we were beefing up our Pacific Fleet, after we acquired Hawaii and The Philippines, after the Spanish-American War, and even then it was thought a showdown with Japan was inevitable, even though they were technically an “ally” during WWI.
I do not that there were any “arms” on the Lusitania. There were a number of Canadian Army Officers, out of uniform, who boarded in New York, which was a violation of U.S. neutrality, and which the U.S. winked at, and did not take notice of. There was also a small cargo of “gun cotton” which would probably be used to manufacture artillery propellant in England, and which could be classed as a munition. American passengers would have been unaware of these violations of neutrality. As was the submarine that sank the Lusitania without warning.
But U.S. passengers could not have been unaware of the advertisements paid for by the German embassy in the shipping pages of New York newspapers warning that the German government could not insure the safety of the Lusitania specifically. Anyone looking for sailing information of the Lusitania in New York newspapers, would have seen those advertisements.
Zombie apocalypses essentially. Only ones that might survive would be rural areas as long as they could defend it. But even then, if transportation stops one better have some good old fashioned means of defense.
The Lusitania carried 4000 cases of machine gun ammo, and a large cargo of 15 pounder shells and other military cargo. It’s been proven by examinations at the wreck, complete with samples and photos.
We went into the war 2 years after the Lusitania.
LGBQ’s, ICBM’s, mRNA’s...oh my!
The U.S. was not an active belligerent prior to 1917. The U.S. in 1917 had the world’s largest economy and possessed vast military potential. Though not nearly as large or decisive as U.S. involvement in World War II, the U.S. active participation did shift the balance of power in the West to the side of the Allies.
Yes we weren’t active, but we weren’t exactly “Neutral”. Britain had a naval blockade on Germany, which meant US ships couldn’t dock in German ports.
That’s why you had the U-Boats, to try to level the playing field. A true neutral would have told Britain, either you allow US ships to supply Germany, or we will not risk our ships to supply Britain.
.
All anybody needs to know.
Other than for the humor in it, why did Newsweek even publish this piece?
Don’t blame America for loading munitions, bought and paid for by Great Britain and therefore her property, on a British passenger liner. That policy was architected primarily by a certain Winston Churchill, First Lord of the British Admiralty.
If this happens, both Cuba and Mexico become protectorates of the US. The US would invade both.
“Why would they put a weapon with a 5,000 mile range in Mexico?”
_________________________
The same reason NATO would put a NATO nuclear missiles in Italy, Turkey and Germany. To attack their adversary.
We are at war with Russia, albeit mostly by proxy and that facade is fading quick. Missiles with a 5,000 mile range would be needed to hit Washington DC and the northern states of the USA. Assuming Yucatan Mexico Military base installation.
maybe to end the war and save ukrainian lives ?
would that bother you ?
Good observation. ICBMs typically have a significant minimum range. Put them too close to the US and you may not be able to target a lot of the US.
No need for all that. Russia has ballistic missile subs that can be anywhere.
I'm pretty sure Russian ICBMs can reach the entire continental US from the Russian landmass already.
Most of us have lived through the cold-war. It was real.
At that point we would have no choice but to militarize the Mexican border.... let them do it.
The strategic situation favored Britain in the Atlantic. The U.S. took more or less the same position as Brazil or Morocco. The difference was the economic size of the U.S. made trade with the U.S. a huge strategic advantage for Britain.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.