If an alliance of central and south American countries amassed troops and weapons on The USA's border, how long do you think it would take for them to take action? I think that would have to be calculated in nano seconds. How is it so different for Russia?

Cambo Dear wrote: ↑Tue Jul 26, 2022 1:18 pm If an alliance of central and south American countries amassed troops and weapons on The USA's border, how long do you think it would take for them to take action? I think that would have to be calculated in nano seconds. How is it so different for Russia?

But who brought the mobile crematoriums?

Cambo Dear wrote: ↑Tue Jul 26, 2022 1:18 pm If an alliance of central and south American countries amassed troops and weapons on The USA's border, how long do you think it would take for them to take action? I think that would have to be calculated in nano seconds. How is it so different for Russia?

What foreign troops amassed against Russia?
This is pure bullshit.

La Raza has always advocated for the ‘Reconquista’ or recoquest of land ‘stolen’ (by peace treaty) in the US. Through the open borders policy and the flood, the demographics in America are rapidly changing to create this new reality.

Unlike the Ukraine and Russia, the US does not share a common language and culture foundation with Mexico. The Pilgrims on the Mayflower did not land in Cancun.

Why would any country in South America ever bother to invade the US? America is turning into a South American country all on it’s own.

Russia isn't, and never was under any threat from anyone. There is absolutely a definite need to NATO to exist, but there is absolutely no need for Nato to invade, or even be a threat to Russia. Why would it? What would it have to gain by attacking a nuclear armed sovereign state unprovoked? NATO is made up of democratic, rules-based countries that by-and-large respect international law and the sovereignty of other nations. Why in God's name would it ever feel the need to even threaten, let alone attack, a nuclear armed state such as Russia?

Nato exists to protect nations, especially the smaller ones unable to defend themselves, against Russian aggression. It encroached eastward to protect those countries closest to Russia which were most at risk. By invading the sovereign state of Ukraine, Russia itself has demonstrated the need for NATO to exist as a defence alliance. The Russian claim that it invaded Ukraine because it was threatened by Nato expansion is absolute BS, and those who are comparing it to the build-up of foreign troops on America's southern border are totally, completely and comprehensively misunderstanding the situation in Eastern Europe.

The two are totally incomparable.

If you don't think that NATO amassed troops in countries that neighbour Russia, either you don't know European geography or you don't know where NATO is stationed. With the exception of Belarus, the Ukraine Sweden and Finland, there is a presence in every country. If you think those forces were facing West and not East, you'd have to be delusional.

If The States were in the same situation, they would invade Mexico immediately, no doubt. Although hypothetical, of course they are comparable notions.

Freightdog wrote: ↑Tue Jul 26, 2022 6:14 pm The NATO presence in all of those countries is by virtue of those countries being part of NATO. It’s been that way for a very long time.

You do seem to be glossing over the part where Russia did move troops to the border, and did move them into a neighbouring country.

Why do you wish to justify a clear Russian aggression? Why do you try to excuse it by blaming the victim?
Do you rationalise rape the same way? Is this a cultural issue?

I neither attempted to justify the invasion nor glossed over it - I simply asked what another military power might do in a similar situation. Since you know the answer and it's not the answer you want to give, you have spat your dummy out and thrown all of your toys out of the pram by making crass, nonsensical statements.

At least we agree that troops were massed along the border and that a reaction was very likely.