This analogy would have some semblance of meaning if the US had plans to invade Mexico, or had made statements to that effect, or if there was even a latent desire in the US for that kind of action. It would then make sense for Mexico to find alliances with other countries for protection.
The situation in Europe is completely different, with close to half of Europe having been under Russian domination for decades if not centuries. Once those countries got out, they decided that never again would this be possible.
There is also a misunderstanding of how NATO works. Countries in Europe have not been forced to join the alliance, but they have been quasi begging to join NATO to get protection from the Russian aggressor. The process of joining NATO requires a formal application and the unanimous agreement of all existing members, not just the US's (see Turkey's move to block Sweden's entry for a concrete example of how that works).
There is also the notion that NATO applicants must follow requirements, including [1]:
- a functioning democratic political system based on a market economy;
- the fair treatment of minority populations;
- a commitment to the peaceful resolution of conflicts;
- the ability and willingness to make a military contribution to NATO operations; and
- a commitment to democratic civil-military relations and institutional structures.
In other words, the values defended by NATO are values which I consider positive. An alliance of autocratic nations (say Russia and China) would be a very different one.
Finally, if you haven't followed the discourse in Russia, there really is a discussion there of taking back not only Ukraine, but the Baltic states, Kazakhstan, and other former soviet republics (and yes, even parts of Poland). That is taking, as in invading under false pretense, not the peaceful recreation of a union with the consent of said countries. Luckily Russia will be unable to do so, but the need for protection remains real.
Thank you for actually rebutting the analogy and providing at least one link. I have found every thread on HN about this war is extremely lacking in links and there's all these things that have been "obvious" since the beginning that don't seem that obvious to me.
The US has invaded Mexico before (and taken half of its land in the subsequent treaty). Mexico is also substantially under US domination since (along with much of Latin America), it is just that our domination has been softer and maybe more beneficial. The situation is certainly not the same, but there are significant risks of very similar border conflicts arising in the coming 2-3 decades, and the US will absolutely respond in as dominant a way as it can. The US would absolutely not tolerate a border country joining a binding oppositional alliance. I don't think the analogy is so bad as you make it out to be and I think the US would try a series of actions to diffuse the situation similar to what we have seen in this conflict (but the US would probably be more capable and more likely to avoid the final escalation).
The situation in Europe is completely different, with close to half of Europe having been under Russian domination for decades if not centuries. Once those countries got out, they decided that never again would this be possible.
There is also a misunderstanding of how NATO works. Countries in Europe have not been forced to join the alliance, but they have been quasi begging to join NATO to get protection from the Russian aggressor. The process of joining NATO requires a formal application and the unanimous agreement of all existing members, not just the US's (see Turkey's move to block Sweden's entry for a concrete example of how that works).
There is also the notion that NATO applicants must follow requirements, including [1]:
- a functioning democratic political system based on a market economy;
- the fair treatment of minority populations;
- a commitment to the peaceful resolution of conflicts;
- the ability and willingness to make a military contribution to NATO operations; and
- a commitment to democratic civil-military relations and institutional structures.
In other words, the values defended by NATO are values which I consider positive. An alliance of autocratic nations (say Russia and China) would be a very different one.
Finally, if you haven't followed the discourse in Russia, there really is a discussion there of taking back not only Ukraine, but the Baltic states, Kazakhstan, and other former soviet republics (and yes, even parts of Poland). That is taking, as in invading under false pretense, not the peaceful recreation of a union with the consent of said countries. Luckily Russia will be unable to do so, but the need for protection remains real.
[1]: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49212.htm#:~:text=...