Moscow refuses to rule out Latin America military deployments - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties from Mexico to Argentina.

Moderator: PoFo Latin America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#15207832
Moscow has again refused to rule out deploying military units to Cuba and Venezuela as tensions with the West over Ukraine simmer, saying it is “exploring options” to ensure Russia’s security.

Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said last week that he could “neither confirm nor exclude” the possibility of Russia sending missiles or other assets to Latin America.


If a sovereign nation wants to enter into military partnerships with other nations, does any other nation have the right to interfere?

When it's about NATO expansion - no, of course not. And to assert that the US is behaving aggressively and engaging in European Brinkmanship is absurd. Of course Ukraine and the Baltic states have every right to join NATO without Russian interference.

Do Cuba and Venezuela have the same rights to seek partners elsewhere? In Russia? China? The US recently criticized the expansion of belt and road projects into Latin America.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1/1 ... eployments
#15207835
Fasces wrote:If a sovereign nation wants to enter into military partnerships with other nations, does any other nation have the right to interfere?


If the military partnership is for aggressive purposes then the victim of that aggression has the right to interfere.

If the military partnership is for defensive purposes then noone has the right to interfere.

Is Cuba facing a military threat by someone?

The Ukraine is facing a massive military threat from Russia.

Fasces wrote:And to assert that the US is behaving aggressively and engaging in European Brinkmanship is absurd.


It is indeed extremely absurd in the case of the Ukraine because Russia is the aggressor and because all the evidence on the ground make her so.

The US is so ridiculous at present that it does not even have a clear policy on the subject.

Russia has no right to invade the Ukraine nor does it have a right to prevent its people from making sovereign decisions for themselves.
#15207836
Fasces wrote:If a sovereign nation wants to enter into military partnerships with other nations, does any other nation have the right to interfere?

When it's about NATO expansion - no, of course not. And to assert that the US is behaving aggressively and engaging in European Brinkmanship is absurd. Of course Ukraine and the Baltic states have every right to join NATO without Russian interference.

Do Cuba and Venezuela have the same rights to seek partners elsewhere? In Russia? China? The US recently criticized the expansion of belt and road projects into Latin America.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1/1 ... eployments


Let's face it. The only reason Russia can play world police for little dictators is because the US is too polite to attack Russian forces. The US could wipe the floor with them outside of Russia's immediate neighborhood.
#15207841
I wonder if Cuba would welcome Russian military deployments in their territory, whereas such deployments have already been made in Venezuela.

ImageRussian Military Aircraft in Venezuela Satellite photos provided by DigitalGlobe show two Russian nuclear-
capable Tu-160 Blackjack bombers along with a heavy-lift AN-124 cargo plane and an Il-62 passenger
plane outside of Venezuela's capital on Dec. 10, 2018. (DigitalGlobe)


I wonder if they're still there, though.

However,

Miami Herald wrote:U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan told reporters that the United States would respond “decisively” if Russia were to send troops to Venezuela and Cuba. But he characterized the Russian deputy foreign minister’s statement as “bluster.”
#15207899
noemon wrote:If the military partnership is for aggressive purposes then the victim of that aggression has the right to interfere


maybe nato in Ukraine and Georgia is the victim, isnt the same partnership for aggressive purposes, isnt with the baltic assimilation too, if it is taken for granted the promise by Bush to Gorbachev

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russia-us-nato-deal--20160530-snap-story.html

we are witnessing aggressive neocon anaconda doctrine that is employed since 90s but which think already is dead after they lost grip in middle east, now this with Ukraine is just ns2 spin [1]
#15207900
We are witnessing Russian aggression in the face of US weakening and a US retreat from all fronts that has encouraged Russia to threaten the Ukraine as well as the entire European continent and openly so.

Your propaganda tape-recorder is 15 years too late.
#15207902
u didnt think maybe usA is nervous why Russia have the hypersonic missiles on ramps, not just that but also usA has faulty 5th gen. planes, so having nothing else how to engage is using eU as spotter at least to stop further economic stabilization of Russia through NS2, till some extent compacting nato lines, anyway saying that this is not case is shallow geopolitical dioptry, btw by labeling me as propaganda bot U are not making argument, take ur time disprove anything I've suggested!
#15207903
Odiseizam wrote:aggressive neocon anaconda doctrine that is employed since 90s


This is 15 years too late, only reason to bring it up is for propaganda purposes.

US retreat is not aggression and Russian aggression is not Russian victimhood.

Russian spin bot technology does not change this fact.
#15207904
rancid wrote: Looks like we have some war mongerers after all.


:?:

I do not endorse or support Russian military adventurism in Ukraine - but do recognize the hypocrisy is saying the US has the exclusive national right to interfere abroad if it feels threatened.

noemon wrote: Is Cuba facing a military threat by someone?


That determination is up to the people of Cuba, as a sovereign state, not US policy makers. If the Cuban people feel that they are under threat, shouldn't they be allowed to request military support from other powers, regardless of US input?

To go with the above - Russia, rightly or wrongly, felt threatened by Ukraine alignments, militarily, diplomatically, and economically, with Europe. It acted to end what it perceived as NATO aggression.

Of course Russia didn't have that right. Ukraine is a sovereign state. Russian rights to respond ended at their border. Doesn't the same apply to the decisions of Cuba or Venezuela?

Beren wrote: Sri Lanka in ‘debt trap’, India’s response shows pushback against China has begun


The debt trap is a myth. There's a lovely thread on it in the Africa subforum if you want to discuss it, and I welcome an actual discussion on the subject rather than deflections like that thread is currently full of.
#15207907
Fasces wrote:That determination is up to the people of Cuba, as a sovereign state, not US policy makers.


We are not the people of Cuba, nor the people of America, nor the people of the Ukraine yet we are still discussing their reasons and the question remains:

Is Cuba facing a military threat by someone?

The only military threat here is Russia against the Ukraine.

And to make matters worse, that this was to prevent a trade association agreement that even Russia itself has signed with the EU as well as Turkey, Israel, Egypt, UK and several other countries.
#15207910
Fasces wrote:The debt trap is a myth. There's a lovely thread on it in the Africa subforum if you want to discuss it, and I welcome an actual discussion on the subject rather than deflections to nonsense like the thread is currently full of.

I'm only aware of the way it's supposed to work in Hungary. The Orbán-government agreed to two infrastructure projects that would be carried out by the Chinese and financed by a loan taken out by Hungary from China, however, economists say they'd never yield enough to be profitable.
#15207911
noemon wrote:This is 15 years too late, only reason to bring it up is for propaganda purposes


if one thing is relevant in geostrategy that is geography, some things are relevant always for someone, so for usA this strategy became doctrine, otherwise they would not force caucasian and easteuropean nato enlargement, tho with the middle eastern fiasco the very same doctrine fell apart for now, still after the coup in Ukraine till they can they will push the limits of the anaconda doctrine, but now as I've pointed at stake is spin for NS2 blockade instigated through Ukraine which in return hope on usA funds for its failed gaslighting agitprop spins!

if I see clearly You are projecting assault but in fact is defense what is instigated as russian warning, the confusion comes more clear if we have in mind how huge military budget has usaf, tho for dysfunctional tech at the moment, its hilarious how empty handed are now even afraid Russia to be economically secured by NS2!
#15207913
Beren wrote:
economists say they'd never yield enough to be profitable.


Neither is mail delivery to rural areas. Neither is any highway unless the government collects tolls. The profit motive is an absolutely shit metric for evaluating public projects - even if the analysis is correct (by which I mean that an investment being not profitable now, such as a new metro line to an underdeveloped region of a city, does not mean not profitable in thirty years, if the metro line facilitates and increases the rate of development in that land that is presently and would otherwise still be lying fallow.)

(and investing into shitty projects isn't a debt trap)
#15207915
Fasces wrote:Neither is mail delivery to rural areas. Neither is any highway unless the government collects tolls. The profit motive is an absolutely shit metric for evaluating public projects - even if the analysis is correct (by which I mean that an investment being not profitable now, such as a new metro line to an underdeveloped region of a city, does not mean not profitable in thirty years, if the metro line facilitates and increases the rate of development in that land that is presently and would otherwise still be lying fallow.)

Well, the whole thing seems like the Hungarian government does the Chinese a favour for political and whatever support. The contracts are classified and there's no transparency at all, although it's leaked out that the Hungarian government doesn't have any say in the project and the Chinese do whatever and however they want to. It was also suggested, for example, that the information system of the primaries held by the opposition broke down on the very first day due to a cyber-attack coming from China, and Orbán also proudly announced that he'd be hosted by the Chinese president sometime.
#15207916
noemon wrote:Is Cuba facing a military threat by someone?


It doesn't matter. Does Cuba have the right to invite Russia to lease a military base on its territory? To invite France? China? India? Does Cuba have the right to engage in military training exercising with Russia in its territory, or in international waters? Does Cuba have the right to pursue a closer economic relationship with Russia? Or China? To join the SCO?

I agree with you that Russian aggression (in the Donbass, and against Ukraine in general, Crimea is a bit more complex if just because the West is conveniently not mentioning self-determination or calling for a referendum there, for obvious reasons - but the Russian methodology is not good) is completely unjustifiable. Moreover, I agree with you that Ukraine has the right to seek help from the EU and the USA - and that the EU/USA is justified to provide that help to the sovereign state of Ukraine.

Beren wrote:Well, the whole thing seems like the Hungarian government does the Chinese a favour for political and whatever support.


If there's consideration on both sides, is the contract exploitative? If the Hungarian people don't like what Orban is doing, they should get rid of him and cancel the deal, as is their right.
#15207918
Fasces wrote:If there's consideration on both sides, is the contract exploitative? If the Hungarian people don't like what Orban is doing, they should get rid of him and cancel the deal, as is their right.

Orbán seems to have made one-sided (classified) contracts with the Russians and the Chinese that are beneficial only to them, if that's what you mean. However, we'll have a general election on April 3, and it seems we'll also have a referendum on one of the Chinese projects (Fudan University in Budapest) as well sometime (on the same day perhaps).

May 26, Thursday Charles A. Dana, currently As[…]

Roe V. Wade to be Overturned

Right to life is the only thing that matters. […]

Poland is getting Abrams tanks now. Which suggest[…]

We should make a new law. Anyone who does a schoo[…]