Putin's Bikers on Red Army Victory Tour

[Ed Anger]

Mew, y'all.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

And the Alaska was just an analogy so that you get an idea of what Russia thinks about Ukraine, the Crimea and the West's offers (for Russia, the Ukraine isn't a 'real' nation, not even a 'real' state; it is just an artificial creation, and its existance can only be justified by it being propped by outside powers. The EU sees it otherwise, but that will hardly stop the Kremlin from being infuriated at losing one of the most important provinces of its 'Empire'.

I find it interesting that never once in your remarks about the Ukraine have you mentioned the Ukrainian people.

Putin said that Ukraine wasn't a real country, so there can't be a Ukrainian people now eh?

[Norgy]

It's true though. The Comanche and Apache didn't care much for Mexicans.

Ah, the Jaron option. 

[KRonn]

I mentioned the Mexican Cession [and yes, the 'lands were mostly unhinhabited' is the first argument used by Americans in defense of their annexation, closely followed by the 'but we paid for them' one, not my fault that you as Americans never question this among yourselves] because it was a purely Imperial war to enlarge America.

The acquisition of lands from Mexico was a bit more complicated than that. In the early 1800s Mexico invited, encouraged Americans to move into Texas as a buffer to the American Indian tribes which were devastating northern Mexico. Mexico's control over northern Mexico was difficult, let alone north up to Utah, Colorado, Nevada and such. The US did try to purchase the land before the Mexican-American war.  Yes, of course the fledgling US wanted to increase its territory, as any nation would, especially given the geography and politics of the areas in question and many were pushing for more action against Mexico to do that.

After a while the Americans in Texas, and probably many Mexicans, grew tired of the Mexican dictatorship and revolted, winning their independence. (California was probably looking like it might also want to leave Mexico also, making some noise to that effect.) Some ten or so years later Texas asked to join the US, and was eventually accepted. Mexico then declared war and lost. The US occupied Mexico City and many major cities, but made a deal to annex lands with the Rio Grande as the dividing line. Also gave Mexico cash and other things, like forgiving or taking on Mexican debt.

I think it's quite a bit different than what Russia often is trying to do, to conquer sovereign nations, retake territory from those nations who left Russia because of the lack of freedoms, and being under a near authoritarian government. Russia's government has gotten worse. In fact, I think Ukraine and the Baltic States leaving Russia are more like the Texas, but in that case Texans chose to fight against Mexico for independence.

[Valmy]

Yes it was a purely imperialistic war. People were outraged about it at the time. US Grant said the Civil War was God's punishment on us for doing that to Mexico. Not sure why Martim thinks nobody has ever questioned it since we have constantly since it happened.

The only thing I can say is that things were more fluid then and the borders less sacred. This was more about settling rights than anything else. Still a pretty naked territorial grab.

[Admiral Yi]

Were people outraged at the start of the war or at the announcement of the peace treaty?  My understanding is that Mexico actually initiated hostilities.

Also keep in mind that the US didn't have much of a standing army at the time.  Most troops that fought were volunteers.  I've read that most European commentators expected a Mexican victory because of the professionalism of their army.

[Valmy]

Were people outraged at the start of the war or at the announcement of the peace treaty?  My understanding is that Mexico actually initiated hostilities.

There was widespread opposition to the war in the north while it was going on. Abraham Lincoln was a particularly vocal critic. They did not want Americans to die for land that would all be below the Missouri compromise line in particular.

[Martim Silva]

The acquisition of lands from Mexico was a bit more complicated than that.

Indeed it was, like all human conflicts are. Never a simple explanation.

In the early 1800s Mexico invited, encouraged Americans to move into Texas as a buffer to the American Indian tribes which were devastating northern Mexico. Mexico's control over northern Mexico was difficult, let alone north up to Utah, Colorado, Nevada and such. The US did try to purchase the land before the Mexican-American war.  Yes, of course the fledgling US wanted to increase its territory, as any nation would, especially given the geography and politics of the areas in question and many were pushing for more action against Mexico to do that.

More accurately, the American settlers were invited because of the aggressive nature of the Comanches, which the 4,000 mexican settlers in Texas could not hold alone.
The Americans started to arrive in 1823, and by 1830 there were 20,000 of them there, outnumbering the native mexicans. This led the mexican government to decide to close its borders. Americans did not care, and in the next three years another 10,000 Americans migrated illegally into Texas (basically the opposite of what is happening today).

After a while the Americans in Texas, and probably many Mexicans, grew tired of the Mexican dictatorship and revolted, winning their independence. (California was probably looking like it might also want to leave Mexico also, making some noise to that effect.)

It was in 1833 that General Santa Anna rose to power in Mexico, and quickly made itself rather impopular, and disregarded the Constitution.

The Americans in Texas (who at the time called themselves 'Texians') did not accept this, leading Santa Anna to declare them in rebellion, alleging they had failed to convert to Catholicism. The Texians, led by Sam Houston, argued (correctly) that they had sworn to defend the Constitution of Mexico, one Santa Anna was not obeying. And they did win their independence. Still, the rebellion of the Texians was very much an overwhelmingly American revolt: ethnic Americans, either by legal or illegal means, now made up the huge majority of the population of Texas.

(the wonders of legal and illegal immigration, I guess)

Some ten or so years later Texas asked to join the US, and was eventually accepted. Mexico then declared war and lost. The US occupied Mexico City and many major cities, but made a deal to annex lands with the Rio Grande as the dividing line. Also gave Mexico cash and other things, like forgiving or taking on Mexican debt.

Let's make all those events more clear, shall we?

After winning its independence, Texas immediately applied for statehood of the US. And was promptly rejected by the US Congress, since Northern congressmen knew very well that Texas would enter the Union as a slavery-supporting state, a very sensitive political issue at the time.

Texas, therefore, spent 9 years as an independent nation, and established diplomatic and commercial relations with many countries, Great Britain in particular. This led to a change of attitude in Washington, and president Polk was elected in 1844 with the promise to annex Texas, which became true in 1845.

(Washington did not want a British-friendly Texas, especially as it had just negotiated its northern border with Britain, and that issue almost made the US and Britain go to war with each other again)

Now, the reason for the Mexican declaration of war was because of the exact location of the Texan border: the treaty of independence negotiated with Santa Anna made the Rio Grande the border of Texas. But the mexican government never ratified it, and stated that the border was in the Nueces river, pointing that there were no Anglo Texan settlements in the area between the Nueces and the Rio Grande. But there were very few mexican ones, so the US got Texas claim that the border was in the Rio Grande.

Mexico replied it was willing to accept the loss of Texas [even if the government had not ratified the independence treaty], as long as the border was set at the Nueces River. President Polk replied by trying to buy all the land between Texas and the Pacific for $15 million ($400 million in modern dollars; for a gigantic amount of land). Needless to say, the mexican government did not even accept the credentials of the American diplomat sent to present the offer for 55% of its territory.

As a result, Washington dispatched Major General Zachary Taylor with 4,000 men to the Rio Grande, where they started to build a military fort, completed during 1845-46.

Needless to say, this was seen by Mexico as an invasion, so they sent their army to try to expel the Americans, eventually wiping a force of 64 US dragoons. President Polk immediately asked Congress for war, saying "American blood has been shed on American soil".

The war followed, with the Americans indeed gathering strength from many volunteers, and ended with a crushing Mexican defeat.

The deal that ended the war - the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo - was by no means a 'generous' peace by the US. In fact, the annexation of all that mexican land was negotiated by the US representative, Nicholas Tirst, who acted under the first intentions of Polk: all the land to the Pacific. But Polk had had other ideas, and its goal was in fact to demand the annexation of the WHOLE of Mexico. But there were several communications breakdowns that complicated issues (Polk had recalled Tirst, but the diplomat had just recieved news from Mexico that they were, after much discussion, willing to resume negotiations on the original terms).

So Tirst agonized between going back to washington as he had been ordered, or staying and signing the treaty he had first been sent to sign. He choose the latter, eventually sending a 61-page letter to the President, to explain his reasons. That was no good, as Polk fired him: his lack of Imperial ambition cost him his job and pretty much his future.

The US accepted the treaty due to congressional divisions: the Whigs claimed it was too much, the Democrats too little. Still, there was no cause to resume the war.

Also, worth noting is that the $15 million the US offered Mexico were not for the land, but rather as compensation for damaged property; in addition, no money was ever sent: Washington simply deducted them from Mexico's debt to the US.

That said, note that we went from the independence of Texas (made possible by the immigration of Americans to the area) to a wholesale grab of pretty much everything from Texas to the Pacific, from Utah to the Rio Grande. And the real goal was to gobble all of Mexico, not just what was effectively taken.

And yes, like is said here, it was quite controversial at the time; but today's Americans don't remember things as they were and - as your post proves - tend to think "Mexico started it" and have little to no idea of the very real Imperial ambitions of the US at the time.

I think it's quite a bit different than what Russia often is trying to do, to conquer sovereign nations, retake territory from those nations who left Russia because of the lack of freedoms, and being under a near authoritarian government. Russia's government has gotten worse. In fact, I think Ukraine and the Baltic States leaving Russia are more like the Texas, but in that case Texans chose to fight against Mexico for independence.

From Russia POV, the Ukraine is a fake nation, vital to Russia leading a serious world-scale Empire. It split from the USSR, but it is not capable of effectively ruling itself, rather being devided by powerful oligarchs (all you have to notice is that Belarus managed to have a bigger GDP per capita than Ukraine to see things are horribly wrong there).

Moscow now sees the EU attempt to get the Ukraine [Presidente Poroshenko announced today that Kiev indends to present by 2020 a formal application to join the EU] as a proof that Western powers want to weaken and contain Russia, preventing it from restoring the core areas of its Empire, now under the name of Eurasian Union, of which Russia, Belarus and Khazakhstan are part of. This is also why, at the formation of this union last year, presidente Lukashenko of Belarus said "we are not all here", meaning very specifically that the Ukraine was missing.

And so the Russian parts of Ukraine rebel; the Kiev government wants to stamp them out (and refuses to cede the Crimea). It then becomes obvious that Russia would send its own troops to fight alongside ethnic Russians. Here, we have a situation that more closely resembles the mexican/US one.

That said, for the EU this is the best chance ever to advance further East and cut Moscow's plans to recreate its Empire; without it, they are a husk of their former selves, and the EU starts to become a really big entity, whith access to Ukranian food production and serious strategic choices.

The Caucasus beckons, and with it lots of energy options: this is also why Brussels did all it could to wreck the Russian South Stream gas pipeline (that would send Russian gas directly to Bulgaria, sidestepping the Ukraine). Instead, we are negotiating the Trans-Adriatic Pipeline (TAP), from Azerbaijan to the Adriatic coast, to reduce dependence on Russian gas.

Moscow replied by creating the 'Turkish Stream' pipeline, that now goes to Turkey. Russia now wants an entry point into the EU to sell its gas, and there is where the Greek Syriza government enters the issue, being willing to let the Russian pipeline enter its territory, from where it can go to Macedonia, Serbia and from there to Hungary and everywhere else in the EU.

So yes, the EU is locked in a conflict with Russia that transcends the mere scope of the Ukraine; it is a clash to decide who will be the hegemon of Europe in the future. And we're not backing down.

[Eddie Teach]

And yes, like is said here, it was quite controversial at the time; but today's Americans don't remember things as they were and - as your post proves - tend to think "Mexico started it" and have little to no idea of the very real Imperial ambitions of the US at the time.

Actually, it's usually coupled with discussion of "Manifest Destiny" in US history classes. I actually thought the US had a larger share of the responsibility(like nearly all of it) for the war than your post suggests.

[Martinus]

And the Alaska was just an analogy so that you get an idea of what Russia thinks about Ukraine, the Crimea and the West's offers (for Russia, the Ukraine isn't a 'real' nation, not even a 'real' state; it is just an artificial creation, and its existance can only be justified by it being propped by outside powers. The EU sees it otherwise, but that will hardly stop the Kremlin from being infuriated at losing one of the most important provinces of its 'Empire'.

I find it interesting that never once in your remarks about the Ukraine have you mentioned the Ukrainian people.

That's a fair point but then it also describes 90% of Languish's armchair real politik aficionados.

[Solmyr]

Text: So that's why you need a makeup purse.

Background: One of the bikers posted that they were detained on the Polish border for hours and "everything was searched, every sock and makeup bag".

[grumbler]

Always nice to see a foreigner like Martim attempt to interpret American history and tell Americans what Americans currently believe.  That he is unsuccessful in understanding US history is not shameful.

I didn't see racism in this post, either, so there's that as well.

[Neil]

In some cases, foreigners are actually better at understanding a country's history than the natives.  Less of an emotional attachment.

[Valmy]

Actually, it's usually coupled with discussion of "Manifest Destiny" in US history classes. I actually thought the US had a larger share of the responsibility(like nearly all of it) for the war than your post suggests.

Yeah Martim is funny lecturing us what Americans are taught about history. I guess we weren't there or anything. Manifest Destiny and the US' imperialist ambitions absolutely were front and center in what was taught in school. Now American kids do not pay much attention but that is something else.

[Valmy]

In some cases, foreigners are actually better at understanding a country's history than the natives.  Less of an emotional attachment.

Understanding a country's history? Yes. Understanding what the people in that country think about that country's history? Please.