"Russian or Chinese base in Mexico???" Topic

Out of curiosity, what would the response be if the Russians or Chinese were to put a major military or naval base someplace like Mexico?

Regards
Russ Dunaway

It won't be Cuba unless we're talking nukes, but we still won't take very kindly to the idea of an adversary squatting in our own backyard.

I expect that tremendous pressure will be exerted on the Mexican government to make sure that it doesn't happen. Failing that, we'll probably kick them (the Russkies or Chinese, that is) out by conventional means and dare them to do something about it.

It won't go nuclear cus it's just not worth it to the Chinese or Russkies for a small foothold on the continent. They don't really have much to gain for all the effort and will be isolated.

I can't help but think that the Russians wouldn't ask aloud what's the difference between a Russian base in Mexico and an American one in Turkey.
And the Chinese asking about bases in South Korea or Okinawa. Do we still have them in Taiwan?

Oh yeah. Monroe Doctrine.

How many troops does the U.S have in Germany?

Regards
Russ Dunaway

The Russians during the Cold War had at major submarine facility in Cienfagos (sp)Cuba and also had a tank brigade and VDV units in Cuba.
There have been rumors of PLA forces in Nicaragua to support the building of the Chinese owned/sponsored canal.

I expected Russia to offer to prop up Iceland's collapsing economy in exchange for a deep sea port.

I guess the question is, what does Mexico have to gain from the deal? Based on their history, I expect them to be very leery of a substantial number of a foreign nation's troops on their soil on a permanent basis. The US gives Mexico about $350 USD million a year in aid, so will the other powers match or exceed that?

I just used Mexicao as an illustration, it could be Venezuela?
Odd about Iceland -- my last duty station was there at a huge Nato/U.S naval base in in Keflavick -- 1971.
200 Marines and large Air Force and Navy population.

Regards
Russ Dunaway

Wouldn't happen, seems like another attempt to start whataboutism in defense of Russia. It tends to get brought up when someone wants to defend Russia invading Crimea and the Ukraine or NATO expansion.

If it were to happen it wouldn't be a threat as nothing Russia could put there would be useful to invade the US.

The same way that NATO membership of the Baltics doesn't mean Estonia is starting a drive to Moscow it merely prevents Moscow annexing the neighbors.

My question has nothing to do with the Crimea or "defense" of anyone Kiltboy so that is just your mere speculation.
I Do wonder how people feel about all of our far flung troops and bases around the globe and the U.S response if it was reverse?

Regards
Russ Dunaway

Strange way to post your question Russ, usually gets followed up with comments about the Falklands.

Given that the host countries like the US presence then I have to wonder about your motivation for asking.

Pretty hard to imagine Russ, a former Marine, taking sides with Russia in any circumstance. However, it is a curious and legitimate question to ask. I do think the comment about host countries wanting US troops there is a good one – though I'd disagree that all countries hosting US troops actually want them. I expect in some cases it's just a mater of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. Especially when your enemy can take over your country in about twenty minutes or so.

How the "host countries" feel about our presence was not really the question? How are potential enemies feel about our presence and how we would would respond or feel if the situation was reversed?
The American and USMC flag fly every day in front of my house so Kiltboy is really reading something else into my question. USMC, 1967-1971 father lost his hand at Peleliu!!!
How would it feel if the shoe was on the other foot?

Regards
Russ Dunaway

The general consensus on TMP regarding this question is that the US, as the defender of democracy and global security, has the right and/or responsibility to base its forces anywhere in the world, including countries close to Russia and China because those countries are not true democracies (i.e. "western style" democracies) and whose interests and "hegemonic intentions" are in direct competition with the western world's and threaten world peace/stability.

Russia's annexation of the Crimea and China's island-building in the SCS are often used as proof with disregard of the overall geopolitical context, such as the isolation of Russia via Nato expansion (not just protested by the thuggish Vladimir Putin but by Nobel laureate Mikhail Gorbachev) or China's view of its SCS activities as its version of America's own "Manifest Destiny." Holding such double standards and viewing the world through a narrow prism colored by an "Us vs. Them" mentality are simply human nature.

So the answer to Russ's question is: "We wouldn't like a foreign base close to our borders any more than they would to theirs, but we're the good guys and they're the bad guys so their concerns really don't matter."

The Russian naval base in Acapulco is to prevent California from annexing Baja California once it becomes independent.

Russia isolated itself from the former Warsaw Pact countries with it's actions inside those countries during the cold war. The reason those countries chose a defensive treaty was to defend against the external threat from Russia so they wouldn't be occupied again.
The geopolitical context is pretty clear Moscow doesn't like the fact that other countries are choosing a different path than what Moscow wants. The SCS is another example of taking by force what cannot be achieved by working in tandem because the other countries do not like what is on offer.

But to return to the original question it would be an intelligence bonanza because Mexico is a friendly country and the CIA would recruit plenty of agents to infiltrate. Does anyone on this site who allegedly studies military history think anything could be achieved by an expeditionary force far from it's logistic tail which is going to stretch over thousands of miles of Ocean? That same expeditionary force that would not be facing an isolated peninsula or island chain but the full weight of the US?
The question itself bears no relation to the current geopolitical climate (Mexico is a friendly US nation after all) nor military reality.

Mexico was simply used as an example. Name the place and it could be Iceland.

No it couldn't be Iceland.

You cannot just pick examples out of thin air if the basis of your argument is rooted in geopolitics. There has to be a rational political reason.
Part of that reasoning is what would that military force achieve and why would there be any cause for alarm?

I'd believe that there are currently Chinese troops in Panama, probably helping to build the new canal. Heck, I'd be surprised if there weren't PLA troops there, simply to protect the Chinese workers. Just like how there are PLA troops in Africa now.

But I also don't see Panama agreeing to a Canal Zone like what the US had. Also, any fighting in that area would do ugly things to the world economy. China cannot afford an embargo due to fighting in the Panama Canal, it'd destroy their own economy!

Russia… Well, they do still have basing rights in Cuba and probably in Venezuela. They certainly make the occasional trip there.

Mexico would be highly intolerant of foreign troops on their soil, probably even moreso than China, and for the same reason: long history of people trying to take over.

Just as the U.S has troops in multiple zones of interest " out of our waters" along with troops very heavily invested we may not be talking about just one location? Would we allow a Soviet base in Icaland, and if not then what would/could we do? I recall, while stationed in Keflavick the Icelanders were very pro Russia.
I guess we went to the edge over one missile in Cuba?
What do U.S forces achieve in Germany and SK--two countries capable of defending themselves?

@Old Glory: US forces in Germany, SK, and Japan all achieve one critical aim: Treaty obligations. Guaranteeing that the word of the US is good.

It was more than one missile in Cuba, by the way. And ironically, the US missiles in Turkey were already scheduled to be removed, before the crisis.

As far as a Russian base in Iceland, I don't think it'd be allowed, one way or the other. The G-I-UK Gap and SOSUS is too critical to allowing the US to ship reinforcements to Europe in case of a shooting war.

While stationed in Icleland I often heard the Island refered to as the " unsinkable carrier?"
Seems to be a sensitive guestion for some???

Regards
Russ Dunaway

The reason for American bases anywhere in the world, be it Iceland or S. Korea, is to maintain and safeguard "American interests," whatever that entails.

to maintain and safeguard "American interests," whatever that entails

I agree … That is the bottom line … for better or worse …

How about China's proposed canal through Nicaragua? What if China finally puts down an offer Nicaragua is willing to go for? What if Nicaragua's current riots finally die down and the project gets started?

What if … to protect its own interests, China's deal with Nicaragua includes a Chinese naval base at either end of the new canal?

Dan

Hey … the Chinese just built their 1st Aircraft Carrier[CV]. We had CVs almost 100 years ago … With that in mind, when did we build the Panama Canal, @ 100 years ago ? So … It may be about time they catch up.

But regardless, another canal in Central America, could only be a good thing for trade, etc., … for all concerned, IMO. Including the locals, so they should put down their signs, etc.

IMO, start digging China …

As far as a PRC Naval Base there … again I don't see their navy as much of a threat to USA, etc. Again we have how many CVNs and SSGMs now ?

I think there's a lot more digging needed to go through Nicaragua than there was in Panama…

Orders of magnitude more.

So it's going to take orders of magnitude longer, and orders of magnitude more money to build. Unless some genius decides to use nuclear excavation charges and collapse some mountains.

How about China's proposed canal through Nicaragua? What if China finally puts down an offer Nicaragua is willing to go for? What if Nicaragua's current riots finally die down and the project gets started?

The Nicaragua canal plan is dead, dead, dead… There's been NO work done at all since the idea was floated. And, because of lack of financing, its doubtful that it will EVER get moving.

Of course, all good conspiracy honks keep that fantasy going…

Too bad too … I bet you can't find a decent Chinese restaurant in all of Nicaragua ?

I think China just leased a port for military/civilian use in Australia actually.

Dunno about leasing a port, but the Chinese are honestly welcome to come visit the US.

My buddy told me you see a lot of Asians in Vegas … so … they spend money there[who doesn't !?]. And it is good for the economy …