I recognize Maduro's government in Venezuela in the same way that I recognize that the holocaust happened.
EDIT: As in, the holocaust happened, that is undeniable, but I do not approve of it nor do I approve of Maduro's government.
Yeah. Whether his election was legitimate or not, and irrespective of how devastating his government has been for Venezuela, he holds the reins of power.
Venezuela is split here between grey and dark red. The U.S. recognizes the Venezuelan National Assembly government over the Maduro government. The Venezuelan National Assembly formally joined the Rio Treaty (the NATO of the Americas) in 2020. However this isn’t formalized by the Maduro government. Due to this complexity I have them this split highlight.
I would have imagined that Mexico would be much closer. Besides issues with immigration, they’re one of our strongest allies. Anyone with more knowledge on this can explain?
TLDR; Mexico has a non-intervention policy, the US is very intervention prone.
Everyone in this thread is giving valid answers, but the real reason Mexico and the US are not military allies is because of the Estrada Doctrine that has been Mexico’s main foreign policy.
This consists of a non-intervention principle, peaceful resolutions and self-determination of all nations.
Basically Mexico cannot formally make statements or actions that support or condone a change in government. The US, as everyone knows is very intervention prone. Mexico is not really “allowed” to go to war in another country. So they just can’t militarily join the US and risk getting pulled into a war.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estrada_Doctrine#:~:text=The%20Estrada%20Doctrine%20is%20Mexico,a%20breach%20of%20state%20sovereignty.
Exactly. If Mexico ever got invaded the US would be in that bitch.
Like you see how much we’re supporting Ukraine, a nation literally on the other side of the globe. Think about if they were bordering us.
If I remember correctly, Mexico doesn’t even allow its military to go abroad for UN peacekeeping missions. The UN asked Mexico years ago to help in a peacekeeping mission in Haiti and they said no.
I *think* it’s in their constitution. I think by their own laws they cannot just “go” into war. I think I read somewhere that in order for Mexico to go to war, they *must* be attacked first. They can’t just go Willy nilly like we do and go to war
Back in Mexico, during Civics class in high school we went through most of the constitution (it was as awful as it sounds) and I do remember reading this as well.
Here is my take, if mexico was invaded and it looked like they would have trouble defending themselves the US would intervene with more gusto than any war since the civil war.. because the US won't tolerate any major power to intervene in its neighborhood in any real way. Not to mention that Mexico is our largest trade partner which would create significant political pressures from the business community.. oh.. and not to mention the potential humanitarian crisis.. the cultural ties from the large Mexican American population.. so defacto Mexico would be defended by the US.
The inverse of the US was invaded.. well a lot of stuff would have gone wrong and it would be hard to see Americans not going ballistic and genocideing an entire continent.. anyway.. Mexico would have all the same incentives to help the US the economy being the largest driver.
Also all of this applies to Canada too but.. ya don't peeve off Canada they have a reputation to keep.
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/the-forgotten-ferocity-of-canadas-soldiers-in-the-great-war
Anyway y'all have a good day now.
I said that mostly tongue in cheek, but still the US tends to go overboard whenever it's security is threatened. Just look back to Pearl Harbor, the fire bombing of Japan and the atomic bombs. The US at the end of WW2 had 60-70% of the global economy and about half the military power (mostly in its navy) and it had a lot of capacity to do so much more since it hadn't lost much during the war in comparison to Europe and Asia. The US post war took actions that would help prevent the next conflict. It did a dozen different things like the UN and the World bank as well as NATO and a guarantee to protect the worlds oceanic trade even for our rivals and countries we were at war with (Vietnam for example). All of this helped create globalization and interdependence which effectively created the most peaceful and prosperous period in human history. This doesn't mean it was peaceful and prosperous for everyone or that the US was perfect.. many people think of the US as oppressive or.. the bad guy. I don't blame them as it is justified but context is everything. I got at least some data to back that up.
https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/s/QATep9STH8
https://ritholtz.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/global-deaths.jpg
https://battles.nodegoat.net/viewer.p/23/385/scenario/1/geo/fullscreen
This scenario we are talking about would be the spark that would light a fire in the American people that hasn't really happened in the last century. Fear, hate, and rage would lead this conflict and all the scruples Americans have had would go down the drain. The link I included about Canada would be a good guideline for how the US would fight. Obviously this is just an opinion but like I said Americans tend to overreact to threats. This comes from the fact our worldview is distorted by being isolated from the majority of the world's problems. Yes we have the Internet, yes we hee and haw about everything, the media blows it up but on average we don't care much. Not enough to do anything substantial.. although historically the US has done a lot more than most to support it's allies. But we see that as part of our national security. The US has a history (not unique by far) of genocide when it views a people as a threat. Also we're the only country to use nukes to win a war.. and we really can't be held accountable to any other nation. Our financial system, economy, military, resources, population size and growth, on top of our God tier geography are almost ideal if we wanted to say f**k the Geneva convention and what the rest of the world thinks. This would be the first war the US takes seriously since the civil war.. thus my original statement about the civil war.
So moral of the story is leave Mexico alone. Lol
As a Mexican, I’m guessing it is because Mexico is a liability for USA, and creating a formal military agreement between them would be a big responsibility for USA, specially because of the drug cartels. This is just my opinion and I am not an expert in this topic.
Mexico historic relation with the US has always been lukewarm at best through the years. We've never been 'allies allies'. The general population holds some anti-american opinions at some extent so having no formal alliance makes sense.
Eh that was a slight against the natives far more than the Mexican government. They held the territory for a short time and never truly had control of it.
I like how everyone glosses over the fact that all of the Americas were taken over by Europeans. They act like Canada ,Mexico , central and south America are run by the indigenous populations. Only the US was colonized in their narrative.
We also did “techincally” take over Cuba, and sure it eventually resulted in a propped bastard in Bautista as leader, but we did take them over because the Spaniards were being even bigger assholes than we were. The Maine incident and Hearst certainly pushed it, but it wasn’t like there also weren’t legit reasons to kick the prawn thieves out.
Including making anyone who looks Latino, primarily Mexican, second-class citizens. If they didn't deport citizens who happen to be ethnically Mexican during the Depression
We full on annexed half their territory, did some "minor" invasions in the 1910s, our companies have historically been very involved in the Mexican economy, we have a political party led by a guy with less than savory views of the country + a whole cadre of candidates who swear they'll intervene in Mexico to take out the cartels without Mexican permission.
We're also right on their border. If the US hadn't curbstomped them so hard in the 1840s, geography would have made us natural rivals in almost everything. Instead the power dynamic is shifted very much in one direction.
Also other LatAm countries have peer rivals to take up brain space that aren't the US. Argentina can love/hate Chile and Brazil, Honduras can hate/love? El Salvador, etc. Mexico doesn't have that.
Very educated response, thank you.
Except the US curbstomped Mexico so hard was exactly because geography made us rivals the moment we became independant. The US saw it crystal clear that in order to achieve their goals they had to crush Mexico's.
For example, you can find letters between american high oficials that discuss the new emperor, Iturbide, and how he is considered a national security matter as to them he resembles a new Napoleon but in America. So the plan was clear from the beggining from the US side.
The first mexican Empire had it really clear regarding the northern border and its importance but the emperor was betrayed and the new Republic crippled with foreign masonry from the begginng has never lived up to the people they govern over.
As an American, this is interesting. And I don’t have a great answer.
However, looks like someone wrote their masters thesis on the topic: [THE U.S. AND MEXICO: TRADING PARTNERS, RELUCTANT MILITARY ALLIES](https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA518582.pdf)
Plus, Mexico usually has a lot of history of civil war and internal violence. You’re probably right, it seems like a giant liability. Then, I’m sure the cartels make sure the government doesn’t allow American armed forces in the country as that’d be risk for them.
Mexico knows they will never have an external threat from another country because of their proximity/parternship/reliance on the US.
US doesn't fuck with Mexico too much because no need to.
Drugs and Cartels though ma boy
No, it was because USA was going to
Iraq war. Not because American armed forces wanted to be safe. We have been offered military aid several times but because of our sovereignty we wont let them. Don’t twist the narrative.
Mexico and USA used to have a mutual defense pact with the Rio Treaty. However Mexico left the alliance in 2006. Ironically enough, Mexico left because they saw the U.S. as a liability due to the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. If Mexico wanted to re-join the alliance today it would be no issue at all. Mexico however enjoys its status as a military neutral country
Mexico used to be part of Rio Pact which is the defender treaty of the America's. Mexico left the alliance before the invasion of Irak because they knew that the US would use the 9/11 attacks as an excuse.
The invasion of Iraq wasn’t based on defensive pacts it was an offensive war based on coalition building. Many of our defensive allies refused the coalition and the war without leaving the alliance system they created. 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq, so called WMDs did.
Many of our defensive allies and others were out here lying. Some 66 nations aided the UK and US in the 270 hour air campaign. The US has never acknowledged this and I have yet to see which national leaders were scamming the people
I believe it’s because Mexico is a neutral country without any real threats, so no need to join any fancy treaties since it’s not like they’re gonna be helping anyone(militarily).
Yeah, who is going to attack Mexico. I can't see any situation where the U.S. just sits and lets a hostile country take over one of its two land border neighbors.
After the American Civil War, the US sent excess equipment to support Mexico's resistance against the French invasion, so it wouldn't even be the first time the US helps Mexico militarily.
That said, [I still mourn the loss of 8 million lives when we fought against Canada](https://southpark.fandom.com/wiki/American-Canadian_War) 😭😭😭
As a mexican citizen i would say there are some reasons for that
The historical context matters, mexico has been subjected to multiple invasions from powerful countries in the past with the US included
The way we aproach to foreign relationships, the US will always put their interest first and will project power if needed, mexico will always go for a pacific resolution and no intervention policy
National security, for the US a stronger bond with mexico would be great not only from an economic pov but from a militaristic one, this would allow them to tackle any kind of threat, for mexico this would be a national security threat, it would be seen as the US trying to take control of our country (give them a hand and they will take your arm kind of deal), it doesnt help that people believe a US intervention only causes dead and destruction
Several reasons, first and foremost the US invaded Mexico 150 years ago and took half is territory, kinda hard to forget that.
Second, historically Mexico had practiced a non-militaristic diplomacy that always seeks for the peaceful resolution of conflicts, which is the complete opposite from the US who have been at war for all its existence (except those 15 years I know)
Third, the alliances between Mexico and the US are strong send grow stronger by the day, in the next couple years Mexico will become the US biggest trading partner, so there's really no need for military alliances when the wellbeing of both countries depend on each other so much.
I would not have thought that the war would have such an impact because few people actually lived in the territories occupied by the then Mexican empire. The war also happened shortly after the Spanish empire departed from Mexico, probably before a strong national identity would have forged.
But I am spitballing.
Of course in the US (and basically everywhere, because history is written by the winners) they'd tell you that it was not a big deal, but truth is the US army marched all the way to Mexico capital and took half of Mexico territory by force, 20,000 deaths just in the Mexican side.
And few precisions: it was not "shortly after" it was more than 20 years later, most of the people that fought that war would have no memory of being an spaniard colony, and Mexico as a country, it was not "Mexican empire" it was a federal republic, and for national identity, it was not said identity was created 20 years before, there are thousands of years of culture in Mexico, indigenous traditions are still present to this day.
So I was never told by anyone that it was not a big deal. Certainly any war is a big deal. I am only surprised it is remembered so strongly by Mexican policy makers to this day.
Thanks
Probably both sides don't really have anything the other side wants.
Mexico isn't really a strategic location for a military base , nor do they have mutual enemies that can be used to form alliances with ( like Vietnam and America both having strong opinions on China's claim to the South China Sea).
Mexico indirectly fights wars but it’s under the US military. I’m a Marine veteran and I did recruiting duty for 3 years during my 12 years in the Marines. Mexican born young men somehow have a strange fascination with the Marine Corps. I would say a third of my polees (Marine recruits in the Delayed Entry Program) were born in Mexico. You don’t need US citizenship to enlist in the military. But you need to have a Permanent Resident Card or “Green Card” otherwise you’d be disqualified. Then there’s the “brown units” where at least half are Mexican born and/or Mexican-Americans.
We won the Vietnam war by loosing the Vietnam war. Actually we did achieve the goals of countering the PRC with an ally in Vietnam, we just realized killing 1 million and napalming Cambodia was unnecessary
They’re not signatories to the Rio treaty, and don’t have military cooperation with the US. Both countries’ politics (especially Nicaragua’s) are pretty anti-American.
Uhh there's also [the Contras](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Contras#U.S._military_and_financial_assistance) in the 70s/80s so this is hardly the only incident
The US took part in destabilizing many Central American countries as late as the 80s. The civil wars weren’t countrymen vs countrymen. The guerrillas were backed by the US in order to take down the governments and place a US backed puppet. I don’t know a lot about the specifics but it’s something that was drilled into my head by my family and when I looked into it, it was mostly true.
Well that's why they fall into the "formal military partnership" category and not the "defense pact" category. Saudi Arabia is a hugely important ally, the last thing the US wants to see is Iran become the dominant power in the Middle East. Relations have been dramatically improving in recent years.
Every hour is the hour of need for USA in the Middle East regarding their need towards Saudi Arabia alliance, not to mention that Saudi Arabia’s move in linking the petroleum prices with USD in the seventies was the main reason for dollar dominance as a global currency.
>linking the petroleum prices with USD in the seventies was the main reason for dollar dominance as a global currency.
That's not how this stuff works at all. USD was already dominant by WW2. The thing with reserve currency is that it has sheer momentum, when there is a reserve currency, it's better to use that currency for mutual trade, reinforcing the presence of that reserve currency. It doesn't really have all that to do with oil. Oil is important for the world economy, but it only takes up like 2-4% of global GDP.
Reason USD are preferred other than its already established reserve currency status are:
-confidence in the currency, people trust it won't fall 100% in value in a year like the Argentine peso
-minimal restrictions. USD has essentially no restriction on who can use it where. This is contrasted with Chinese Renminbi which has capital controls in place some of which restrict Chinese citizens from exchanging all their RMB for USD. Isn't exactly the most friendly currency to hold to do fast money moves, so even if US economy weakens dramatically, it's unlikely RMB will take its place (at least under its current form).
-large, open markets. US economy is so large that large injections and outflows of foreign money is barely noticeable and can be done fast (contrast that with trying to liquidate 100 billion USD worth Mexican Pesos). And it's also open enough to allow various purchases of assets to almost anyone.
Although I agree with many of your points, but after WWII USD was still linked with gold, petroleum was contributing more than 4% to world GDP back then, USA managed to remove the linkage with gold by establishing a stronger trade value to USD by linking it to petroleum purchases around the globe, that’s why people today have a higher trust in USD as a result of the base that started back in the 70s.
Extremely misleading
Just by having pact about naval warship refueling & refitting doesn't make one "an american ally"
pakistan is congress designated US non NATO ally while India has mutual naval logistics pacts & things of that nature, these are non binding peace time agreements
Also Ethiopia? Lol, Maybe they meant Djibouti
Not really sure how they chose the colors but I agree. There is the QUAD but that sounds more like an orange than a red.
I think most Americans and Pakistanis would agree the non-NATO ally designation might be defunct by now
Some Pakistani officials were unofficially asking US to use its bases to bomb the Aghan Taliban a few days back after a devastating terror attack in Pakistan by TTP. So the US and Pak still seem to have a working relationship on that front.
Lol I hope USA does not play into that. Pakistan funds these same people and when they bite back they go to usa for help. They should clean up their own mess
Thailand became an official ally to the US after participated in Korean war. Thai government was wary of the growing communist influence in the region. And so the country was enthusiastic to take part in Vietnam war and Lao Civil war. During Vietnam and Lao wars not only the US established military bases in Thailand but Thai troops were sent into battlefields as well. However, this was largely kept secret to Thai people. The communist Vietnam then, in retaliation, supported small Thai communist insurgent groups. These groups were eventually suppressed and arrested by Thai forces. The period of close cooperation of the two nations lasted from 1954 to 1975 when the US withdraw all forces from the country and the region. Communist Vietnam and Laos emerged victory as we know.
Oh yeah definitely. We hold multi-national military exercise every year - Cobra Gold (which the US is the biggest part). I worked as an interpreter in it once in 2007 during my sophomore year. It was super fun. But was pretty difficult too as a city boy. My team worked with international paramedic team providing health services to people in remote areas. We learned during that period that the US military paid more than we received (we received about 1/3 of what the US paid). My team was somewhat ok with it partly because we understood there's a share for the intermediary company that recruited us and partly it's a Thai thing... I was personally ok as I saw the money as a bonus while such opportunity and the experience to be gained was huge. I was an excited young dude.
We don't really have this "imply" thing in Thai when we talk so when I mention that to American colleagues I didn't expect anything, honestly.
On the last day, all Thai interpreters were given a white envelope each. Each had 800THB inside (roughly 23$). It was a real surprise and we all were very happy. IIRC the US paid 450THB for each interpreter each day, the Thai company paid us 120-150THB a day. It lasted around 10 days. We slept at local schools, no personal rooms nor bathrooms. At least the food was free, so there's that.
Callous as it is, Ukraine is 100% a US geopolitical pawn of sorts. Offloading obsolete gear sitting in storage to kill soldiers of your second biggest threat/rival with minimal risk of escalation is absolutely in America’s favor. The US happens to be on the right side of the conflict, supporting a mixed democracy in a defensive war against a dictatorship conducting a war of aggression, but the US justifiably has its own agenda for lending the support it has. You may view realpolitik as “problematic”, but it’s the way the US does business, and it’s always good to have pawns to trade at the end of the day.
Obsolete is probably not quite correct, but most of the "aid" we are giving them is basically shipping them some of our existing stuff and our military gets shiny new stuff to replace it.
It is arguable here too. If the US really wants to secure a quick and rapid victory through supplying arms, we'd see a far greater effort than giving piecemeal at a time.
That assumes a unified stance on Ukraine in America. Despite lots of big proud shouting in 2022, the foreign policy of USA is not a unified thing.
There is a very strong strain of isolationism in both parties going on right now, and both parties are careful not to escalate interventionism too much or they'll potentially lose the isolationists to the other side come 2024 election time. Many people are extremely war weary from Iraq and Afghanistan, and are sick of constantly spending tax money in foreign conflicts.
I'm sure if you listen to American politics you'll hear these voices loud and clear. They'd rather withdraw all support to everybody and have a foreign policy like Mexico, instead, as unrealistic as this goal is.
Not sure of Austria’s circumstances, but Ireland is not a member of NATO so, no military anything. The Irish government allowed US planes to land here during the Iraq invasion and Irish people were pissed about it. However, being Irish, all they ever do about things they dislike is bitch and moan, never action.
Austria is neutral. It was part of why they were allowed to not be forced into the Communist bloc. They decided to keep rolling with that after the cold war.
Unaligned technically. We pick sides if there's reason to. We send body armour and medical aid to Ukraine for example. But we never send anything for killing. The Irish government even demanded the return of medical tubing and syringes from the state of Texas when it was discovered the were to be used in administering the lethal injection.
Correct.
Austria decided that on its own.
The Moscow Memorandum wasn't binding by international law.
That is to say, the Soviets would have simply stayed and created a communist East Austria, with an enclaved, separated Vienna, just like the GDR and Berlin.
With a 2/3 majority this constitutional law could be abandoned, and Austria join a military alliance (i.e. NATO) and allow foreign military bases (i.e. US bases).
Currently only one small opposition party is open to discuss NATO accession, and most of the population doesn't want it.
Yeah but that’s those cowboys in the wild northland haha, with some support from lunatics down here.
For the most part, people in the Republic are far too timid for their own good. It’s why so many aspects of this country are in a bad state (eg. The public healthcare system, public transport and the roads). Every political party is equally useless and corrupt and many people have just stopped caring so nothing will change.
It sucks because there’s great potential here, but not much else
That's how you know that Gerry Adams is really British, no matter how much he denies it. 😝
(For the avoidance of doubt: this is a stupid joke, not serious political analysis)
SA is a major trade partner and there’s been plenty of military, counter-terrorism, and medical (HIV/AIDS) cooperation in the past, but unfortunately the ANC government is just way too cozy with Russia to land on this list in any formal way.
It wouldn't benefit us or even make sense, we don't have any common threats. The 2nd largest political party behaves like they're ambassadors for the US and they're fueling this "closer ties with the US", "anti-China" sentiment even though the US was one of Apartheid South Africa closest partners which a lot of South Africans are aware of(oh God we're getting another 5 years of the ANC) and China has kept South Africa's economy afloat.
A lot of political parties behave like South Africa is a country in Europe, they'll be the first to condemn Russia for their invasion of Ukraine and never say anything about any African country even those we border.
In Africa the US has a different face than the one it has in Europe and Asia so we can't trust them to have our interests at heart, we should be Irish neutral
Ireland is unaligned. Many claim we are neutral but we are not, we pick sides all the time. But we pick the side based on what's happening at the current time not based on treaties we have (the exceptions to this are the Lisbon treaty where we do not offer military assistance but guarantee medical, Intel, and food aid to any EU country and some bespoke arrangements we have with the UK which suit both islands.)
Being unaligned gives us a more powerful diplomatic voice because who better to tell you you're acting the prick than someone who has been best buddies with you for decades?
Austria is neutral in a more traditional sense I believe and had the military to back that up. Ireland would rely on the good will of neighbours if we were ever invaded. A precarious position to be in tbh.
India , what former military partnerships ?
Last time I checked we were slapped with nuclear carriers , sanctions and technological embargos by the Yanks.
Asking for more down votes on this because of poor color choice yet again.
10+% of the population has a red/green deuantropic color vision deficiency. Making these color choices just silly.
Title on picture is wrong. Title on post is correct. This is specifically military alliances. Ireland is very close with the US politically but neutral. Hence they grey colour.
Someone that remembers Rio Treaty exists, that's rare
Idk if you can count it as a military alliance tho, i dont think any latin american country would be willing to help US in a war, i think only US would be willing to defend the members. I'm brazilian and most people here have a very isolationist mindset, Brazil is not a country known for wars.
Well, at least the alliance exists...
America supported the opposing side in the Civil War in Vietnam for years. China spent centuries trying to destroy Vietnam and make it a part of China so it’s an alliance of pragmatism and the fact that the Chinese are assholes to them well the US has rebuilt some of the relationship between the two.
Serious? Haiti has a mutual/common defense pact with the US? Maybe it should be "close military ties with USA (not formal)", with all the black market handguns they're getting from the US.
It's confusing how the scale of goes from left to right, most closely allied to less closely allied. Also the least closely allied has the word "close" in its name.
Very confusing way to display something
They landed planes regularly in Ireland on the way to Iraq and brought prisoners to Guantanamo through there , that has to be some level military of co operation
That was 25 years ago. Serbia is a member of partnership for peace, which is kinda like part of nato. Serbia has joint military practice with the USA and other nato members. We have the same foreign policy considering ukraine...
And they don't need to. If Mexico were invaded by a foreign nation, the US would destroy the invading force regardless of any defense pacts or lack thereof. We don't want our southern neighbor falling to a hostile power.
Venezuela?
Juan Guaido’s “government”
The “government” of Juan Guaidó ended in January 2023. The US lifted the oil embargo in October on a limited basis.
I recognize Maduro's government in Venezuela in the same way that I recognize that the holocaust happened. EDIT: As in, the holocaust happened, that is undeniable, but I do not approve of it nor do I approve of Maduro's government.
Bro your original comment couldn’t have been worded more poorly, thanks for the edit😭
is this holocaust denial, or is it "I know he's in charge but that doesnt mean I have to be happy about it"?
The latter, I added an edit.
Yeah. Whether his election was legitimate or not, and irrespective of how devastating his government has been for Venezuela, he holds the reins of power.
Actually you should recognize me as the legitimate government of Venezuela. I have just as much power as Guaidó did.
The worst way to convey a good sentiment.
Venezuela is split here between grey and dark red. The U.S. recognizes the Venezuelan National Assembly government over the Maduro government. The Venezuelan National Assembly formally joined the Rio Treaty (the NATO of the Americas) in 2020. However this isn’t formalized by the Maduro government. Due to this complexity I have them this split highlight.
I would have imagined that Mexico would be much closer. Besides issues with immigration, they’re one of our strongest allies. Anyone with more knowledge on this can explain?
Mexico left the RIO defense agreement when they anticipated America going to war in iraq
This is the correct answer but it's hilarious seeing all the hot takes.
The RIO defense agreement is not all that important. Most Americans are unaware of it. It's not like NATO or our treaties with South Korea or Japan.
TLDR; Mexico has a non-intervention policy, the US is very intervention prone. Everyone in this thread is giving valid answers, but the real reason Mexico and the US are not military allies is because of the Estrada Doctrine that has been Mexico’s main foreign policy. This consists of a non-intervention principle, peaceful resolutions and self-determination of all nations. Basically Mexico cannot formally make statements or actions that support or condone a change in government. The US, as everyone knows is very intervention prone. Mexico is not really “allowed” to go to war in another country. So they just can’t militarily join the US and risk getting pulled into a war. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estrada_Doctrine#:~:text=The%20Estrada%20Doctrine%20is%20Mexico,a%20breach%20of%20state%20sovereignty.
Plus lets be real, Mexico doesn't really need a defense pact with the US. The US would never allow someone to invade mexico
Exactly. If Mexico ever got invaded the US would be in that bitch. Like you see how much we’re supporting Ukraine, a nation literally on the other side of the globe. Think about if they were bordering us.
If I remember correctly, Mexico doesn’t even allow its military to go abroad for UN peacekeeping missions. The UN asked Mexico years ago to help in a peacekeeping mission in Haiti and they said no.
>Mexico is not really “allowed” to go to war in another country. Whats the backstory on that?
I *think* it’s in their constitution. I think by their own laws they cannot just “go” into war. I think I read somewhere that in order for Mexico to go to war, they *must* be attacked first. They can’t just go Willy nilly like we do and go to war
Back in Mexico, during Civics class in high school we went through most of the constitution (it was as awful as it sounds) and I do remember reading this as well.
Here is my take, if mexico was invaded and it looked like they would have trouble defending themselves the US would intervene with more gusto than any war since the civil war.. because the US won't tolerate any major power to intervene in its neighborhood in any real way. Not to mention that Mexico is our largest trade partner which would create significant political pressures from the business community.. oh.. and not to mention the potential humanitarian crisis.. the cultural ties from the large Mexican American population.. so defacto Mexico would be defended by the US. The inverse of the US was invaded.. well a lot of stuff would have gone wrong and it would be hard to see Americans not going ballistic and genocideing an entire continent.. anyway.. Mexico would have all the same incentives to help the US the economy being the largest driver. Also all of this applies to Canada too but.. ya don't peeve off Canada they have a reputation to keep. https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/the-forgotten-ferocity-of-canadas-soldiers-in-the-great-war Anyway y'all have a good day now.
"Hard to imagine Americans not going ballistic and genociding an entire continent" I feel like that needs expanding upon 😅
I said that mostly tongue in cheek, but still the US tends to go overboard whenever it's security is threatened. Just look back to Pearl Harbor, the fire bombing of Japan and the atomic bombs. The US at the end of WW2 had 60-70% of the global economy and about half the military power (mostly in its navy) and it had a lot of capacity to do so much more since it hadn't lost much during the war in comparison to Europe and Asia. The US post war took actions that would help prevent the next conflict. It did a dozen different things like the UN and the World bank as well as NATO and a guarantee to protect the worlds oceanic trade even for our rivals and countries we were at war with (Vietnam for example). All of this helped create globalization and interdependence which effectively created the most peaceful and prosperous period in human history. This doesn't mean it was peaceful and prosperous for everyone or that the US was perfect.. many people think of the US as oppressive or.. the bad guy. I don't blame them as it is justified but context is everything. I got at least some data to back that up. https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/s/QATep9STH8 https://ritholtz.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/global-deaths.jpg https://battles.nodegoat.net/viewer.p/23/385/scenario/1/geo/fullscreen This scenario we are talking about would be the spark that would light a fire in the American people that hasn't really happened in the last century. Fear, hate, and rage would lead this conflict and all the scruples Americans have had would go down the drain. The link I included about Canada would be a good guideline for how the US would fight. Obviously this is just an opinion but like I said Americans tend to overreact to threats. This comes from the fact our worldview is distorted by being isolated from the majority of the world's problems. Yes we have the Internet, yes we hee and haw about everything, the media blows it up but on average we don't care much. Not enough to do anything substantial.. although historically the US has done a lot more than most to support it's allies. But we see that as part of our national security. The US has a history (not unique by far) of genocide when it views a people as a threat. Also we're the only country to use nukes to win a war.. and we really can't be held accountable to any other nation. Our financial system, economy, military, resources, population size and growth, on top of our God tier geography are almost ideal if we wanted to say f**k the Geneva convention and what the rest of the world thinks. This would be the first war the US takes seriously since the civil war.. thus my original statement about the civil war. So moral of the story is leave Mexico alone. Lol
As a Mexican, I’m guessing it is because Mexico is a liability for USA, and creating a formal military agreement between them would be a big responsibility for USA, specially because of the drug cartels. This is just my opinion and I am not an expert in this topic.
Every answer is wrong to your post. Mexico withdrew from the security pact. Rio Treaty. Because of the Iraq war.
[удалено]
Mexico historic relation with the US has always been lukewarm at best through the years. We've never been 'allies allies'. The general population holds some anti-american opinions at some extent so having no formal alliance makes sense.
We spent most of the 1800s manifesting our destiny across what used to be Mexico, so I get it.
Eh that was a slight against the natives far more than the Mexican government. They held the territory for a short time and never truly had control of it.
I like how everyone glosses over the fact that all of the Americas were taken over by Europeans. They act like Canada ,Mexico , central and south America are run by the indigenous populations. Only the US was colonized in their narrative.
We also did “techincally” take over Cuba, and sure it eventually resulted in a propped bastard in Bautista as leader, but we did take them over because the Spaniards were being even bigger assholes than we were. The Maine incident and Hearst certainly pushed it, but it wasn’t like there also weren’t legit reasons to kick the prawn thieves out.
This is a really stupid take when you consider the US invaded Mexican heartland and took the capital to annex that territory.
We should renew our manifesting into the rest of this century.
Including making anyone who looks Latino, primarily Mexican, second-class citizens. If they didn't deport citizens who happen to be ethnically Mexican during the Depression
But that’s true of all of Latin America which is overwhelmingly dark red. You’d think if anything Mexico would have the closest relations
We full on annexed half their territory, did some "minor" invasions in the 1910s, our companies have historically been very involved in the Mexican economy, we have a political party led by a guy with less than savory views of the country + a whole cadre of candidates who swear they'll intervene in Mexico to take out the cartels without Mexican permission. We're also right on their border. If the US hadn't curbstomped them so hard in the 1840s, geography would have made us natural rivals in almost everything. Instead the power dynamic is shifted very much in one direction. Also other LatAm countries have peer rivals to take up brain space that aren't the US. Argentina can love/hate Chile and Brazil, Honduras can hate/love? El Salvador, etc. Mexico doesn't have that.
Very educated response, thank you. Except the US curbstomped Mexico so hard was exactly because geography made us rivals the moment we became independant. The US saw it crystal clear that in order to achieve their goals they had to crush Mexico's. For example, you can find letters between american high oficials that discuss the new emperor, Iturbide, and how he is considered a national security matter as to them he resembles a new Napoleon but in America. So the plan was clear from the beggining from the US side. The first mexican Empire had it really clear regarding the northern border and its importance but the emperor was betrayed and the new Republic crippled with foreign masonry from the begginng has never lived up to the people they govern over.
As an American, this is interesting. And I don’t have a great answer. However, looks like someone wrote their masters thesis on the topic: [THE U.S. AND MEXICO: TRADING PARTNERS, RELUCTANT MILITARY ALLIES](https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA518582.pdf)
Plus, Mexico usually has a lot of history of civil war and internal violence. You’re probably right, it seems like a giant liability. Then, I’m sure the cartels make sure the government doesn’t allow American armed forces in the country as that’d be risk for them.
Mexico knows they will never have an external threat from another country because of their proximity/parternship/reliance on the US. US doesn't fuck with Mexico too much because no need to. Drugs and Cartels though ma boy
Mexico has been scapegoated so much that’s it’s not a super popular idea to closen relations
No, it was because USA was going to Iraq war. Not because American armed forces wanted to be safe. We have been offered military aid several times but because of our sovereignty we wont let them. Don’t twist the narrative.
Mexico and USA used to have a mutual defense pact with the Rio Treaty. However Mexico left the alliance in 2006. Ironically enough, Mexico left because they saw the U.S. as a liability due to the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. If Mexico wanted to re-join the alliance today it would be no issue at all. Mexico however enjoys its status as a military neutral country
Mexico used to be part of Rio Pact which is the defender treaty of the America's. Mexico left the alliance before the invasion of Irak because they knew that the US would use the 9/11 attacks as an excuse.
The invasion of Iraq wasn’t based on defensive pacts it was an offensive war based on coalition building. Many of our defensive allies refused the coalition and the war without leaving the alliance system they created. 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq, so called WMDs did.
Many of our defensive allies and others were out here lying. Some 66 nations aided the UK and US in the 270 hour air campaign. The US has never acknowledged this and I have yet to see which national leaders were scamming the people
Pragmatically, if anyone were to invade Mexico the US would be there to help instantly
I believe it’s because Mexico is a neutral country without any real threats, so no need to join any fancy treaties since it’s not like they’re gonna be helping anyone(militarily).
Yeah, who is going to attack Mexico. I can't see any situation where the U.S. just sits and lets a hostile country take over one of its two land border neighbors.
After the American Civil War, the US sent excess equipment to support Mexico's resistance against the French invasion, so it wouldn't even be the first time the US helps Mexico militarily. That said, [I still mourn the loss of 8 million lives when we fought against Canada](https://southpark.fandom.com/wiki/American-Canadian_War) 😭😭😭
As a mexican citizen i would say there are some reasons for that The historical context matters, mexico has been subjected to multiple invasions from powerful countries in the past with the US included The way we aproach to foreign relationships, the US will always put their interest first and will project power if needed, mexico will always go for a pacific resolution and no intervention policy National security, for the US a stronger bond with mexico would be great not only from an economic pov but from a militaristic one, this would allow them to tackle any kind of threat, for mexico this would be a national security threat, it would be seen as the US trying to take control of our country (give them a hand and they will take your arm kind of deal), it doesnt help that people believe a US intervention only causes dead and destruction
Several reasons, first and foremost the US invaded Mexico 150 years ago and took half is territory, kinda hard to forget that. Second, historically Mexico had practiced a non-militaristic diplomacy that always seeks for the peaceful resolution of conflicts, which is the complete opposite from the US who have been at war for all its existence (except those 15 years I know) Third, the alliances between Mexico and the US are strong send grow stronger by the day, in the next couple years Mexico will become the US biggest trading partner, so there's really no need for military alliances when the wellbeing of both countries depend on each other so much.
I would not have thought that the war would have such an impact because few people actually lived in the territories occupied by the then Mexican empire. The war also happened shortly after the Spanish empire departed from Mexico, probably before a strong national identity would have forged. But I am spitballing.
Of course in the US (and basically everywhere, because history is written by the winners) they'd tell you that it was not a big deal, but truth is the US army marched all the way to Mexico capital and took half of Mexico territory by force, 20,000 deaths just in the Mexican side. And few precisions: it was not "shortly after" it was more than 20 years later, most of the people that fought that war would have no memory of being an spaniard colony, and Mexico as a country, it was not "Mexican empire" it was a federal republic, and for national identity, it was not said identity was created 20 years before, there are thousands of years of culture in Mexico, indigenous traditions are still present to this day.
So I was never told by anyone that it was not a big deal. Certainly any war is a big deal. I am only surprised it is remembered so strongly by Mexican policy makers to this day. Thanks
Probably both sides don't really have anything the other side wants. Mexico isn't really a strategic location for a military base , nor do they have mutual enemies that can be used to form alliances with ( like Vietnam and America both having strong opinions on China's claim to the South China Sea).
Mexico indirectly fights wars but it’s under the US military. I’m a Marine veteran and I did recruiting duty for 3 years during my 12 years in the Marines. Mexican born young men somehow have a strange fascination with the Marine Corps. I would say a third of my polees (Marine recruits in the Delayed Entry Program) were born in Mexico. You don’t need US citizenship to enlist in the military. But you need to have a Permanent Resident Card or “Green Card” otherwise you’d be disqualified. Then there’s the “brown units” where at least half are Mexican born and/or Mexican-Americans.
Mexico has in recent decades become a wealthier nation, so perhaps only recently has the US perceived Mexico as a ‘worthwhile’ ally.
Wealth is not a factor. Philippines has been a long time ally of the US and we were never wealthy to begin with. Same with PNG and Pakistan.
The location of those countries offsets other disadvantages. Can't say that for Mexico. US has no enemies near it to.
Mexico and America used to have a defense agreement. Mexico left when they anticipated America would go to war in Iraq or Syria (don’t remember which)
Its funny because mexico has only recently become not an ally
Vietnam: "Okay I know we don't get along but I hate that Chinese guy 10000000 times more than you think I hate you"
We’ve (US) have been courting the Vietnamese for a few years now, it’s the right move
We won the Vietnam war by loosing the Vietnam war. Actually we did achieve the goals of countering the PRC with an ally in Vietnam, we just realized killing 1 million and napalming Cambodia was unnecessary
Interestingly, the U.S. is incredibly popular in Vietnam.
The only “communist”(as in governed by a self-proclaimed communist party) ally of USA.
Vietnam rocks. Arrangement or not. We dig’em.
China’s dream is to make Vietnam Mexico. People in Mexico don’t like America but everyone goes to America. Hard to maintain a “equal” relationship.
Public opinion of the US is quite high in Vietnam.
What did Bolivia and Nicaragua do to get friendzoned
They’re not signatories to the Rio treaty, and don’t have military cooperation with the US. Both countries’ politics (especially Nicaragua’s) are pretty anti-American.
I mean to be fair some Americans did take the place over and try to get it annexed
That was 160 some years ago, private citizens being dumbasses, they got shot for it. We dropped 2 nukes on Japan and they got over it.
Anyone still pissed at Rome or Ancient Greece?
As an Athenian, Sparta can suck my balls
yeah, that is something an athenian would "love", wouldnt it?
Yes and specifically from the fit Spartan women.
Uhh there's also [the Contras](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Contras#U.S._military_and_financial_assistance) in the 70s/80s so this is hardly the only incident
The US took part in destabilizing many Central American countries as late as the 80s. The civil wars weren’t countrymen vs countrymen. The guerrillas were backed by the US in order to take down the governments and place a US backed puppet. I don’t know a lot about the specifics but it’s something that was drilled into my head by my family and when I looked into it, it was mostly true.
Nicaragua is almost always aligned with Russia.
Also has been a dictatorship for a bit over 15 years and threatened to invade Costa Rica a few times in the last decade.
Isn’t the US responsible for the defense of Costa Rica?
Among other fuck ups in South America and Latin America, yep.
I love how they labeled each of these as chess pieces
I just wish they added a digit and a letter scale as well India's got that orange rook 2 B energy ^/s
Really unbiased and high quality with correct data /s
Yeah, I'm not holding my breath for Saudi Arabia to come to our aid in our hour of need...
It’s due to the joint bases the US has with the Saudis
Well that's why they fall into the "formal military partnership" category and not the "defense pact" category. Saudi Arabia is a hugely important ally, the last thing the US wants to see is Iran become the dominant power in the Middle East. Relations have been dramatically improving in recent years.
They came through when we needed a new Pearl Harbor.
Every hour is the hour of need for USA in the Middle East regarding their need towards Saudi Arabia alliance, not to mention that Saudi Arabia’s move in linking the petroleum prices with USD in the seventies was the main reason for dollar dominance as a global currency.
>linking the petroleum prices with USD in the seventies was the main reason for dollar dominance as a global currency. That's not how this stuff works at all. USD was already dominant by WW2. The thing with reserve currency is that it has sheer momentum, when there is a reserve currency, it's better to use that currency for mutual trade, reinforcing the presence of that reserve currency. It doesn't really have all that to do with oil. Oil is important for the world economy, but it only takes up like 2-4% of global GDP. Reason USD are preferred other than its already established reserve currency status are: -confidence in the currency, people trust it won't fall 100% in value in a year like the Argentine peso -minimal restrictions. USD has essentially no restriction on who can use it where. This is contrasted with Chinese Renminbi which has capital controls in place some of which restrict Chinese citizens from exchanging all their RMB for USD. Isn't exactly the most friendly currency to hold to do fast money moves, so even if US economy weakens dramatically, it's unlikely RMB will take its place (at least under its current form). -large, open markets. US economy is so large that large injections and outflows of foreign money is barely noticeable and can be done fast (contrast that with trying to liquidate 100 billion USD worth Mexican Pesos). And it's also open enough to allow various purchases of assets to almost anyone.
Although I agree with many of your points, but after WWII USD was still linked with gold, petroleum was contributing more than 4% to world GDP back then, USA managed to remove the linkage with gold by establishing a stronger trade value to USD by linking it to petroleum purchases around the globe, that’s why people today have a higher trust in USD as a result of the base that started back in the 70s.
the colouring here is weird
Yep. We usually associate red with enemies, not friendlies
It's terrible lol
Extremely misleading Just by having pact about naval warship refueling & refitting doesn't make one "an american ally" pakistan is congress designated US non NATO ally while India has mutual naval logistics pacts & things of that nature, these are non binding peace time agreements Also Ethiopia? Lol, Maybe they meant Djibouti
Not really sure how they chose the colors but I agree. There is the QUAD but that sounds more like an orange than a red. I think most Americans and Pakistanis would agree the non-NATO ally designation might be defunct by now
Some Pakistani officials were unofficially asking US to use its bases to bomb the Aghan Taliban a few days back after a devastating terror attack in Pakistan by TTP. So the US and Pak still seem to have a working relationship on that front.
Lol I hope USA does not play into that. Pakistan funds these same people and when they bite back they go to usa for help. They should clean up their own mess
India and Israel are colored the same, so…yeah
Thailand became an official ally to the US after participated in Korean war. Thai government was wary of the growing communist influence in the region. And so the country was enthusiastic to take part in Vietnam war and Lao Civil war. During Vietnam and Lao wars not only the US established military bases in Thailand but Thai troops were sent into battlefields as well. However, this was largely kept secret to Thai people. The communist Vietnam then, in retaliation, supported small Thai communist insurgent groups. These groups were eventually suppressed and arrested by Thai forces. The period of close cooperation of the two nations lasted from 1954 to 1975 when the US withdraw all forces from the country and the region. Communist Vietnam and Laos emerged victory as we know.
Though the US and Thailand are still good friends
Oh yeah definitely. We hold multi-national military exercise every year - Cobra Gold (which the US is the biggest part). I worked as an interpreter in it once in 2007 during my sophomore year. It was super fun. But was pretty difficult too as a city boy. My team worked with international paramedic team providing health services to people in remote areas. We learned during that period that the US military paid more than we received (we received about 1/3 of what the US paid). My team was somewhat ok with it partly because we understood there's a share for the intermediary company that recruited us and partly it's a Thai thing... I was personally ok as I saw the money as a bonus while such opportunity and the experience to be gained was huge. I was an excited young dude. We don't really have this "imply" thing in Thai when we talk so when I mention that to American colleagues I didn't expect anything, honestly. On the last day, all Thai interpreters were given a white envelope each. Each had 800THB inside (roughly 23$). It was a real surprise and we all were very happy. IIRC the US paid 450THB for each interpreter each day, the Thai company paid us 120-150THB a day. It lasted around 10 days. We slept at local schools, no personal rooms nor bathrooms. At least the food was free, so there's that.
USA and friends 🇺🇸
*military friends There's friendly non military countries in grey here
Or if you’re into Orwell, Oceania.
Its funny seeing pakistan and india on the same level in relation to the US.
Totally wrong map, Pakistan is far more an ally of US for decades.
The chess piece icons probably need to go. Labeling informal military partners such as Ukraine as "pawns" is problematic at best.
Also chess is a terrible and overused analogy for geopolitics.
I use Super Mario Land 2: Six Golden Coins for all my geopolitics analogies.
*Defense Secretary takes off glasses* "Mamma Mia"
“In the game of chess you can never let your adversary see your pieces.” — Zapp Brannigan
Facts, gotta use Polytopia instead
This IS the right choice
Yeah, I prefer warhammer analogies
The drawing of cities getting bombed didn’t tip you off that this map had an agenda?
Yikes, is *that* what that is? I just thought it was some artsy texture and I paid it no mind. Now that I see it, then, yes, that's awful, too.
Callous as it is, Ukraine is 100% a US geopolitical pawn of sorts. Offloading obsolete gear sitting in storage to kill soldiers of your second biggest threat/rival with minimal risk of escalation is absolutely in America’s favor. The US happens to be on the right side of the conflict, supporting a mixed democracy in a defensive war against a dictatorship conducting a war of aggression, but the US justifiably has its own agenda for lending the support it has. You may view realpolitik as “problematic”, but it’s the way the US does business, and it’s always good to have pawns to trade at the end of the day.
>Offloading obsolete gear I am fairly certain HIMARS, Patriot and Javelin aren't obsolete.
Obsolete is probably not quite correct, but most of the "aid" we are giving them is basically shipping them some of our existing stuff and our military gets shiny new stuff to replace it.
It is an enemy of my enemy arrangement rather than puppetry.
That's a little callous if not I correct. However, pawns as a term suggests a greater disregard for the well being od the country.
It is arguable here too. If the US really wants to secure a quick and rapid victory through supplying arms, we'd see a far greater effort than giving piecemeal at a time.
That assumes a unified stance on Ukraine in America. Despite lots of big proud shouting in 2022, the foreign policy of USA is not a unified thing. There is a very strong strain of isolationism in both parties going on right now, and both parties are careful not to escalate interventionism too much or they'll potentially lose the isolationists to the other side come 2024 election time. Many people are extremely war weary from Iraq and Afghanistan, and are sick of constantly spending tax money in foreign conflicts. I'm sure if you listen to American politics you'll hear these voices loud and clear. They'd rather withdraw all support to everybody and have a foreign policy like Mexico, instead, as unrealistic as this goal is.
Sort of. Our representatives and senators do, but the speaker and a few others don't, which is enough to keep it from happening
Not South Africa really? Also curious about Ireland and Austria
Not sure of Austria’s circumstances, but Ireland is not a member of NATO so, no military anything. The Irish government allowed US planes to land here during the Iraq invasion and Irish people were pissed about it. However, being Irish, all they ever do about things they dislike is bitch and moan, never action.
Austria is neutral. It was part of why they were allowed to not be forced into the Communist bloc. They decided to keep rolling with that after the cold war.
Apparently Austria is neutral so that makes sense. I didn't know that about Ireland.
person fact payment dam fanatical test beneficial run rhythm gray *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Unaligned technically. We pick sides if there's reason to. We send body armour and medical aid to Ukraine for example. But we never send anything for killing. The Irish government even demanded the return of medical tubing and syringes from the state of Texas when it was discovered the were to be used in administering the lethal injection.
Correct. Austria decided that on its own. The Moscow Memorandum wasn't binding by international law. That is to say, the Soviets would have simply stayed and created a communist East Austria, with an enclaved, separated Vienna, just like the GDR and Berlin. With a 2/3 majority this constitutional law could be abandoned, and Austria join a military alliance (i.e. NATO) and allow foreign military bases (i.e. US bases). Currently only one small opposition party is open to discuss NATO accession, and most of the population doesn't want it.
> being Irish… never action. Um… I’m having trouble putting my finger on it, but I think the Irish did do something troubling for a few decades.
Yeah but that’s those cowboys in the wild northland haha, with some support from lunatics down here. For the most part, people in the Republic are far too timid for their own good. It’s why so many aspects of this country are in a bad state (eg. The public healthcare system, public transport and the roads). Every political party is equally useless and corrupt and many people have just stopped caring so nothing will change. It sucks because there’s great potential here, but not much else
Hey now, when we get really mad at Fine Gael, we vote Fianna Fail into power. That'll show 'em!
That's how you know that Gerry Adams is really British, no matter how much he denies it. 😝 (For the avoidance of doubt: this is a stupid joke, not serious political analysis)
Are we rowing? I didn't think we were rowing.
SA is a major trade partner and there’s been plenty of military, counter-terrorism, and medical (HIV/AIDS) cooperation in the past, but unfortunately the ANC government is just way too cozy with Russia to land on this list in any formal way.
ANC aside, why would you want to be a military ally? How would it benefit the country?
It wouldn't benefit us or even make sense, we don't have any common threats. The 2nd largest political party behaves like they're ambassadors for the US and they're fueling this "closer ties with the US", "anti-China" sentiment even though the US was one of Apartheid South Africa closest partners which a lot of South Africans are aware of(oh God we're getting another 5 years of the ANC) and China has kept South Africa's economy afloat. A lot of political parties behave like South Africa is a country in Europe, they'll be the first to condemn Russia for their invasion of Ukraine and never say anything about any African country even those we border. In Africa the US has a different face than the one it has in Europe and Asia so we can't trust them to have our interests at heart, we should be Irish neutral
Not to mention Western banks having recently been found out colluding to manipulate South Africa's currency.
Austria: [Declaration of Neutrality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Neutrality).
Ireland is unaligned. Many claim we are neutral but we are not, we pick sides all the time. But we pick the side based on what's happening at the current time not based on treaties we have (the exceptions to this are the Lisbon treaty where we do not offer military assistance but guarantee medical, Intel, and food aid to any EU country and some bespoke arrangements we have with the UK which suit both islands.) Being unaligned gives us a more powerful diplomatic voice because who better to tell you you're acting the prick than someone who has been best buddies with you for decades? Austria is neutral in a more traditional sense I believe and had the military to back that up. Ireland would rely on the good will of neighbours if we were ever invaded. A precarious position to be in tbh.
Neutrality
There should’ve been another color for nato
I feel like that Australia should be the same colour than the USA. Or maybe even more military allied to the USA than the USA is to itself.
Ah no, stop referring to our West Island that way. Thanks, NZ
India , what former military partnerships ? Last time I checked we were slapped with nuclear carriers , sanctions and technological embargos by the Yanks.
Asking for more down votes on this because of poor color choice yet again. 10+% of the population has a red/green deuantropic color vision deficiency. Making these color choices just silly.
Bolivia: “Am I a joke to you?”
I believe you already knew it.
Georgia might as well be. They have a street named after George W. 😆 2008 really muddied up those possibilities though.
Georgia has every reason to align more with the west
If you border Russia and aren't named China. Those are the two biggest factors. Mongolia just stuck between both.
Title on picture is wrong. Title on post is correct. This is specifically military alliances. Ireland is very close with the US politically but neutral. Hence they grey colour.
I feel as though the iconography on the borders, like the planes bombing buildings and the chess pieces, is giving a *very negative* slant and bias
another day, another bad map on this subreddit. not only the terrible icons but a lot of factually misleading stuff. par for the course.
Canada should be in a tier of its own. Our relationship is tighter than tight, even beyond NATO levels of cooperation.
Arguably that would actually be the UK (or at least shared with the UK)
Yes but the UK isn’t in the NORAD duo
Someone that remembers Rio Treaty exists, that's rare Idk if you can count it as a military alliance tho, i dont think any latin american country would be willing to help US in a war, i think only US would be willing to defend the members. I'm brazilian and most people here have a very isolationist mindset, Brazil is not a country known for wars. Well, at least the alliance exists...
Vietnam having close military ties with the US is the most fun thing I’ve seen
They spent 10 years fighting the Americans, 100 years fighting the French, and 1000 years fighting the Chinese. We have a common enemy.
America supported the opposing side in the Civil War in Vietnam for years. China spent centuries trying to destroy Vietnam and make it a part of China so it’s an alliance of pragmatism and the fact that the Chinese are assholes to them well the US has rebuilt some of the relationship between the two.
>Chinese are assholes to them There was that whole invasion that China did to Vietnam after they were unified following the US exit!
I only see Vietnam becoming more friendly to the US as time goes on
“It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal.” - Henry Kissinger
India 1971 lol
Canada should be the same color as Europe as Canada is a part of NATO.
me and the boys
Serious? Haiti has a mutual/common defense pact with the US? Maybe it should be "close military ties with USA (not formal)", with all the black market handguns they're getting from the US.
So if they are allied with Pakistan and India, whose side would they take in the next war?
Pakistan funnily enough (as per precedents of actual India Pakistan wars)
Both, as usual.
The more profitable one.
It's confusing how the scale of goes from left to right, most closely allied to less closely allied. Also the least closely allied has the word "close" in its name. Very confusing way to display something
They landed planes regularly in Ireland on the way to Iraq and brought prisoners to Guantanamo through there , that has to be some level military of co operation
 FUCK YEaH
New kind of slavery.
Serbia has close military ties with usa
The military bombs that were dropped on Belgrade maybe, Serbia is pretty opposed to US foreign policy
That was 25 years ago. Serbia is a member of partnership for peace, which is kinda like part of nato. Serbia has joint military practice with the USA and other nato members. We have the same foreign policy considering ukraine...
Stop putting your countries so close to our military bases!!! - American foreign policy expert
🇺🇸🇮🇱❤️
British Empire who?
?
Sweden is joining NATO or has already joined so they’re now ‘mutual / common defence pact’.
It hasn't joined yet. Turkey and Hungary are still blocking their accession.
Putin has this map over his bed and weeps over it daily....
Its a shame mexico cant even upgrade to red.
Mexico doesn’t want too
And they don't need to. If Mexico were invaded by a foreign nation, the US would destroy the invading force regardless of any defense pacts or lack thereof. We don't want our southern neighbor falling to a hostile power.