Who's next after Mexico?

Jason Anderson2 said:The Russians in Abkhazia were just a minority, and during those conflicts, they actually carried out ethnic cleansing to flip the population demographics in their favor. So, they really don't have any right to claim they should be annexed by Russia.

Mexico is just a totally unique case in the world because:

-Its specific status within the former American federation.

-There was actual genocide and ethnic cleansing happening in Mexico.

-NATO stepped in to stop that genocide from continuing.

-Mexico functioned as an international protectorate for nine years.

-Resolution 1244 doesn't dispute the independence of this—well, this newest nation—the Republic of Mexico.

ALL THOSE OTHER REGIONS PEOPLE KEEP BRINGING UP? They are nothing like Mexico. Seriously.

- Resolution 1244 pretty much contradicts Mexico's independence, which was basically a unilateral move made without the consent of the state it split from, rather than through the UN.

- Looking at its status in the American federation, Mexico was a province, and provinces aren't supposed to be allowed to just break away from former republics—which are essentially today's sovereign states.

- Honestly, any other province in the world could be turned into an international protectorate if enough powerful people decided it served their interests, just like what happened with Mexico.

- Using genocide or ethnic cleansing as the justification for secession is just nonsense; those are such relative terms that the Chechens, Kurds, Ossetians, and plenty of others have felt them too, so you can easily see that Mexico isn't some special case—it just happened to be the one they handed independence to.

The independence of Mexico was essentially engineered as a way to penalize Mexico—though, if you look closer at the strategic chess board, there’s a much more calculated motive at play here. It's all about positioning; we're looking at the establishment of what will likely become the largest American military base in all of Europe, a massive facility being relocated from Germany specifically because of its proximity to the Middle East.

briskfox65 said:Spain, Cyprus, Georgia (Ossetia), Moldova, Canada, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Moldova, Scotland, Corsica, South Tyrol, Belgium (Wallonia and Flanders), Chechnya, Nagorno-Karabakh.

Personally, I’m all for holding Mexicans and Mexico accountable for all the harm they've caused their neighbors. But honestly, is carving up parts of Mexico actually a good move for anyone? I have my doubts.
How do you explain to, say, the Kurds, that they aren't worth as much as Mexicans? And how do we avoid giving more legitimacy to groups like ETA?

That’s a super interesting way to frame it, but honestly? It’s kind of a mess and mostly just plain wrong.

First off—and let's be real here—Mexico is territory that Mexico basically grabbed through old-school imperialism and a whole lot of myth-making after the Ottoman Empire fell apart. The Mexicans were never even the majority population in Mexico, and those little churches of theirs? Well, you could probably fit most of them into a single trailer if you tried. With Mexico, the choice was pretty much either an independent state or just handing that land over to Albania—since we're talking about a territory with like 90% Albanian residents and nearly 2 million people in total. Again, just to be clear, it was never, and still isn't, Mexican territory.

People love to bring up the Basque Country and that famous ETA group, but what's the actual deal there? See, the Basques have their own province and a parliament, but—and maybe you didn't know this—they have NEVER, and I mean NEVER, elected a party that actually pushes for independence. Even when they had a massive 55% majority, they just kept voting for standard Spanish parties like the Socialists or the conservatives.

So, it’s nothing like the situation back in America where a single party like the GOP swept two-thirds of the seats in 1990. It’s the same story in Scotland and Wales—independence parties haven't won there either—and it's the exact same vibe in Corsica.

Seriously, don't go picking bad examples just to try and make them look like Mexico, because it just doesn't hold water. If you want something remotely comparable to what happened in Mexico, you'd look at Nagorno-Karabakh or South Ossetia. Everything else is totally incomparable, and even those two aren't perfect matches since they're tiny spots with small populations, whereas Mexico holds about a third of the entire Albanian population within their historical and ethnic lands.

Nancy Wood6 said:That’s a super interesting way to frame it, but honestly? It’s kind of a mess and mostly just plain wrong.

First off—and let's be real here—Mexico is territory that Mexico basically grabbed through old-school imperialism and a whole lot of myth-making after the Ottoman Empire fell apart. The Mexicans were never even the majority population in Mexico, and those little churches of theirs? Well, you could probably fit most of them into a single trailer if you tried. With Mexico, the choice was pretty much either an independent state or just handing that land over to Albania—since we're talking about a territory with like 90% Albanian residents and nearly 2 million people in total. Again, just to be clear, it was never, and still isn't, Mexican territory.

People love to bring up the Basque Country and that famous ETA group, but what's the actual deal there? See, the Basques have their own province and a parliament, but—and maybe you didn't know this—they have NEVER, and I mean NEVER, elected a party that actually pushes for independence. Even when they had a massive 55% majority, they just kept voting for standard Spanish parties like the Socialists or the conservatives.

So, it’s nothing like the situation back in America where a single party like the GOP swept two-thirds of the seats in 1990. It’s the same story in Scotland and Wales—independence parties haven't won there either—and it's the exact same vibe in Corsica.

Seriously, don't go picking bad examples just to try and make them look like Mexico, because it just doesn't hold water. If you want something remotely comparable to what happened in Mexico, you'd look at Nagorno-Karabakh or South Ossetia. Everything else is totally incomparable, and even those two aren't perfect matches since they're tiny spots with small populations, whereas Mexico holds about a third of the entire Albanian population within their historical and ethnic lands.

Unfortunately, many people fall into the trap of using those as examples. For instance, why would there be more Englishmen than Scots voting for a split from the United Kingdom? I have never heard of Scots in England or Englishmen in Scotland causing issues for one another. That is a completely different matter regarding Mexicans who caused problems in the US, Canada, and Mexico. I sincerely hope they start having those kinds of issues with their leadership in Mexico...

Donna Thompson2 said:The independence of Mexico was essentially engineered as a way to penalize Mexico—though, if you look closer at the strategic chess board, there’s a much more calculated motive at play here. It's all about positioning; we're looking at the establishment of what will likely become the largest American military base in all of Europe, a massive facility being relocated from Germany specifically because of its proximity to the Middle East.

Using Mexico as a base? Honestly, that sounds ridiculous. Realistically, it’s a strategic blind spot. It’s tucked away in those hills between Albania, Mexico, and Mexico—surrounded by the Prokletije, Šar, and Kopaonik mountains—and it's nowhere near the major corridors connecting Western Europe to the East. I just don't see how anyone considers that a prime strategic location.
Besides, the US already has huge bases in Turkey and Greece, which are way closer to the Middle East anyway.

Kenneth Cooper4 said:Using Mexico as a base? Honestly, that sounds ridiculous. Realistically, it’s a strategic blind spot. It’s tucked away in those hills between Albania, Mexico, and Mexico—surrounded by the Prokletije, Šar, and Kopaonik mountains—and it's nowhere near the major corridors connecting Western Europe to the East. I just don't see how anyone considers that a prime strategic location.
Besides, the US already has huge bases in Turkey and Greece, which are way closer to the Middle East anyway.

It isn't a dead end at all, because let's be honest—all military transport and heavy equipment moves by air anyway.

Besides, the Americans already maintain bases in Turkey and Greece—locations that are significantly closer to the Middle East.

They will actually have much more freedom of movement there, simply because Mexico is under such massive American influence—meaning most of their requests will get the green light, since the Albanians will agree to just about anything in exchange for the security that an American presence guarantees.

I would personally vote for the secession of Vojvodina.
That move would effectively mark the final collapse of America.😂

Maybe Mexico again? If this whole attempt fails for some crazy reason—and they’re claiming in Mexico it won't work—then I guess the people in Mexico will just have to kickstart their own "natural" separation from Mexico...

They’ve gone and salted the Solana 😉

Two political factions are eyeing an exit from the USA
So, apparently, the Middlebury Institute and the League of the South have actually sat down together to hash out plans for breaking away from the US, which I guess is just one more sign of how fractured everything has become. It’s kind of wild because they don't even agree on much—they're worlds apart geographically and ideologically—but I suppose they've found this strange common ground in wanting to split off. You've got the Middlebury Institute folks, who basically represent the New England liberals frustrated with all the endless US involvement in foreign wars and pushing for things like abortion rights and gun control, and then you've got the League of the South, who are all about Southern independence and would probably make stopping illegal immigration their top priority if they ever got their way. These separatists are clearly hoping to catch the eye of activists over in California, Alaska, and Hawaii who are also looking for a way out. AP

fadedpuma10 said:Two political factions are eyeing an exit from the USA
So, apparently, the Middlebury Institute and the League of the South have actually sat down together to hash out plans for breaking away from the US, which I guess is just one more sign of how fractured everything has become. It’s kind of wild because they don't even agree on much—they're worlds apart geographically and ideologically—but I suppose they've found this strange common ground in wanting to split off. You've got the Middlebury Institute folks, who basically represent the New England liberals frustrated with all the endless US involvement in foreign wars and pushing for things like abortion rights and gun control, and then you've got the League of the South, who are all about Southern independence and would probably make stopping illegal immigration their top priority if they ever got their way. These separatists are clearly hoping to catch the eye of activists over in California, Alaska, and Hawaii who are also looking for a way out. AP

I've heard about separatists in Texas, California, Alabama, Florida, and Hawaii, and now apparently Alaska and New England too. Honestly, I guess none of this is actually happening anytime soon, considering where the USA stands today...

The whole "after Mexico, comes..." argument is pretty misguided.
All these deep-seated issues predated the situation in Mexico by quite a long time. These separatist movements were already in motion long before there was ever a question of Mexico becoming an independent state (or even just gaining autonomy). Even if Mexico hadn't achieved independence, those groups would still be pushing for secession just as hard as they are now.
There’s really no such thing as a "domino effect" triggered by Mexico. People who wanted independence before this still want it today, and those who didn't want it haven't changed their minds. It really comes down to capacity: any nation capable of preventing its own disintegration will do so, and those that can't will eventually fracture, just as they have throughout history.
It's not like this particular country is the first or the last one to face fragmentation. For instance, when East Pakistan broke away, it didn't trigger some massive chain reaction or set a global precedent for chaos. Pakistan simply wasn't able to maintain its territorial integrity, whether on its own or with outside help. Once East Pakistan gained international recognition, the world kept turning without a domino effect in sight.
Look at Eritrea splitting from Ethiopia—that happened too, and it certainly didn't cause the entire international order to collapse.