Mexico joins the United States...in the 1990s?

[WolfBear]

What Russian Nationalists, Comrade?

Gorbachev's reforms already allowed them to resurface. What exactly do you think that the sovereignty resolution in the Russian SFSR symbolized, for instance? :

Declaration of State Sovereignty of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Russians were also resentful at the fact that their republic had to subsidize other republics in the Caucasus and Central Asia. "Stop feeding the Caucasus" was a popular slogan back then, if I recall correctly.

It was the presence of Ukraine in any new Union that made it much more tolerable for Russians. Without Ukraine, the attractiveness of a new Union significantly goes down for Russians. Now, Russians could be kept in the Union by force, but any Soviet regime who would do this would also very likely be willing to likewise keep Ukrainians in the Union by force. Ukraine was viewed as being the second-most important republic in the Soviet Union after Russia itself, after all.

 

[History Learner]

Gorbachev's reforms already allowed them to resurface. What exactly do you think that the sovereignty resolution in the Russian SFSR symbolized, for instance? :

Declaration of State Sovereignty of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Russians were also resentful at the fact that their republic had to subsidize other republics in the Caucasus and Central Asia. "Stop feeding the Caucasus" was a popular slogan back then, if I recall correctly.

It was the presence of Ukraine in any new Union that made it much more tolerable for Russians. Without Ukraine, the attractiveness of a new Union significantly goes down for Russians. Now, Russians could be kept in the Union by force, but any Soviet regime who would do this would also very likely be willing to likewise keep Ukrainians in the Union by force. Ukraine was viewed as being the second-most important republic in the Soviet Union after Russia itself, after all.

A lot depends on how exactly things have played out; I suggested earlier in my USSR post that Gorby might get removed in 1987 or so, at which point the Post-1988 Reforms that lead to the dissolution have yet to happen. If we are going with Gorby still around a liberalizing Union, then Ukraine had likewise issued a Declaration of State Sovereignty and a majority of Russians still approved of retaining the USSR.

 

[WolfBear]

A lot depends on how exactly things have played out; I suggested earlier in my USSR post that Gorby might get removed in 1987 or so, at which point the Post-1988 Reforms that lead to the dissolution have yet to happen. If we are going with Gorby still around a liberalizing Union, then Ukraine had likewise issued a Declaration of State Sovereignty and a majority of Russians still approved of retaining the USSR.

If Gorby is ousted in 1987 or so, then no SSRs would likely be allowed to secede regardless of their will.

And Yes, Ukraine issued a declaration of state sovereignty, but that wasn't quite the same thing as actually leaving the USSR before the August 1991 coup attempt. And while Russians approved of retaining the USSR, this doesn't necessarily mean that they would have actually approved of retaining a union without Ukraine. But this won't matter if Ukraine will be kept in the union either by force or voluntarily. FWIW, I do think that, in the absence of the August 1991 coup attempt, some kind of new Union Treaty could have been signed with eventual Ukrainian consent if Ukraine would have actually been given enough autonomy. There would have needed to be some back-and-forth haggling, of course. But had the hardliners in the Soviet Union cracked down in 1987 or so, then there almost certainly wouldn't have been a Ukrainian declaration of state sovereignty in the first place since the central Soviet government very likely wouldn't have allowed it.

 

[History Learner]

If Gorby is ousted in 1987 or so, then no SSRs would likely be allowed to secede regardless of their will.

And Yes, Ukraine issued a declaration of state sovereignty, but that wasn't quite the same thing as actually leaving the USSR before the August 1991 coup attempt. And while Russians approved of retaining the USSR, this doesn't necessarily mean that they would have actually approved of retaining a union without Ukraine. But this won't matter if Ukraine will be kept in the union either by force or voluntarily. FWIW, I do think that, in the absence of the August 1991 coup attempt, some kind of new Union Treaty could have been signed with eventual Ukrainian consent if Ukraine would have actually been given enough autonomy. There would have needed to be some back-and-forth haggling, of course. But had the hardliners in the Soviet Union cracked down in 1987 or so, then there almost certainly wouldn't have been a Ukrainian declaration of state sovereignty in the first place since the central Soviet government very likely wouldn't have allowed it.

My original idea concerning the USSR was that Gorbachev is ousted in 1987 or so, preventing the Post-1988 reforms (like removing the CPSU's control over politics) from happening. Even if Gorbachev remains and we get the New Union, I just don't see any real reason to assume Ukraine not being in would be a deal breaker for Russians; the former's Declaration arguably went further than the Russian one in 1990, and yet a majority of Russians still approved of the Union when it went to a vote in 1991. The Caucasus would probably still break off too; Georgia and Armenia had already indicated such and Azerbaijan IIRC was on the fence.

 

[WolfBear]

My original idea concerning the USSR was that Gorbachev is ousted in 1987 or so, preventing the Post-1988 reforms (like removing the CPSU's control over politics) from happening. Even if Gorbachev remains and we get the New Union, I just don't see any real reason to assume Ukraine not being in would be a deal breaker for Russians; the former's Declaration arguably went further than the Russian one in 1990, and yet a majority of Russians still approved of the Union when it went to a vote in 1991. The Caucasus would probably still break off too; Georgia and Armenia had already indicated such and Azerbaijan IIRC was on the fence.

AFAIK, the 1991 Russian vote was based on the assumption that Ukraine would remain in the Union.

And even if the Caucasians will leave, Central Asia will still need to be subsidized, and they were VERY pro-union in real life.

 

[History Learner]

AFAIK, the 1991 Russian vote was based on the assumption that Ukraine would remain in the Union.

And even if the Caucasians will leave, Central Asia will still need to be subsidized, and they were VERY pro-union in real life.

I'm again confused by what your argument is?

 

[WolfBear]

I'm again confused by what your argument is?

That Russia would be hesitant to accept a union without Ukraine unless it was forced to do so, in which case it would be a moot point because if Russia would be forced to remain in the Union, then in all likelihood so would Ukraine.

 

[History Learner]

That Russia would be hesitant to accept a union without Ukraine unless it was forced to do so, in which case it would be a moot point because if Russia would be forced to remain in the Union, then in all likelihood so would Ukraine.

Question: what are some sources concerning the Russian thinking the Ukraine?

 

[WolfBear]

Question: what are some sources concerning the Russian thinking the Ukraine?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1991/07/13/the-ukraine-seen-as-key-to-success-of-gorbachevs-union-treaty/c4690b55-d738-4aec-b887-fc98d46e25b5/

And more recently:

Ukraine holds key to Putin's dream of a new union

Ukraine's refusal to sign a trade pact drawing it into Europe's orbit marked a victory for Vladimir Putin, winning him time to lure Kiev into a project for a trade and political bloc stretching from the frontiers of China to the edge of the EU.

www.reuters.com

“The Eurasian Union is a very important project for Putin. Without Ukraine, he will lose all enthusiasm for it,” said Gleb Pavlovsky, a former Kremlin spin doctor who has also worked in Ukraine. “Without Ukraine, Putin’s project is impossible.”

The West noticed as well:

Russia and 2 Neighbors Form Economic Union That Has a Ukraine-Size Hole (Published 2014)

Vladimir V. Putin joined the leaders of Kazakhstan and Belarus to form the Eurasian Economic Union, an alliance hobbled by Ukraine’s absence and only a pale counterpart to the European Union.

www.nytimes.com

 

[History Learner]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1991/07/13/the-ukraine-seen-as-key-to-success-of-gorbachevs-union-treaty/c4690b55-d738-4aec-b887-fc98d46e25b5/

And more recently:

Ukraine holds key to Putin's dream of a new union

Ukraine's refusal to sign a trade pact drawing it into Europe's orbit marked a victory for Vladimir Putin, winning him time to lure Kiev into a project for a trade and political bloc stretching from the frontiers of China to the edge of the EU.

www.reuters.com

The West noticed as well:

Russia and 2 Neighbors Form Economic Union That Has a Ukraine-Size Hole (Published 2014)

Vladimir V. Putin joined the leaders of Kazakhstan and Belarus to form the Eurasian Economic Union, an alliance hobbled by Ukraine’s absence and only a pale counterpart to the European Union.

www.nytimes.com

I'm angling more for contemporary sources concerning the New Union, rather than Putinist thought.

 

[WolfBear]

I'm angling more for contemporary sources concerning the New Union, rather than Putinist thought.

Well, I gave you one such source. If you want me to try finding additional ones, I'll see what I can find.

That said, though, in The Grand Chessboard, former US National Security adviser Zbig Brzezinski wrote this about Ukraine:

“It cannot be stressed enough that without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire, but with Ukraine suborned and then subordinated, Russia automatically becomes an empire.”

If you can get the entire book, maybe on LibGen, you can see everything that he writes about Ukraine there. He writes that without Ukraine, a Russia that will aim for imperial status will become increasingly Asiatic, remote from Europe, and busy dealing with troublesome Muslims in its southern territories due to the absence of Ukraine removing a lot of demographic weight from the Slavic element of such an empire.

 

[History Learner]

I got access to CIDE's 10 years of polling data about Mexican societal attitudes recently, which is a true treasure drove. To explain what their project is:

Mexico, the Americas and the World is a research project of the International Studies Division of the Center for Economic Research and Teaching (CIDE), which studies the social attitudes and political culture of Mexicans regarding foreign policy and international relations. The project began in 2004 and consists of a biennial survey, based on representative samples of the national population and groups of leaders. It is a rigorous instrument to collect original and reliable information on the opinions, attitudes, evaluations, beliefs, interests, aspirations, feelings, social values and behavior of citizens regarding international issues.​

​

The central objective of the study is to provide empirical, objective and rigorous information in a strategic area for Mexico and Latin America, where independent and reliable data are scarce and scattered. Precise knowledge of citizens' perceptions of how the world works and how it should work is an indispensable instrument for evaluating the degree of legitimacy of the institutions, norms and actors of the international system and the government's performance in matters of foreign policy. Therefore, this information provides inputs for academic research and decision-making by actors and organizations (both public and private).​

​

The greatest strength of Mexico, the Americas and the World is that it is a key instrument for strategic decision-making, the formulation of democratic and effective public policies in the international arena, the government management and conduct of foreign relations, the communication and transnational social bonding, bilateral, regional and international cooperation and scientific, educational and cultural research.​

It's not merely a magazine poll, CIDE is one of the top think tanks in Mexico, and is highly rated in its field globally. Here's what I found:

The initial link in this post takes one to the entire collection, which will enable one to dig through the entire Spanish language collection. This graph, and the following text citation, comes from the English language review paper they did covering the data in broad strokes, with context, etc. With that said, here's part of the reports finding:

 

[WolfBear]

I got access to CIDE's 10 years of polling data about Mexican societal attitudes recently, which is a true treasure drove. To explain what their project is:

Mexico, the Americas and the World is a research project of the International Studies Division of the Center for Economic Research and Teaching (CIDE), which studies the social attitudes and political culture of Mexicans regarding foreign policy and international relations. The project began in 2004 and consists of a biennial survey, based on representative samples of the national population and groups of leaders. It is a rigorous instrument to collect original and reliable information on the opinions, attitudes, evaluations, beliefs, interests, aspirations, feelings, social values and behavior of citizens regarding international issues.​

​

The central objective of the study is to provide empirical, objective and rigorous information in a strategic area for Mexico and Latin America, where independent and reliable data are scarce and scattered. Precise knowledge of citizens' perceptions of how the world works and how it should work is an indispensable instrument for evaluating the degree of legitimacy of the institutions, norms and actors of the international system and the government's performance in matters of foreign policy. Therefore, this information provides inputs for academic research and decision-making by actors and organizations (both public and private).​

​

The greatest strength of Mexico, the Americas and the World is that it is a key instrument for strategic decision-making, the formulation of democratic and effective public policies in the international arena, the government management and conduct of foreign relations, the communication and transnational social bonding, bilateral, regional and international cooperation and scientific, educational and cultural research.​

It's not merely a magazine poll, CIDE is one of the top think tanks in Mexico, and is highly rated in its field globally. Here's what I found:

The initial link in this post takes one to the entire collection, which will enable one to dig through the entire Spanish language collection. This graph, and the following text citation, comes from the English language review paper they did covering the data in broad strokes, with context, etc. With that said, here's part of the reports finding:

It's not surprising that a lot of Mexicans are open to joining the US. The crucial question is, of course, what exactly is in this for the US? There are a lot of Mexicans who will need subsidizing, after all, and based on the book Generations of Exclusion, underachievement is still a notable trait of Mexican-Americans even after several generations. This is why, for instance, New Mexico is one of the poorest states in the Union even though AFAIK most of its Hispanic population has extremely deep roots here in the US (New Mexico was already something like 40% Hispanic even back in 1940, after all).

If one wants to destroy this country's social safety net, then I suppose that this would be a good way to achieve this. ("Destroy" might be too strong of a word, but it will very likely be made less generous since a lower average IQ means that it's harder to sustain the necessary level of economic prosperity to sustain a more generous social safety net.) But what if one doesn't? Would one then need to accept high-average IQ Asian (especially East Asian and Vietnamese) immigrants by the hundreds of millions to compensate for this?

 

[WolfBear]

Some interesting reading about this topic:

The Immigrant Paradox: The Stalled Progress of Recent Immigrants’ Children

Click here to download a pdf version of this Backgrounder David S. North is a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies. The American tradition, over the years, has been that the first generation of immigrants struggles, the second generation does better, and the third generation does even...

cis.org

 

[History Learner]

It's not surprising that a lot of Mexicans are open to joining the US. The crucial question is, of course, what exactly is in this for the US?

Well, the PoD I presented at the start of this thread was a Second Mexican Civil War in the 1980s or 1990s; obvious benefit is securing the Southern border, preventing Soviet or Chinese influence there, and securing Mexico for American business interests whom do a lot of enterprise there.

There are a lot of Mexicans who will need subsidizing, after all, and based on the book Generations of Exclusion, underachievement is still a notable trait of Mexican-Americans even after several generations. This is why, for instance, New Mexico is one of the poorest states in the Union even though AFAIK most of its Hispanic population has extremely deep roots here in the US (New Mexico was already something like 40% Hispanic even back in 1940, after all).

If one wants to destroy this country's social safety net, then I suppose that this would be a good way to achieve this. ("Destroy" might be too strong of a word, but it will very likely be made less generous since a lower average IQ means that it's harder to sustain the necessary level of economic prosperity to sustain a more generous social safety net.) But what if one doesn't? Would one then need to accept high-average IQ Asian (especially East Asian and Vietnamese) immigrants by the hundreds of millions to compensate for this?

The educational profile of Mexico matches that of Spain and Portugal very well, up until they diverged in the 1980s. EU gave funds to Spain and Portugal, the U.S. didn't to Mexico; doing so would represent a short term expense with long term gains, given how dramatically the Iberian nations proved in the long run given the opportunity.

 

[WolfBear]

Well, the PoD I presented at the start of this thread was a Second Mexican Civil War in the 1980s or 1990s; obvious benefit is securing the Southern border, preventing Soviet or Chinese influence there, and securing Mexico for American business interests whom do a lot of enterprise there.



The educational profile of Mexico matches that of Spain and Portugal very well, up until they diverged in the 1980s. EU gave funds to Spain and Portugal, the U.S. didn't to Mexico; doing so would represent a short term expense with long term gains, given how dramatically the Iberian nations proved in the long run given the opportunity.

Fair enough, I suppose.

Well, Yeah, let's hope that Mexico can actually raise its PISA exam scores to Spanish and Portuguese levels. US Hispanics actually don't perform that much worse than Portuguese or Italian students on the PISA exam:

But I wonder just how much PISA testing is actually going on in poorer US Hispanic neighborhoods. Still, at the very least, this does present some hope for this. It would certainly be an interesting question to find out how much of Mexico's academic underperformance (on the PISA exam, et cetera) is genetic vs. environmental. But of course this topic is highly taboo, unfortunately.