> Does Russia have the right to apply policies equivalent to the US' own Monroe Doctrine, or doesn't it?
Yes it does, but I think you've misunderstood what the Monroe Doctrine was. The Monroe Doctrine was not a blank license for the US to invade other countries and kill people there. The point of Monroe Doctrine was to protect western hemisphere from wars initiated by European colonial empires. A good example of this is the French invasion of Mexico in 1862 in an attempt to turn the newly-independent Mexico into a colony and install European aristocrat from the Habsburg dynasty as the emperor of Mexico. Americans offered military aid to Mexico, and after a few years of fighting, that emperor got executed by a firing squad and French forces were expulsed. Sounds familiar?
Russia is acting like one of those colonial empires that sought to conquer and exploit the Americas. The Monroe Doctrine was formulated against such behavior.
And yet when in 1962 the USSR at the invitation of the legitimate Cuban government tried to install missiles in Cuba, the US stopped them through a naval blockade.
Also, if government of Mexico ever decides to invite the People's Liberation Army into Mexico to help Mexico defend itself, and the PLA accepts the invitation, I want and expect my government (i.e., Washington) to stop them -- with organized violence if necessary such as is currently happening in Ukraine.
Also not really about the Monroe Doctrine, as the US action was in response strictly to the deployment of offensive missiles (what it saw as a de facto aggressive action against it) -- not the simple fact of Cuba forming a close relationship with the USSR per se.
Also, if government of Mexico ever decides to invite the People's Liberation Army into Mexico to help Mexico defend itself
And if that invitation happened only after Mexico was invaded by the US (on as grounds as equally stupid and unprovoked as Russia's current invasion of Ukraine) -- then I'm sure we can trust that you will not only unequivocally condemn that aggression, but solidly champion Mexico's right to defend itself against it by whatever means necessary.
Legitimate is an interesting choice of words for any government in a country that has not had free elections since 1948. Fidel Castro was in charge of Cuba for 50 years without receiving a single ballot cast in his name, despite promising free elections in his first year.
Such dictatorships propped by a foreign power from another side of the planet at the expense of the safety and well-being of people in the Americas looks exactly the kind of thing Monroe Doctrine sought to prevent.
To be fair to the other commenter -- this was back in 1962, when Fidel's regime was (elections or no) by all accounts quite popular and broadly supported, and in any case much more legitimate than the regime which preceded it. Meanwhile, the US never had even borderline free elections until some 130 years after its founding (and they were never really quite free until the 1960s). Ironically, by 1962 its elections were still not "free" by modern standards.
Still, "legitimate" is a weird choice of words to describe unnecessary and provocative WMD deployments in any context.
Even by such early point in time, Cuba had already banned free elections. Castro proclaimed in 1961 that "the revolution has no time for elections" and that his dictatorship represents the highest form of democracy. If anyone argues for legitimacy after this point, then they have more faith in the loyality of Cuban people to Castro than he himself apparently had.
Yes it does, but I think you've misunderstood what the Monroe Doctrine was. The Monroe Doctrine was not a blank license for the US to invade other countries and kill people there. The point of Monroe Doctrine was to protect western hemisphere from wars initiated by European colonial empires. A good example of this is the French invasion of Mexico in 1862 in an attempt to turn the newly-independent Mexico into a colony and install European aristocrat from the Habsburg dynasty as the emperor of Mexico. Americans offered military aid to Mexico, and after a few years of fighting, that emperor got executed by a firing squad and French forces were expulsed. Sounds familiar?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_French_intervention_in_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilian_I_of_Mexico
Russia is acting like one of those colonial empires that sought to conquer and exploit the Americas. The Monroe Doctrine was formulated against such behavior.