Ecuador is at the NW side of South America - at the equator which is where it's name originates. About half a dozen countries and the Panama Canal in between them.
Sorry I'm from Australia, the distance between Ecuador and Mexico is around two small Oz states.
Relatively close considering you were comparing it to Canada to Switzerland which I'm sure is half the world away.
I'm sorry I'm not being a fick just thought it was a little exaggerated.
You would expect that Ecuador and Mexico are in the same local geopolitical sphere.
Edit: I'm very uncertain so correct me, I've just assumed they're very close.
Generally speaking, I would think Mexico's sphere of influence would be limited to the central American area - from Panama at the furthest point South to the US border at the other end. TBH, I don't know the geopolitics that far South. I'd think Brazil or perhaps Columbia would be more of an influence on Ecuador than Mexico but maybe something is going on that I don't realize.
TBF, we don't get much in the way of news in the US from that part of the world - even Central America is barely covered even though it's pretty darned close. South America hardly gets mentioned.
What's interesting is that even though there is a contiguous land mass connecting the two continents, there are no roads linking them. The PanAmerican Highway ends south of the canal and then gets picked back up on the other side of the Darian Gap in Columbia. I think the plan was to eventually cross the gap but the terrain and topography made it an expensive endeavor and for whatever reason, it's never been done. So South America has been comparatively isolated from the North American continent, where there's all sorts of interaction (good and bad) historically between the Central American countries and between them and Mexico (and the US, and Spain, and Britain if you go far enough back)
I probably should have picked a different example than Canada and Switzerland,
Ecuador is at the NW side of South America - at the equator which is where it's name originates. About half a dozen countries and the Panama Canal in between them.
Sorry I'm from Australia, the distance between Ecuador and Mexico is around two small Oz states.
Relatively close considering you were comparing it to Canada to Switzerland which I'm sure is half the world away.
I'm sorry I'm not being a fick just thought it was a little exaggerated.
You would expect that Ecuador and Mexico are in the same local geopolitical sphere.
Edit: I'm very uncertain so correct me, I've just assumed they're very close.
I guess it's all relative.
Generally speaking, I would think Mexico's sphere of influence would be limited to the central American area - from Panama at the furthest point South to the US border at the other end. TBH, I don't know the geopolitics that far South. I'd think Brazil or perhaps Columbia would be more of an influence on Ecuador than Mexico but maybe something is going on that I don't realize.
TBF, we don't get much in the way of news in the US from that part of the world - even Central America is barely covered even though it's pretty darned close. South America hardly gets mentioned.
What's interesting is that even though there is a contiguous land mass connecting the two continents, there are no roads linking them. The PanAmerican Highway ends south of the canal and then gets picked back up on the other side of the Darian Gap in Columbia. I think the plan was to eventually cross the gap but the terrain and topography made it an expensive endeavor and for whatever reason, it's never been done. So South America has been comparatively isolated from the North American continent, where there's all sorts of interaction (good and bad) historically between the Central American countries and between them and Mexico (and the US, and Spain, and Britain if you go far enough back)
I probably should have picked a different example than Canada and Switzerland,