In my opinion, WAY too many folks in the US are sanguine about the Mexico-China military alliance.
Did you know the following facts?
- China interfered in Mexico's internal politics and even encouraged a coup where the democratically elected leader was forced to flee to the US and they installed their own puppet instead.
- Since then, Mexico has had free reign to discriminate against English speakers of American origin, banning the use of the English language in schools and allowing neo-Nazi groups to roam free to intimidate (and worse) this population.
- China has funded biolabs throughout Mexico that investigate dangerous pathogens believed to have a military purpose.
- China has entered into an undeclared but effective military alliance with Mexico. They have funded with billions of dollars the creation of a 650,000 strong military entirely equipped with Chinese weapons and trained by the Chinese.
- Mexico has vowed (in their revised constitution, no less) to formalize the joining of a Chinese military alliance and enter into unilateral trade with China, cutting out the U.S. entirely.
- Mexico welcomes Chinese military bases on their soil, including advanced weaponry and ballistic nuclear missiles.
When asked to comment on this situation, the US has said their foreign policy needs to be consistent across Mexico and Ukraine. They say Mexico is a sovereign power and has every right to join a military alliance with China. When asked about the dangers of the giant army right adjacent to the US and the potential of nuclear weapons in Mexico, mere minutes away from critical U.S. targets, the US state department has assured the public that they are entirely defensive on Mexico and China's part.
When China was asked to comment, they said the US has a recent history of attacking other nations for bogus reasons, naming Iraq as an example, and consider these measures to be reasonable precautions to guard against that eventuality in Mexico.
Personally, I think it's dreadful, and I would suggest every patriotic American join me in demanding concrete action against this threat on the Southern border!
Very clever, young lady, but also very cheeky. But I take your point.
ReplyDeleteI'm nothing if not cheeky (as my pics will attest) ;-)
DeletePlease someone tell me I am not the only one who thought this was about the US state of 'New Mexico"
ReplyDeleteHa ha! Good point. I changed the title. Thank you 🙏
DeleteYou probably need to look at the first sentence as well.
DeleteWriter & Editor
Thanks! Done!
DeleteWow! Thanks for alerting us to this. We definitely need to immediately tell China that interfering with internal Mexican politics is OUR job!
ReplyDeleteAre you kidding? We've been talking about this for a decade. We've given warning after warning. We made our red lines very clear. Having nuclear missiles from China sitting in Mexico is not an option. I'm afraid we will need to declare a Special Military Operation to protect the homeland.
DeleteI think the Bay of Pigs was a Special Military Operation. Too small. No, we must have a real commitment. And, I really hate tit-for-tat symmetrical warfare. Let's just go take Taiwan out from under them, and maybe take Hong Kong back while we're at it.
DeleteSee, that would not fit the analogy. The analogy would be a limited incursion into Mexico where the US grabs up the land adjacent to the US and Mexico is allowed to keep the rest if they promise neutrality. And then end there. Proportionate.
DeleteThe situation you describe would not be analogous. If Putin isn't stopped dead in his tracks in Ukraine, and pushed back out with zero gains, what's to stop him from continuing his wars of aggression? He has said he has ambitions to restore the glory of the old USSR.
ReplyDeleteThat's a very hypothetical "mind read" sort of take. He said nothing about territorial expansion that I can find, I googled for anything like that. I found a ('natch) CNN article that claimed he said it and said the proof is right here in this transcript they linked to. They did not identify the quote, and when I read the (long) transcript, it said nothing of the sort. I challenge you to find me any such quote of Putin's regarding territorial expansion.
DeleteOn the other hand, the West has absolutely provoked the conflict and escalated it at every turn. Russia repeatedly warned of the hard red line of Ukraine not remaining neutral. When it was clear that is what the idiotic USA wanted (REFUSING to take NATO membership off the table during recalcitrant negotiations), Russia took the action they had promised to.
You think the USA is always right and Russia is "evil". Could it be that years of subtle and overt mental programming brought you to that conclusion, and not rational evidence based thought?
We've had this discussion before but, again, what's the basis for this theory of yours that Russia has the right to dictate to sovereign nations who they are allowed to ally themselves with, or that Russia has a "right" to a particular sphere of influence, or that they have the right to some "buffer zone" of neutral or allied countries between them and NATO countries?
DeleteOk then, admit you feel exactly the same about the hypothetical I proposed.
DeleteBut, I don't feel the same way about it. We're in a world where competitive countries are going to have armies adjacent to each other. It's just the way it is, and your view creates a situation in which, instead of having to respect each other's territorial integrity under international law and competing for alliances, the stronger one is always tempted to extend a buffer zone by force, simply because it can get away with it. It basically takes us back to the 18th century when war was pretty much a perpetual states and boundaries shifted all the time. From time to time you talk like a peacenik these days. Well, the rules you seem to be proposing are recipe for never-ending wars of territorial conquest just like existed before there was any system of international law, ineffective as it may be.
DeleteChina abuts India. China abuts Russia. At various times, it's been basically enemies with both. Japan exists a few miles from China and both Koreas, all of which it has been to war with multiple times. Having to live next to neighbors who don't like you and are well-armed is a fact of life all around the globe, and nothing gives Russia some unique right to impose a buffer zone consisting of involuntarily Russia-aligned or neutral countries. What you propose is no different from Russia's cold war assertions of dominance over the Warsaw Pact countries, who all bolted to the west as soon as they could. I'm fascinated that you think the USSR had some right to that arrangement and that Russia has a right to extend it.
In a technological age where missiles fly faster than any interceptor can hit them and faster than any strategic response can be thought out, it simply doesn't matter whether they are located in Mexico or across the north pole in Russia. And, as far as bases in Mexico, there are reasons that Mexico lost it's wars against Texas and the US and has never been a world power -- its geography sucks for military operations, with large plains and deserts that make any military operations sitting ducks for opposing forces. It is where your analogy to Ukraine does have a lot of genuine similarities. Most of Ukraine consists of plains and flat lands that armies can--and have throughout history--marched through.
You missed the part where the Mexicans were actively discriminating and committing atrocities against American-origin Mexican citizens, banning their language, sending neo-Nazis after them, and bombing them actively after peace talks where they agreed not to do that.
DeleteWell, if you want to bring broken agreements into the mix, about the one where Ukraine gave up its nukes in exchange for territorial and security guarantees from Russia. Hindsight is always 20-20, but with the benefit of that hindsight, the western allies were wrong to pressure countries who had broken away from the USSR to give up their nukes. Before that agreement, Ukraine had the fourth largest nuclear arsenal in the world. For all its faults and dangers, a world where major powers have nukes and face adversaries who have them has proven far more stable than the world that preceded it.
DeleteAlso, I'm not sure what exactly your point is about banning languages. The MAGA side in the U.S. has sponsored an endless number of English-only laws and ordinances.
I'm also not sure how you distinguish Russia from Nazi-ism. Nazi-ism isn't some vacuous label. It's an ideology characterized by private ownership of the economy, but with pervasive state control, at the top of which is a leader with close to absolute power, with the courts, media and communications media controlled by or heavily governed by the state. Pretty much any definition of Naziism, or populist dictatorships, are going to include those elements. How exactly do you distinguish Putin's Russia from any historical national socialist regime?
DeleteFor Ukraine I'm talking about the direct continuation of historical Nazis in Ukraine. Stephan Bandera and the neo-Nazi Azov Brigade that he inspired. This violently anti-communist group went around terrorizing Ukrainians of Russian ethnicity, welcomed with open arms by the US installed govt after the US backed coup.
DeleteUkraine, Belarus, and Russia was the core of the former Soviet Union. They never had nukes of their own in any sense. Always Moscow controlled. It would have been the most foolish thing imaginable to let them keep Soviet nukes after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
DeleteI don't have any doubt there are neo-Nazi sympathizers in the Azov Brigade. There is a known neo-Nazi, right-wing militia problem in the US armed forces, which the Republicans always block the armed forces from actively investigating.
DeleteAnd, you sort of dodged the question. You don't really argue that Russia doesn't fit the classic definition of fascism. You seem to be pretty selective about which fascists you have a problem with.
There's no comparison between the openly organized neo-Nazi Azov brigade and the US army. Nice try.
DeleteIf we're discussing fascism as an economic system, no neither country is. They're more organized like crime syndicates. Oligarchy and Kleptocracy.
No, the thing I'm concerned about are the Russian-race-hating Ukrainian neo-Nazis funded and encouraged by the US to draw Russia into a war.
I know that's what you're concerned about because, again, you're very selective about what fascism you care about. In the end, what's it matter whether a system that meets most of the elements of fascism might also be characterized as an oligarchy or kleptocracy? Again, you're pretty selective in your outrage if you're ok with *regimes* that are fascist or semi-fascist oligarchies and kleptocracies--probably also "illiberal democracies"--but horrified by a regime that has *elements* that, according to you, are "violently anti-communist" (doesn't that also describe most of the MAGAs you love so much??) or who, according to you, terrorize Russians, as opposed to, say, Chechens, or Afghans, or homosexuals, or opposition politicians like Navalny, or girl bands called Pussy Riot.
DeleteI've also never seen a definition of fascism that really centers on economic philosophy. Here's Wikipedia's definition:
Delete"Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[1][2][3] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy."
If you remove the word "far-right" (which I don't think really adds anything and certainly shouldn't be a gating criteria), that definition certainly would fit modern day China, as well as Russia. Honestly, China even more so than Russia.
I never used the word 'fascist', you did. I called them neo-Nazis.
DeleteI dislike all neo-Nazis. Even the Illinois ones. Don't you? I especially dislike countries, like Ukraine, that explicitly support them and welcome them into their army with open arms.
I'm not "ok" with Russia or with Ukraine. However it remains a fact that the US needlessly provoked a war which has utterly destroyed Ukraine and brought mass death and suffering to millions.
Pushy Riot had it coming, but Putin let them off after they sucked his cock and called him Daddy.
Again, your definition of "provoked" is no more than welcomed into an alliance sovereign nations who had every right to join such an alliance, regardless of Russia's unilateral assertion of a right to use such countries as a buffer zone. So, if you insist that is a provocation, and one that justifies a Russian invasion that plainly violates international law, I guess that's your opinion and you're sticking to it, all facts and law to the contrary notwithstanding.
DeleteRussia has repeatedly warned of the red line and the consequences of going over it. Rightly or wrongly, they consider the threat from Ukraine being joined to NATO to be existential. And then the US engineering a coup and encouraging discrimination and atrocities against ethnic Russians in Ukraine. Make no mistake, the war was 100% provoked by the US. The simple words, "Ukraine will be neutral" would have avoided all the bloodshed from the western warmongers.
DeleteYou'd do well to expand your information sources. Here are two foreign policy adults addressing the issue:
Jeffrey Sacks explains it well - https://youtu.be/wxq4zYGJZbQ?si=COpW4KUkuZA_IEdk
Also John Mearsheimer speaking 7 years ago on the provocations - https://youtu.be/JrMiSQAGOS4?si=pjRcgZ-_AgF1n9bh
My favorite source for news is The Economist, which unlike the sources you tend to favor actually has lengthy, well-sourced debates, including from foreign policy experts like Jeffrey Sacks. I'm pretty comfortable my information source are as broad or broader than yours. When you get into wild-ass assertions like "encouraging discrimination and atrocities" you've jumped the shark for this particular topic.
DeleteFrom the two guys above and other sources. The atrocities were committed in the Donbas for many years by Azov fighters, targeting ethnic Russians living there.
DeleteI keep thinking that your article is a very clever joke, but I couldn't find anything. If this is all true, what are your sources? I understand that China did meddle in Canadian elections recently. And Mexico does have significant trade relations with China and a "Strategic Partnership". What am I missing?
ReplyDeleteIt's made up to be exactly analogous to the Ukraine situation.
DeleteOh Julie! Let's try to keep our aggression sorted. I have to admit that I didn't know about a China-Mexico connection. I'm a little surprised. China, historically, has expanded its influence through economic means. It invests heavily in economies around the world. It is one of the largest holders of US Treasury paper. It doesn't usually try to expand its military presence. If China has placed missiles in Mexico, I agree that it is a serious security issue for both of our countries. Remember the Bay of Pigs?
ReplyDeleteThe Russia/Ukraine situation is very different. NATO and other nations are strongly against territorial expansion. Putin's efforts to annex Ukraine is the sort of activity that actually makes sense for us to help resist. I thought that Putin had made reference to restoring the USSR when he annexed Crimea. I didn't research the issue.
I don't really care if he wants to rebuild the Soviet Union or not. I just believe we need stable borders. Your belief that the US provoked this land grab makes no sense to me. I understand that NATO is seen as a serious threat by Putin. It's supposed to be. If he had no designs on expanding his borders, why would he care if Ukraine or any other bordering country joined NATO? NATO never expressed any desire to be an aggressor. The threat to Putin is that NATO nations will respond to any attack on member countries. If Putin doesn't plan on attacking Finland or other NATO nations, why would the alliance bother him?
I agree that the US has been entirely too ready to send troops around the world. The two Bushes used aggression in Iran and Afghanistan as a way to rally public support and distract the American public from their incompetence. JFK started this sort of tactic with Vietnam.
Your boy Trump, with his isolationist views, might have stopped a lot of this trouble. He scheduled a pullout from Afghanistan after he left office. He could have done that much earlier, but his base likes to see us fighting "terrorists" around the world.
That brings us back to China. The US has been very clear that it will aid Taiwan if China invades. China has always considered Taiwan part of their country even though it has an independent government. For that matter, the Taiwanese people consider themselves to be Chinese. This gives China strong motivation to consider any independent military support of Taiwan to be interference with an internal Chinese matter. I am not agreeing that it is. Taiwan is an independent nation of Chinese people. Both China and the US depend on Taiwan for critical technology. Taiwan produces the most advanced chips. The US is now building factories to also produce those chips. These factories won't be online for a year or two at best. Until then, we need Taiwan to keep our critical industries going.
The US has a long tradition of using the military to support its economic interests. The Mideast wars supported the US oil and gas interests. US aggression isn't irrational. It's based on supporting certain industries that heavily invest in presidential and congressional elections. Money, not ideology drives our military.
There are two primary drivers of war: maintenance and consolidation of personal power, and economic gain. Putin wants to consolidate and grow his power. An easy takeover of Ukraine would have raised his approval in Russia and gained the country some nice money from Ukrainian wheat sales. It would have also given Russia some tactical advantages gained by more coastline.
There's no such agreement. I made it up to see if Americans perhaps would have some empathy for Russia that was placed in an exactly analogous situation.
DeleteHave a listen to Jeffrey Sacks on the Russian Ukraine situation. He was literally in the room in the Kremlin at the instant the cold war ended.
https://youtu.be/wxq4zYGJZbQ?si=BrP0kyNSt7HVfWt5
Well done! I especially like the Chinese soldier with the hat!
ReplyDeleteI got an AI to generate it for me!
DeleteYeah we fucked up dealing with the end of the USSR and now we're paying for it.
ReplyDeleteYes, by continuously expanding NATO against all promises made to the contrary.
Delete