In a new act of military interference and interventionism , US President Donald Trump said on Thursday that his country is about to begin “ground” attacks in Mexican territory under the pretext of fighting drug cartels .
The US president’s announcement came days after the US was set to launch a military attack against Venezuela and kidnap President Nicolás Maduro along with First Lady Cilia Flores.
Hours after the US military operation against Venezuela, Donald Trump stated that Mexico, as well as Cuba and Colombia, could be Washington’s next targets .
Furthermore, he declared his intention to “do something about Mexico ,” asserting, without presenting any evidence, that drug cartels are in power in the country .
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has responded to Donald Trump’s interventionist statements by arguing that Mexico is a sovereign country and that her administration is committed to a peaceful solution .
In turn, Claudia Sheinbaum urged people to advocate for "collaboration, coordination, but not subordination . "
Since the beginning of his second term, Trump has maintained an interventionist and military agenda in the region under the argument of combating drug trafficking .
Video link -> https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/2009464620642390018/vid/avc1/1916x1080/_P5cMAqnva-MwUiT.mp4
Source -> https://www.telesurtv.net/donald-trump-ataques-terrestres-mexico/
Manifest destiny/Monroe doctrine part 2 electric boogaloo
As a kinda unrelated note, homicides went down 30%(!) in a single year, because repression/violence isn’t the only way(, nor the best i.m.o.,) way to lower criminality, at least she adds social policies to her repression : https://mexiconewsdaily.com/news/mexico-homicide-rate-2026
(AMLO was awesome, and Ecuador proved among other countries that repression without social measures is less efficient than the right depicts it, they should just look at what works, e.g. many studies point to abortion in order to explain the diminution of criminality in the 90s, people aren’t genetically predestined to sin, it’s almost entirely a result of the environment, of course)Anyway, D.Trump shouldn’t strike territories that don’t want his “help”.
If we(sterners) want less crimes in poor countries, then having a relatively same standard of living in all of them should be our first priority(, but we’d lose our advantage when buying/investing abroad, as well as our disadvantage when exporting products made in the west, a disadvantage that we’ve shouldered until now through our monopoly on highly complex manufactured products).
Also, perhaps attack the american buyers instead of the mexican makers ? I don’t get it. Just like for the american druglords, one less mexican drug-maker would leave room for a new one to arrive.If i understood correctly, they’d need to work 3-4 times more in order to buy the same thing :
So much “justice”.accusing the current government of mexico of working with the cartels and start actions to desestabilize the country
the narcos this time take over the country seriously and start narcocorridos to put the people on their side against the puto gringo naranja
ese compa ya esta muerto, no mas no le han avisado, wey
Death to the empire. Stay safe, comrades.
Okay so this is terrifying. I feel like we are nosediving into something incredibly big but I also do not want to sound paranoid. Is the US really willing to fight a war with Mexico? Right at the US border?
Yes.
Sadly, the US gov’t is at the height of arrogance so even the idea of a war with Mexico is something that we can’t rule out of their plans. However, soon they will taste defeat.
Inshallah
I always felt that the only way the US would change for the better is through war on US soil. I do not want that to happen but considering the history of that country, it’s the only language that is listened to. I probably sound terrible, but I just do not know how else to word this.
There are like 40 million of Mexican diaspora living in the US and I doubt they’d kindly accept an attack on their home country. We’re talking about over 10% of the US population. The threat of civil unrest is larger than the US has ever seen. Not that it will stop Trump but fighting a war with a border nation, possibly fighting a war with Europe, doing whatever they are doing in South America and the Middle East all at once seems like a bit too much, even for the US.
Unrest is one word for it. No military has ever had a good time fighting against guerillas, and if the US kicks off against Mexico it’s going to be a campaign with the guerillas pre-infiltrated all over the US.
That’s assuming the narcos are independent from the USA. In reality, they are literally the imperialist hunting dogs that eliminate anything that hinder capitalist exploitation.
A good book to understand my point is
I can’t turn on the audio for some reason here on Lemmygrad.
You can try to open the video link to hear it.
Damn. I had a bad feeling about Mexico being in the US sights since the beach signs “mistake.” I’m so sorry again, Mexico.
Those pardons to the families of the cartels make a lot more sense now. Trying to get them to side with the US, or at least remain neutral.
Sheinbaum is a fucking idiot for trying to appease him. Neuter your own country, invite US troops, tariff china, and you still get fucked over.
She doesnt have that much elbow room and besides she is “just” a social democrat, so not really ideologically equipped to go toe to toe with america. Mexico is too dependent economically on the us.
In Sheinbaum’s case, the tariffing China thing was because they thought that would win Harris over if she won. Cant say much about anything else, but yeah, it’s not like Mexico’s in a position where it’s willing to fight a war with the US. After all, they’ve lost over half their territory before, the US’ actions still leave massive lasting trauma, I truly understand appeasement, even if it doesn’t do shit, after what they just saw on the 3rd.
Tariffs were implemented to appease Trump/ under pressure not whatever you’re trying to say about harris.
…yeah this one’s on me, idk shit about México I really shouldn’t be talking much past ‘invading them is bad’. I got that point from hearsay, I’m sorry, I need to vet my own statements.
Mexico introduced 50% tariffs in December.
I think you should give Mexican leadership a chance to react before you start flinging “I know better” insults. Unless you are yourself living in Mexico and believe you have a thorough enough understanding of its context to be weighing in, in this way.
Nah western leftists are always right trust me bro /s
(You’re right)
Are you really saying “give the dem-soc a chance”?
Unless you are yourself living in [country]
haven’t we seen this line enough from coup supporters to know it is cringe? We use Historical materialism not “lived experience.” Time will tell but Sheinbaum’s track record is spotty at best.
I think stink understood what I meant and it’s already resolved.
Are you really saying “give the dem-soc a chance”?
This is not what I said.
haven’t we seen this line enough from coup supporters to know it is cringe?
Also not what I said.
But for the sake of clarity, I will try to explain in context: This is a complicated situation as allying and interests go, and I believe solidarity in anti-imperialism should be more important than assuming the worst of those who are not ideal leaders. If the leadership of Mexico caves/capitulates to any and all demands the US has, including transparent invasion, then at that point, I think it’s safe to say they are little better than compradors. As far as I know / at the time of writing, there is not information that such has occurred. The line about where the person lives was because I don’t know where the person I was responding to lives and I wanted to allow for the fact that they could be closer to the situation than I realize and know things in detail about the leadership of Mexico that I don’t. It’s not that that would mean they are automatically more correct than others, but that the energy could be coming from something I don’t know. It doesn’t mean I will defer and capitulate to every point of view espoused by someone who allegedly lives in a country I don’t live. Nor does it mean I’d apply that understanding universally, knowing how anecdote gets used to push imperialist viewpoints.
you should give Mexican leadership a chance Unless you are yourself living in Mexico
These are the words you used. If that isn’t what you meant I’m sorry for taking you at your word but I cant read your mind.
In a different setting I think it is fine to give critical support to Sheinbaum because she is much better than the alternatives. But this is Lemmygrad we don’t need to indulge in false hope that a bourgeoisie party will do anything other than capitulate to international capitalist interests.
Sheinbaum and her party are demsoc. Giving them a chance is giving demsocs a chance. She has been attempting to appease trump and expecting that to change is wishful thinking.
Next time you could just say “unless you have better information.” As historical materialists we need to not fall into the rhetorical trap of using “lived experience.” Its subjective, individualist and anecdotal. A maze is easier to solve from a above than from inside. It’s a bad line when they use it and it is just as bad for us.
you should give Mexican leadership a chance Unless you are yourself living in Mexico
That’s just not what I said though. The way you splice it gives it a different meaning than what I said. This is the reason I’m denying the framing that you’re using. Here is the exact phrasing I used:
I think you should give Mexican leadership a chance to react before you start flinging “I know better” insults. Unless you are yourself living in Mexico and believe you have a thorough enough understanding of its context to be weighing in, in this way.
I generally try to choose my words carefully (sometimes to an absurd degree, to be honest) and I won’t pretend I never mistakes in points of view or wording, but I couched it as I did for a reason.
The other parts of the sentences matter:
“I think you should give Mexican leadership a chance to react” (another way of saying this is, unless you are in a position to do organizational actions that can react to an anticipated full capitulation and try to head them off, what is to be gained from jumping to conclusions while events are in the middle of transpiring? what is lost from having some patience in observing before reacting if you don’t have the means to take advantage of a prediction?)
Then there is another component to it: “before you start flinging “I know better” insults.” (e.g. criticism based on what has occurred rather than what is anticipated to occur - how can you criticize a person or organization only for something they are predicted to do? again, what is to be gained from doing this?)
“Unless you are yourself living in Mexico and believe you have a thorough enough understanding of its context to be weighing in, in this way.” <- Again, this is the full sentence. For example, what if it’s the case that someone has seen Claudia Sheinbaum’s policies affect their life firsthand and part of where it’s coming from is anger from the impact of that? I don’t know this at the offset and as a westerner, I don’t want to be in the habit of jumping to conclusions about where people are from and why they are saying what they’re saying. It is an active effort to unlearn western chauvinist tendencies.
I’ll agree I could have worded it better (though I’m honestly not sure how at the moment), but your framing of it is also misleading in the way it chops it up into a meaning that it doesn’t otherwise represent. “You should give Mexican leadership a chance unless you are yourself living in Mexico” is a brand new sentence. And I don’t agree that saying “unless you have better information” would be an improvement because it doesn’t acknowledge bias to do with geography and lived experience. I was explicitly trying to acknowledge bias.
And no, acknowledging lived experience is not somehow anti-dialectical. It’s a part of material reality and a part of narrative, the same as many other things. Many things in life that we take for granted as true are derived in part from primary sources (people describing one thing or another happening). Science in general tries to get around the bias of this by cross-referencing sources, looking for commonalities and contradictions, where descriptions sync up with other information and where they don’t, etc.
But it is a major component of information gathering. It’s just not something to take for granted uncritically.
In a different setting I think it is fine to give critical support to Sheinbaum because she is much better than the alternatives. But this is Lemmygrad we don’t need to indulge in false hope that a bourgeoisie party will do anything other than capitulate to international capitalist interests.
I don’t see how waiting to see what happens before jumping to conclusions is false hope. I did not say “she’s going to save Mexico.”
Sheinbaum and her party are demsoc. Giving them a chance is giving demsocs a chance. She has been attempting to appease trump and expecting that to change is wishful thinking.
Russia is capitalist and yet is also anti-imperialist due to circumstances. We need to be looking at the contradictions, not single variables in isolation. But again, I did not say I “expect her to change”. What I do expect is that just because capitalists can be capitalists within one country does not always mean they will want to be subservient to capitalists from another country who want to take over and subjugate everybody there.
Maybe you will turn out to be right, but I will still maintain that it’s unwise to treat the future as already determined. There are situations (such as with weather predictions) where individuals and societies react to what is expected to occur, but this is in order to be able handle possible outcomes more effectively. It is not beneficial to go “I’m so mad that it snowed 12 inches” because there is a prediction a week from now for snow. However, being ready for the fact that it may snow is helpful.
I hope this clarifies sufficiently.
Yea, the socdem party has proven utterly incapable to rise to the moment.
I imagine sharing borders with the US makes things difficult
yes but it’s no excuse, there is a clear lack of urgency in the socdem faction in mexico and they were incompetent in dealing with organized crime, which regardless if they’re organized by the US or not it’s a massive failure and they’ve had plenty of time to do something at least.
They’ve failed to attack the financial mechanisms of organized crime presumably bc pulling on that thread could expose a bunch of embezzlement and corruption by officials who have been absolved of their sins for jumping like rats from the sinking ship that is PRI and PAN and onto morena. Not that the US wouldn’t have balked at it, since it’s their bankers raking it in.
I seriously think you should listen to the Soberania podcast, theres just a lot of bullshit we assume about México because AMLO was boisterous and relatively skittish. I’m not saying ‘socdem good’, just that there’s a difference between socdems in the West and socdems in the global south since an aspect of some form of anti-imperialism is required for socdems to form in places like México. They’re still highly likely to capitulate, but they still do have an air of general support for telling the U.S. to fuck itself when it won’t end up with their own death.
I do listen to Soberanía, and Ive been a sympathizer of morena, but those dudes are at CDMX which is a huge city but not really representative of smaller cities away from central Mexico, and local corruption is way outside their scope. The level of embezzlement I see at the local level has been subtler than in previous decades, yes, but it’s still been rather obvious. I’ve family working for government contractors and there’s still ridiculous overcharging (and sometimes refusal to pay backed by organized crime violence) in my state and municipality, both of which are morena and both of which have a mayor/governor who was previously PRI. Not only that, the mayor used to work closely with a former state attorney who used to force people to give up their properties under threat of death for them or their family.
Either cynics are right and this is just a rebranded return to the early era PRI, or the party leadership is full of incompetent fucks who can’t see an opportunist a mile away. There seems to be no party discipline away from the federal level.
I’m a Mexican who’s lived in Mexico my entire life, I’m not interested in the US doing anything but fucking off and dying. But this administration has been working hard to lose whatever good will AMLO had fostered by endlessly capitulating, saying one thing and doing the other, not to mention how much they drag their feet with the most basic-ass campaign promises they’ve made. They have no fucking excuses now, they have the house, the Senate, the presidency and the fucking courts and they’re twiddling their fucking thumbs on anything except what the US asks for.
It definitely does, yeah. The onus is obviously on the US itself and not it’s victims and I don’t think I alone could somehow do better, just acknowledging some historical patterns.
I’m partially sympathetic to her because when the monster is right next to you it makes perfect sense to think appeasing it will keep it away.
Yet on the other hand Mexico has a long history of trying to keep the US out of its territory through appeasement and it never works out so she should really have known better.
I hate being right at this point
Deadass, I wish we’d gotten Noroña jfc it’s been blunder after blunder
