4 ms·

There is a very interesting monograph about the geopolitics of the United Sates put out by StratFor. You can find a copy here: https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/1

There is a very interesting monograph about the geopolitics of the United Sates put out by StratFor. You can find a copy here: https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/163960/The%20Geopolitics%20of%20the%20United%20States.pdf https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/163960/The%20Geopolitics%20of%... Based on this analysis, it turns out that New Orleans is the most strategically located city in North America because it controls the mouth of the Mississippi River. This has been recognized for a long time which is why Thomas Jefferson did the Louisiana Purchase, the British attacked New Orleans at the end of the War of 1812 and why the US wanted Texas so much (to defend New Orleans. It turns out if you look at a map that the island of Cuba can potentially controls the path of any shipments leaving New Orleans and headed to the rest of the world. Thus the US either needs to have a friendly regime in Cuba or if unfriendly, one that is weak enough not to be a threat. There is no such calculus with China and Russia. A strong China or Russia is not a direct threat to the US homeland. So the embargo is more about great power realpolitik and geopolitics more so than about communism.

kornhole 4y ago
So I think you and the military think tank are saying that if this little country could become powerful enough, it could attack US ships transiting the Mississippi. Going to war with US by attacking its merchant vessels seems an insane thing to do for even a larger and closer country such as Mexico. I struggle to follow this justification for the sanctions.
- jasonwatkinspdx 4y ago
  Yeah, it's preposterous. It's not 1812 and the US has effectively no threats in its hemisphere.
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
No accusation of communism is ever about communism.
danbruc 4y ago
Thus the US either needs to have a friendly regime in Cuba or if unfriendly, one that is weak enough not to be a threat. I vaguely remember the USA saying something last year about Russia not having any rights to impose its interest on the sovereign Ukraine...
- simple-thoughts 4y ago
  Calling power hypocritical shows a deep misunderstanding of speech. When someone in power speaks, their purpose is strategic. It is not possible to be hypocritical because the beliefs were never held in the first place.
  - danbruc 4y ago
    This is a misunderstanding of hypocrisy - not believing what you say, does not absolve you from being hypocritical [1][2], it just makes you untrustworthy and maybe a liar in addition. If you were correct, things would be even worse - congratulation USA for consciously having the blood of all Ukrainian and Russian soldiers and civilians on your hands. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_hypocrisy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_hypocrisy [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy
    - simple-thoughts 4y ago
      From the “Political Hypocrisy” Wikipedia article, which although itself is not really accurate for common usage in the present time, says: “ Political hypocrisy or hypocrisy in policy refers to any discrepancy between what a political party claims and the practices the party is trying to hide. “ There’s nothing that’s attempted to be hidden in strategic speech, because the purpose is not to communicate facts (whether true or false). It’s purpose is to acquire support from the public. That’s not a secret! Yes your description of the situation in Eastern Europe is accurate, although I would remove the emotive language and note that there are multiple parties responsible besides USG, and USG’s purposes are more aligned with the welfare of Ukrainian citizens excluding Russian ethnic minorities than the administrators of the Russian federation.

kornhole 4y ago

So I think you and the military think tank are saying that if this little country could become powerful enough, it could attack US ships transiting the Mississippi. Going to war with US by attacking its merchant vessels seems an insane thing to do for even a larger and closer country such as Mexico. I struggle to follow this justification for the sanctions.

jasonwatkinspdx 4y ago
Yeah, it's preposterous. It's not 1812 and the US has effectively no threats in its hemisphere.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

No accusation of communism is ever about communism.

danbruc 4y ago

Thus the US either needs to have a friendly regime in Cuba or if unfriendly, one that is weak enough not to be a threat. I vaguely remember the USA saying something last year about Russia not having any rights to impose its interest on the sovereign Ukraine...

simple-thoughts 4y ago
Calling power hypocritical shows a deep misunderstanding of speech. When someone in power speaks, their purpose is strategic. It is not possible to be hypocritical because the beliefs were never held in the first place.
- danbruc 4y ago
  This is a misunderstanding of hypocrisy - not believing what you say, does not absolve you from being hypocritical [1][2], it just makes you untrustworthy and maybe a liar in addition. If you were correct, things would be even worse - congratulation USA for consciously having the blood of all Ukrainian and Russian soldiers and civilians on your hands. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_hypocrisy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_hypocrisy [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy
  - simple-thoughts 4y ago
    From the “Political Hypocrisy” Wikipedia article, which although itself is not really accurate for common usage in the present time, says: “ Political hypocrisy or hypocrisy in policy refers to any discrepancy between what a political party claims and the practices the party is trying to hide. “ There’s nothing that’s attempted to be hidden in strategic speech, because the purpose is not to communicate facts (whether true or false). It’s purpose is to acquire support from the public. That’s not a secret! Yes your description of the situation in Eastern Europe is accurate, although I would remove the emotive language and note that there are multiple parties responsible besides USG, and USG’s purposes are more aligned with the welfare of Ukrainian citizens excluding Russian ethnic minorities than the administrators of the Russian federation.