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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think you should not get hung up on the term of political speech. Is their a discrepancy between what standards the USA tries to hold others to and its own actions? If yes, that is something I am happy to label hypocrisy. If, for example, you insist that international law must be followed but ignore it yourself if it is inconvenient or against your interests, that is - in my book - hypocrisy and there is no political speech involved.
The standard that USG holds others to is not complex- it’s “might makes right”. The areas where USG backs down from its interest are fully in line with this ideology- cases where local authorities, political groups, or competitor nation states are able to pose a credible threat to military supremacy. That’s not to say USG is morally in the wrong, all successful states operate along this principle.
The standard that USG holds others to is not complex- it’s “might makes right”.
Which is, at a fundamental level, correct - every law can be broken but the laws of physics. But nobody forces you to use your power to achieve immoral goals, so while you need power, you are still free to decide how to use it.
That’s not to say USG is morally in the wrong, all successful states operate along this principle.
That is wrong, success does not imply morality.
But we started at hypocrisy and if your premise is might make right but you deny other countries this premise, then you are hypocritical. North Korea building nuclear weapons is just them following this premise, so instead of saying North Korea is bad, they should say we understand, they just want some of this might makes right, too. You could still oppose them, because it is in conflict with your might, but then you would at least no longer be hypocritical. And I fully understand why they don't do it, they have a much better image if they maintain the we are good, they are bad narrative, but this exactly what makes them hypocritical, hypocritical in what they do and say, not necessarily in what they actually belief.
You can find a copy here:
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.