re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict

quote:

---

It’s possible to believe this war is Russia’s doing and that Russia is in the wrong while also believing this is Europe’s problem to deal with.

---

That's not how US policymakers feel, nor is it really indicative or illustrative of US security policy in Europe. And the content of Rog's posts are ahistorical and nonsensical. It's a theme of a very particular side to pretend the US is some unique global purveyor of evil. The US wants to remain the hegemon because it has invested heavily in being the hegemon. From that perspective, it makes perfect sense as to why the US acts the way it does.

quote:

---

Its just that we're too much of a pussy to use our own dead soldiers.

---

quote:

---

Zombie Army 4 Dead War

---

that bass line

LINK

quote:

---

That's not how US policymakers feel, nor is it really indicative or illustrative of US security policy in Europe. And the content of Rog's posts are ahistorical and nonsensical. It's a theme of a very particular side to pretend the US is some unique global purveyor of evil. The US wants to remain the hegemon because it has invested heavily in being the hegemon. From that perspective, it makes perfect sense as to why the US acts the way it does.

---

I disagree with the policy makers and don’t believe it makes perfect sense. It’s an outdated point of view and doctrine. We’ve gone back and forth on this. Most policy makers think this way simply because it’s the way we’ve always done it. Maybe if policy makers came out and said “We’re contributing to the war in Ukraine because we want to be the big swinging dick in Europe and not the Europeans” I’d be more inclined to believe there is an actual coherent policy here. Frankly I think we’re doing all of this mostly out of habit.

quote:

---

Would Japan have attacked the United States if we continued to fully trade with them despite their brutal treatment of the Chinese? Please detail why or why not. I would enjoy hearing more about this topic.

---

I'm pretty sure I've explained this to you before, as you are so confident of this position, even though it is wrong.

The Japanese High Command saw conflict as inevitable. Regardless, before the 1941 oil embargo, the US imposed a 'moral' embargo which placed export controls on US aviation technology, which occurred in 1938. In 1940, in response to Japanese invasion of Northern Indochina, the US expanded the export controls to aviation fuel, scrap iron, and steel. During this entire time, negotiations between the Japanese and the US continued. During this time period, the Japanese invaded southern Indochina, which prompted the US to accuse the Japanese of negotiating in bad-faith, which is a key aspect of the prelude to Pearl Harbor, and indeed is the proximate cause of the US's decision to finally embargo oil.

Despite an acrimonious relationship from 1919 onward, the US and Japan continued trade, a time period which included the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, the Japanese invasion of China, a previous direct Japanese attack on a US Navy gunboat (the USS Panay), the looting of American property during the Nanking Massacre, and the Japanese hitting an American consul in the face during the events at Nanking, caused a continued deterioration of relations.

In terms of the specific policy path, Roosevelt chose the middle path between the more hawkish members of his cabinet, such as Morgenthau and Stimson, and the military men, including Harold Stark and George Marshall, who wanted to focus on the European threat first before moving their attention to the Pacific.

The actual details of the embargo are interesting, as Roosevelt wanted to freeze assets of the Japanese and then require them to apply for export licenses from the State Department, at which point they would pay for the oil with funds frozen from the Treasury Department. There is some question as to whether Roosevelt intended the policy as enacted, as he wanted to retain flexibility to dangle the carrot of a potential full embargo for the purposes of negotiation, but what was enacted was more broad than what Roosevelt originally sought.

The Japanese ambassador notified Cordell Hull, SOS, in early September, four months after the original embargo was planned, that oil exports ceased. Hull and Roosevelt were both unaware of the scale of what was enacted (with the more hawkish assistant SOS Dean Acheson responsible for the actual details of the embargo). By this point, the British and the Dutch also joined the embargo.

During the same time period, the Japanese decided to invade the Dutch East Indies, which were already oil-rich. People who think that the embargo specifically caused Pearl Harbor should think through the implications of this, as it undermines the notion that the Japanese declared war specifically because of the embargo. Rather, the Japanese decided that they were done with negotiations and US policymakers were aware of that fact, as the US had decoded Japanese diplomatic cables. The US was aware that the Japanese had something planned, as ten days before the attacks on Pearl Harbor, Harold Stark sent a dispatch warning American Naval Commanders in the Pacific that 'Negotiations with Japan looking toward the stabilization of conditions in the Pacific have ceased and an aggressive move by Japan is expected within the next few days. The number and equipment of Japanese troops and the organization of naval task forces indicates an amphibious expedition against either the Philippines Thai or Kra Peninsula or possibly Borneo,' which again should undermine notions that the US knew that the Japanese were planning to attack Pearl Harbor specifically.

To summarize, the Japanese felt that war with the US was inevitable. It wasn't specifically because of the oil embargo, but because the conditions for returning to normalization of trade between the two countries required Japan to give up its colonial ambition, which was something they could not do. Suggesting a single event as a defining cause for Pearl Harbor intentionally ignores the entire history of US-Japan relations, hence why it is nonsensical.

quote:

---

I disagree with the policy makers and don’t believe it makes perfect sense.

---

I'm not understanding you here. Are you suggesting that the US hasn't invested heavily in both European security and European trade as part of a program to remain the global hegemon?

quote:

---

I’d be more inclined to believe there is an actual coherent policy here.

---

There is a coherent policy here. It isn't expressed openly, because that would require certain things which the US and allies would rather not say out loud, but the actions of the US in the post-war era give a very clear indication of the US position.

Yes I know it’s a post WWII strategy. I think it made sense in the decades following the war. I think it’s outdated and unnecessary now. So instead of making a new strategy with goals more applicable to the 21st century we just keep pretending it’s 1955 because our policy makers are unimaginative and lazy.

quote:

---

OK, who had "Ukrainian counter-offensive starts with Russian armed group attacking Russia" on their Bingo card?

---

LINK

quote:

---

To summarize, the Japanese felt that war with the US was inevitable. It wasn't specifically because of the oil embargo, but because the conditions for returning to normalization of trade between the two countries required Japan to give up its colonial ambition, which was something they could not do. Suggesting a single event as a defining cause for Pearl Harbor intentionally ignores the entire history of US-Japan relations, hence why it is nonsensical.

---

So to go full circle Japan should have been considered a vassal state to the US because they had to ask the US for permission to invade another country, didn't ask for permission and then had their "aid" pulled.

quote:

---

Would Japan have attacked the United States if we continued to fully trade with them despite their brutal treatment of the Chinese? Please detail why or why not. I would enjoy hearing more about this topic.

---

Japan had eyes on the West Dutch Indes and to secure that they would have had to go through us.