I can’t really parse this. Why should Japan care about Crimea or Ukraine?
they have attacked several neighbours for no reason and have stated they wish to "reclaim" others
1. Russia hasn't stated a wish to reclaim other countries, even former parts of USSR. 2. Both military conflicts with neighbors Russia participated in: Georgia and Ukraine had very serious reasons and it was not Russia, that initiated both.
what would be better then?
RT I suppose?
Actions count more than words.
20 Feb 2022: "Russian Ambassador to the United States Anatoly Antonov denied Sunday that the Kremlin is preparing for an invasion of neighboring Ukraine..." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-ukraine-ambassador-anato...
21 Feb 2022: Invasion!
"Any reason" is a bit of a stretch — I doubt Putin has a dice with country names on it — but given how dumb it was to invade Ukraine, it's not unreasonable to assume he's dumb enough to try Japan.
Yes, to the extent that Russia, China and USA are all belligerent, Russia is belligerent. They are all imperialists who meddle in their neighbors affairs. The USA is unique in that, having totally eradicated / subjugated / driven into reservations all nations native to the continent, and having taken 1/3 of its entire land mass from Mexico in a war, and having declared the entire Western hemisphere to effectively be its protectorate, it has flown around the world bombing populations and destroying countries that present zero threat to it (e.g. Laos). It spends more than the next 10 countries combined on its military, participated in 80% of the wars and most regime changes in the last 80 years, and has 25x more military bases than the entire rest of the world combined. And the rest of the world outside the bubble agrees with this, with polls taken every year...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/jun/15/usa.iran
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/05/us-threat-demo...
So yes, Russia and USA and China are bad to their neighbors, but one of these goes halfway around the world and attacks people that present zero actual threat to it, including as territories from which to launch missiles. And tries to go and flip all former allies of the other two imperialists against them, causing more proxy wars. That's a whole other level of belligerence.
So it seems you have conceded the argument and agree that Russia is mindlessly belligerent and now are saying that's fine because you think x-y-z are also belligerent? (Wrong but eh, not the subject of discussion).
But that's not what the OP seems to be saying. He seems to be saying that, history has shown Russia is uniquely a bloodthirsty country that wants to attack its neighbors for no reason, any chance it gets. In a "normal" analysis of countries since, say, 1980s, one would see that countries typically attack as a reaction to something. Even USA invading Iraq was officially in response to Saddam ousting inspectors and maintaining ambiguity about WMDs. And even the secret war of bombing in Laos, which was especially egregious (since Laos presented zero threat, and yet was bombed more than any country in history), was justified by the "domino theory" that we cannot allow communism to spread around the world, because one day it may "challenge our interests".
That's why USA and NATO want to flip Russia's neighbors against Russia, even if it means a CIA-sponsored insurgency war where a million people die. In this kind of geopolitical chess, it is far better that they fight Russia over there, than having to later fight them all over here, economically and militarily, as a geopolitical bloc. Pick them off, divide and conquer. Russia, like a cornered animal, will react, as would any country to whom it is done. That kind of stuff is understandable -- geopolitical chess, action, reaction.
But if one goes to say that Russia is somehow beyond reacting, actually goes out and invades countries to grab their territory for fun and profit, that's saying much more. And in that case, I would push back on that narrative. Even the USA isn't doing that, officially. They are always "reacting" to what they perceive are a threat to their interests and security. But in the USA case it's much harder to justify when a country they're invading is 3000 miles away. The point of my reply was to say that each country (Russia included) has media that radicalizes their population to think exactly this kind of "cartoon villain" thing about another country, and I wish we would all listen to each other's media and hold our politicians accountable to talk to each other more frequently, as Khrustchev and Kennedy did, so they can avoid nuclear war.
So you agree makes Russia a potential threat that Japan needs to care about?
Because your response didn't read like that.
But then again, I can’t say the same for, say, China building artificial islands or USA invading Haiti to restore order. Maybe I am wrong and Russia has a reason to gradually encroach and attack, so I am willing to hear it.
I am certainly suspecting that Russia’s spy agencies are helping foment a revolution against the governments in Moldova and Slovakia, which may in the future lead to a civil war there!
You now feign agreement with the first point only to say it's because of what-about-USA... and then disagree again.
All the while you're polluting the whole argument with needless arguments in the hope that something sticks or at least draws discussion somewhere else.
One thing Japan has that Ukraine does not is a whole bunch of US military installations. (And a mutual defense treaty, but you know what they say about three useless forms of North American paper)
I don't, but I can guess where you're going from the context.
I would have thought this kind of knowledge was in the table stakes for anybody with any kind of interest in the matter.
It's probably in their best interest not to signal "it's fine to forcibly annex someone else's lands".
After USA pressured Japan to sanction Russia and send military support to Ukraine, all talks about Kurils were terminated.
What does Japan gain from the idea that one country cannot take another country's territory by force, if it is in fact Russia that is in control of these islands?
If anything, Japan would like them back eventually. All attempts at diplomacy have failed, so force would be the only other option.
That Japan most certainly doesn't want territorial disputes to be resolved by might and current possession status.
> If anything, Japan would like them back eventually.
Yes, and they'd prefer "Russia currently holds them, so they get to keep them" not to be precedent. Russia is attempting to set that precedent in eastern Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova currently.
If Russia „wins“ they could justify using force to free their „historic“ possession.
And if Russia „looses“ they can argue having military control does not imply ownership. And that usage of force to revert military occupation is legal.
The countries that invaded Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc. decided to sanction Russia, but it's their own thing.
Russia holds veto power. I guess it'll be pretty hard for UN to ignore it.
Japan was one of 15 votes on the UN Security Council to pass it.
Why should Japan care about it? For obvious reasons.
There are very long tensions between Japan and Russia about the Kuril Islands, that both countries have a claim on. It is very possible, that the same vague claims used on annexing Crimea today, or Donbas, would be used against Japan, and may not stop there. What is more, Japan is an ally of the United States since WW2, and seems to benefit much both militarily and economically. What is more, another raising power in Asia and growing tensions around Taiwan may have the same consequences for Asia, which may threaten japanese influence in the reqion. We are also seeing proliferation of nuclear weapons, and the threats and blackmail is rising, when deescalation is seen as a sign of weakness.
Usually, being united against common threat is the cheapest strategy, and to pay a few bucks less for oil might turn to be very expensive in the long run. If there would be no punishment for disrespecting international law, the chaos would come.
The question was about if Japan has any reasons to feel threatened by what happened in Ukraine. My reason is, any democratic society should be, which is not hard to imagine.
The question of "who is more saint" does not have any strategical significance and is clear reflection of russian propaganda. Obviously, nobody is saint. That doesn't make what happened in Bucha less shocking.
Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow them in the future: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
The list of "disrespecting international law" is pretty big. The list of punishment is way shorter and highly selective.
And what punishment are we talking about, voluntary economical sanctions? Those numbers of atrocities, stealing children, mass graves - I still can't understand how the international response is so mild.
This is an interesting little bit on the end of that question.
The problem with unlimited access to information is that you can find a thousand people arguing for a thousand different opposing things with all that information.
In my perspective, there is no doubt about japanese government stance on the matters in Ukraine. And any other non-totalitarian society. I am ready being convinced otherwise.
For the same reason your neighbor should care if someone breaks into your home, points a gun at your family, and says half your house is theirs now. Oh and no police are coming.
This also sets a precedent for other neighbors. Korea claims random islands and politicians sometimes call for extreme actions to defend them from Japan (Japan does absolutely nothing and Japanese people, for the most part, do not know of the existence of these islands). China claims random islands that Japan controls with some of the more extreme factions saying Okinawa in its entirety isn’t legitimately Japanese, so it should be independent. But also Okinawa used to be somewhat subservient to China, so eventually independence would mean being a province of China, just like Russia is claiming with eastern Ukraine (or even all of Ukraine, depending on the day).
And there’s also Taiwan, which if China sees people get burnt out with the Ukraine war and go back to normal trade in a year, gives them pretty good odds to rain down missiles then rush in and seize the land with minimum international backfire. And if Taiwan is easily claimed, there’s no reason not to pursue Okinawa and South China Sea territories. And South Sea conflicts would screw over Japan as well, since there’s loads of trade with Vietnam and other countries in the region, and Japan is heavily dependent on food imports from China and elsewhere.
Japan has a lot of reasons to care. If Russia’s strategy pays off (and it’s unfortunately seeming like it will, since people outside of the region are getting burnt out on it and Russian mothers will happily fight until their last son is getting picked apart by dogs), those same methods will be used in East Asia.
also they murdered millions of people in very sadistic ways
After invasion of Iraq over 20 years ago it was clear that there is absolutely zero integrity anywhere in this world.
'It’s not as if Japan can’t manage without this. They can. They simply don’t want to,” said James Brown, a professor at Temple University’s Japan campus. Prof. Brown, who studies Russia-Japan relations, said Japan should move to withdraw from the Sakhalin projects eventually “if they’re really serious about supporting Ukraine.”
Mitsui & Co. and Mitsubishi Corp. , two Japanese companies, collectively own a 22.5% stake in Sakhalin-2 and successfully pushed to maintain the stake last year with backing from Tokyo'
At least one middling positive of the invasion has been a litmus test for the levels of integrity of various countries. Russia annexed Crimea almost a decade ago. If you haven't read the writing on the wall and maneuvered independence you're incompetent or immoral.