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.