NYT: U.S. Response to Crimea Worries Japan’s Leaders

[cpwill]

One of the fascinating things to me has been to watch even the liberal portions of the Press begin to edge away from the President over his impotent "handling" of the Crimean situation. The best that those who wished to remain in support were able to come up with is that somehow conservatives had fallen for a left-wing autocrat because they were pointing out that we were failing to contain him, but that sort of idiocy was mostly isolated (as I understand it) to MSNBC and other members of the loony-bin.

Among the mainstream, however, there has been a definite edging. Is it really about Crimea? Why Crimea? Is it about Hillary becoming independent of the administration? Is it about the Obama administrations' famous lack of transparency and press access - finally they're tired of it and so he has lost luster?


Anywho - this is exactly the sort of thing I predicted would happen once we demonstrated that the U.S. security guarantee was now worth less if not worthless.

TOKYO — When President Bill Clinton signed a 1994 agreement promising to “respect” the territorial integrity of Ukraine if it gave up its nuclear weapons, there was little thought then of how that obscure diplomatic pact — called the Budapest Memorandum — might affect the long-running defense partnership between the United States and Japan.

But now, as American officials have distanced themselves from the Budapest Memorandum in light of Russia’s takeover of Crimea, calling promises made in Budapest “nonbinding,” the United States is being forced at the same time to make reassurances in Asia. Japanese officials, a senior American military official said, “keep asking, ‘Are you going to do the same thing to us when something happens?’ ”....

“The Crimea is a game-changer,” said Kunihiko Miyake, a former adviser to Mr. Abe who is now research director at the Canon Institute for Global Studies in Tokyo. “This is not fire on a distant shore for us. What is happening is another attempt by a rising power to change the status quo.” As an example, he pointed to China’s challenge to Japanese control of the Senkaku Islands, the uninhabited rocks in the East China Sea that Beijing claims under the name Diaoyu Islands.

One Japanese official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity, “We are just looking for a commitment from the American side.”....

Well good luck with that, anonymous official. Maybe the President will threaten "serious consequences" or paint a "red line"? But you know the score in your neighborhood:

...“The Crimea makes us feel uneasy about whether the United States has not only the resolve but the strength to stop China,” said Satoru Nagao, an expert on security issues at Gakushuin University in Tokyo. “Between the Pentagon budget cuts, and the need to put more forces in Europe, can the United States still offer a credible deterrence?”

Specifically, some analysts said they feared China might feel emboldened by the American response to Crimea to try something similar in Senkaku/Diaoyu....

Gosh. Well, under this administration we are extremely unlikely to back our treaty allies over something that the administration will see as just a few old rocks. Will that kind of dismissal from the U.S. come with any consequences?

...Some analysts and former policy makers were blunt in saying that a failure to come to Japan’s aid in a clash over the disputed islands could spell the end of the two nations’ postwar alliance.

If Japan is attacked, and the Americans decline to respond, then it is time from the Americans to pull out” of their bases here, Mr. Miyake said. “Without those bases, America is not going to be a Pacific power anymore. America knows that.”

Well. Okay, so, that would come with the loss of one of our most critical alliances and the ability to project force across half the globe including vital shipping lanes upon which our economy is dependent and which China will assuredly now control.




Hey, how's that "Smart Power" we were promised working out for us and the rest of the world?

 

[StringBean]

Sifting through history, entangling alliances can lead to unnecessary bloodshed (WW1), yet we also have examples of a belligerent state that is showing its true colors but does not yet possess the military power for all-out war (Germany's buildup leading to WW2).

What to do, what to do.

 

[Respecthelect]

Solution: U.S. sign a 99-year base-lease for the Ukranian land overlooking the Crimean island. (it's technically called a peninsula, but limited access makes it a virtual island). The lease alone would scare Putin into backing down. Putin would sue for a peace deal that included him leaving Crimea and Ukraine in exchange for us not building a base. The last thing Putin wants is a U.S. base on his border. This solution simple, cheap and effective.

.

 

[Wiseone]

One of the fascinating things to me has been to watch even the liberal portions of the Press begin to edge away from the President over his impotent "handling" of the Crimean situation. The best that those who wished to remain in support were able to come up with is that somehow conservatives had fallen for a left-wing autocrat because they were pointing out that we were failing to contain him, but that sort of idiocy was mostly isolated (as I understand it) to MSNBC and other members of the loony-bin.

Among the mainstream, however, there has been a definite edging. Is it really about Crimea? Why Crimea? Is it about Hillary becoming independent of the administration? Is it about the Obama administrations' famous lack of transparency and press access - finally they're tired of it and so he has lost luster?


Anywho - this is exactly the sort of thing I predicted would happen once we demonstrated that the U.S. security guarantee was now worth less if not worthless.



Well good luck with that, anonymous official. Maybe the President will threaten "serious consequences" or paint a "red line"? But you know the score in your neighborhood:



Gosh. Well, under this administration we are extremely unlikely to back our treaty allies over something that the administration will see as just a few old rocks. Will that kind of dismissal from the U.S. come with any consequences?



Well. Okay, so, that would come with the loss of one of our most critical alliances and the ability to project force across half the globe including vital shipping lanes upon which our economy is dependent and which China will assuredly now control.




Hey, how's that "Smart Power" we were promised working out for us and the rest of the world?

In my opinion the former adviser and anonymous official are way overstating the potential fallout from Crimea as it regards events in Eastern Asia. Yes do you have a piece of land which is controlled by one country, Japan, and claimed by another, China? Yes. Other than that there is nothing similar in any way whatsoever between the Senkaku Islands and Crimea, it just doesn't warrant comparison.

 

[cpwill]

In my opinion the former adviser and anonymous official are way overstating the potential fallout from Crimea as it regards events in Eastern Asia. Yes do you have a piece of land which is controlled by one country, Japan, and claimed by another, China? Yes. Other than that there is nothing similar in any way whatsoever between the Senkaku Islands and Crimea, it just doesn't warrant comparison.

I would disagree. The continuity is the willingness of the United States to make good on its' promises to defend the territorial integrity of other nations. Japanese leadership have actually been increasingly nervous about the value of the U.S. Security Guarantee for some time - Crimea simply seems to be a bit of a watershed moment for it, where they will have to actually formally wrestle with the need to plan for an increasingly plausible future where China takes kinetic action and we tell them that we are behind the international community being behind them, and that is why we are going to put out a very angry letter and promise some very serious consequences designed to make it really difficult for five or maybe even six members of the Politburo to access their U.S. checking accounts.... :shrug:

We just demonstrated to all of our allies the old joke that America is the best enemy and worst friend to have. That is pretty much a universally applicable, if not always as an equal matter of degree.

 

[Wiseone]

I would disagree. The continuity is the willingness of the United States to make good on its' promises to defend the territorial integrity of other nations. Japanese leadership have actually been increasingly nervous about the value of the U.S. Security Guarantee for some time - Crimea simply seems to be a bit of a watershed moment for it, where they will have to actually formally wrestle with the need to plan for an increasingly plausible future where China takes kinetic action and we tell them that we are behind the international community being behind them, and that is why we are going to put out a very angry letter and promise some very serious consequences designed to make it really difficult for five or maybe even six members of the Politburo to access their U.S. checking accounts.... :shrug:

We just demonstrated to all of our allies the old joke that America is the best enemy and worst friend to have. That is pretty much a universally applicable, if not always as an equal matter of degree.

I should have laid out the differences because then you could have addressed them from the start so here I go:

1) Ukraine, unlike Japan, does not have a security agreement with the US
2) China has a much more limited ability to project and maintain power in the Senkaku Islands than Russia does in the Crimea due to logistic issues brought on by the ocean and distance.
3) Japan's Navy is actually more powerful than China's, unlike Ukraine's Army being weaker than Russia's.
4) The US has specifically stated that the Senkaku Islands belong to Japan and that the defense of that territory falls under the security agreement.
5) The US is actually conducting reconnaissance patrols of the islands and the surrounding areas
Hagel: U.S. strongly committed to protecting Japan | Army Times | armytimes.com
6) Given the lack of native population on the islands, it would be impossible for China to conduct the kind of annexation Russia has with an election and "restless natives" it would be impossible to have any other narrative besides one of open aggression, open aggression over what they say is a fair claim, but open aggression none the less.


So I don't see how it would impact the perceived willingness by other countries of the United States perceived willingness to make good on promises to defend their territory, the US had no such promise with Ukraine. The 1994 agreement recognized the boundaries of Ukraine but it by no means promised military help to defend them

 

[USViking]

...The continuity is the willingness of the United States to make good on its' promises to defend the territorial integrity of other nations...

Lot of bellyaching from you but zero specific policy recommendations. What do you think
the US should do? Wage declared war on Russia? Wage undeclared war with Russia?
Or just do something like send troops to Ukraine?

The rest of NATO is damn sure not ready to make any such moves, and I doubt there
are very many US Republican Senators and Congressmen who are either, so maybe you
should expand the list of targets of your indignant ire. And of your policy recommendations,
should you ever get around to making any.

 

[CanadaJohn]

One of the fascinating things to me has been to watch even the liberal portions of the Press begin to edge away from the President over his impotent "handling" of the Crimean situation. The best that those who wished to remain in support were able to come up with is that somehow conservatives had fallen for a left-wing autocrat because they were pointing out that we were failing to contain him, but that sort of idiocy was mostly isolated (as I understand it) to MSNBC and other members of the loony-bin.

Among the mainstream, however, there has been a definite edging. Is it really about Crimea? Why Crimea? Is it about Hillary becoming independent of the administration? Is it about the Obama administrations' famous lack of transparency and press access - finally they're tired of it and so he has lost luster?


Anywho - this is exactly the sort of thing I predicted would happen once we demonstrated that the U.S. security guarantee was now worth less if not worthless.



Well good luck with that, anonymous official. Maybe the President will threaten "serious consequences" or paint a "red line"? But you know the score in your neighborhood:



Gosh. Well, under this administration we are extremely unlikely to back our treaty allies over something that the administration will see as just a few old rocks. Will that kind of dismissal from the U.S. come with any consequences?



Well. Okay, so, that would come with the loss of one of our most critical alliances and the ability to project force across half the globe including vital shipping lanes upon which our economy is dependent and which China will assuredly now control.




Hey, how's that "Smart Power" we were promised working out for us and the rest of the world?

I'd make a couple of comments here:

1. I think it would be ridiculous for the US to involve itself in military action in defense of Japan against China if all we're talking about is a few uninhabited rocks in the ocean claimed by Japan but never inhabited. There was far more cause for the US to get involved, if that's the issue, when the North Koreans attacked/bombed a couple of islands off the South Korean coast, inhabited by South Koreans, but ones that North Korea wants. Cooler heads prevailed there. Perhaps Japan needs to do something more proactive if it wishes to assert its sovereignty over these islands going forward.

2. I would be all for the Japanese deciding to increase their ability to defend themselves should the current administration in the US, or for that matter any future administration, deem it outside their national interests to get involved in such regional, territorial scraps.

3. Considering China's current economic distress, accumulating debt, and other internal issues, I highly doubt they are at all interested in an armed conflict with a close neighbour with little or no national gain or positive outcome to develop from doing so. In Crimea, the Russians saw an opportunity to annex a piece of land that is vital to their security interests in the region as well as an economic one considering oil and natural gas reserves believed to be under the territorial waters of the island/peninsula.

 

[Dittohead not!]

One of the fascinating things to me has been to watch even the liberal portions of the Press begin to edge away from the President over his impotent "handling" of the Crimean situation. The best that those who wished to remain in support were able to come up with is that somehow conservatives had fallen for a left-wing autocrat because they were pointing out that we were failing to contain him, but that sort of idiocy was mostly isolated (as I understand it) to MSNBC and other members of the loony-bin.

Among the mainstream, however, there has been a definite edging. Is it really about Crimea? Why Crimea? Is it about Hillary becoming independent of the administration? Is it about the Obama administrations' famous lack of transparency and press access - finally they're tired of it and so he has lost luster?

Readying the stage for Hillary to run as a Notobama, or perhaps a maverick, just as McCain ran as a maverick (i.e., Notbush) in '08. History repeats itself. Since the Republicans weren't successful with that strategy, one has to wonder just why the Democrats think it will work this time around.

 

[DaveFagan]

I would disagree. The continuity is the willingness of the United States to make good on its' promises to defend the territorial integrity of other nations. Japanese leadership have actually been increasingly nervous about the value of the U.S. Security Guarantee for some time - Crimea simply seems to be a bit of a watershed moment for it, where they will have to actually formally wrestle with the need to plan for an increasingly plausible future where China takes kinetic action and we tell them that we are behind the international community being behind them, and that is why we are going to put out a very angry letter and promise some very serious consequences designed to make it really difficult for five or maybe even six members of the Politburo to access their U.S. checking accounts.... :shrug:

We just demonstrated to all of our allies the old joke that America is the best enemy and worst friend to have. That is pretty much a universally applicable, if not always as an equal matter of degree.

The whole World can plainly see that the USA interfered in the internal politics of a sovereign Nation to destabilize that Nation (Ukraine). I don't think they fear the USA won't support them, I think they fear that the USA might interfere in their internal politics next. We did violate our Manchurian Agreement with Ukraine by interfering in their internal politics. That doesn't make us look very trustworthy. That and we gave our word at the breakup of the USSR that we would not use NATO to encroach upon the Eastern Baltic Nations. Maybe you overlook that information when you solicit your news, but it is the core of the problem. The problem is not Russia. Russia is not part of a collusive Reserve Banking system trying to control World economics. Russia is not broke. Business is gonna be good in Ukraine for the Wealthy and International Bankers, but the general population is going to suffer big time.

 

[BobbyO]

1) Ukraine, unlike Japan, does not have a security agreement with the US

True.

However, the USA has nothing to upend Russia's efforts (they refuse to sell them arms)

2) China has a much more limited ability to project and maintain power in the Senkaku Islands than Russia does in the Crimea due to logistic issues brought on by the ocean and distance.

The concern raised by Japan isn't that something is going to happen in the Pacific by the end of the month, but long term.

3) Japan's Navy is actually more powerful than China's, unlike Ukraine's Army being weaker than Russia's.

And China is building a Navy.

4) The US has specifically stated that the Senkaku Islands belong to Japan and that the defense of that territory falls under the security agreement.

The concern by Japan is whether the USA will act upon it. They backed down to China;s provocations last year on the subject.

5) The US is actually conducting reconnaissance patrols of the islands and the surrounding areas
Hagel: U.S. strongly committed to protecting Japan | Army Times | armytimes.com

Again, the concern is longterm.

6) Given the lack of native population on the islands, it would be impossible for China to conduct the kind of annexation Russia has with an election and "restless natives" it would be impossible to have any other narrative besides one of open aggression, open aggression over what they say is a fair claim, but open aggression none the less.

And...

 

[joko104]

The lesson of Crimea is that every country in the would should get weapons of mass destruction of all kinds ASAP. If not, they are subject to invasion and to their government otherwise being attacked by the "super powers." Preventing nuclear proliferation is not only even a legitimate topic for discussion anymore.

As for the topic of Japan, they should obtain as many nuclear weapons and delivery systems as rapidly as possible. So should S. Korea.

 

[cpwill]

I should have laid out the differences because then you could have addressed them from the start so here I go:

1) Ukraine, unlike Japan, does not have a security agreement with the US

The United States is required by international agreement to defend both nations territorial integrity - our Security Agreement with Japan and the Budapest Memorandum with Ukraine. We told Ukraine if they agreed to give up their nukes we would protect them, and when the chips were down, we told them too bad so sad, that's what you get for trusting us in the first place.

2) China has a much more limited ability to project and maintain power in the Senkaku Islands than Russia does in the Crimea due to logistic issues brought on by the ocean and distance.

China has the ability to take possession of the Senkakus while probably moving fewer men and material than Russia used. Nor is it terribly difficult to maintain a small garrison in a contested maritime environment - even the Philippines and Vietnam do so.

3) Japan's Navy is actually more powerful than China's, unlike Ukraine's Army being weaker than Russia's.

That is an interesting assertion. It is your belief, then, that China's Second Artillery Corps does not maintain lines of communication with her Navy?

China's A2AD capability is a problem for our Navy, much less the Japanese Maritime Self Defense Forces (that actually come closer to tying the PLAN than you are allowing for). The JASDF is yet to on-board the F-35's that we are selling them, yet China is prepping multiple full 5th Gen fighter lines and has a lethal drone capability while Japan only just announced its intentions to start looking to buy them.

4) The US has specifically stated that the Senkaku Islands belong to Japan and that the defense of that territory falls under the security agreement.

1. No we haven't. See below.

2. And so what? We gave Ukraine security assurances too.

That's what happens when you prove that you can't back up your promises. All the others that you have made come under suspicion. Even if we do actually commit to the defense of the Senkakus (and I would be very surprised if we were willing to risk major conflict with China over that), the fact that we have made it so doubtful that we will incentivizes China to maximize her position in the area, betting that we won't. Whimsical, reactive, inconsistent foreign policy makes it more likely that we will actually have to back up a threat down the road because we cast doubt on our willingness to do so.

Incidentally, You may want to check that claim:

...in meetings over the last few weeks, Obama administration officials said, Japanese officials have been seeking reassurances that the security treaty will apply to the Senkakus.... Obama administration officials say they stand by the American commitment to protect Japan, while refraining from explicitly stating that the United States would intervene militarily in the Senkakus dispute...​

5) The US is actually conducting reconnaissance patrols of the islands and the surrounding areas

We are conducting patrols of the Senkakus?

Hagel: U.S. strongly committed to protecting Japan | Army Times | armytimes.com

:lol: yeah, but what is he not saying?

...Obama administration officials say they stand by the American commitment to protect Japan, while refraining from explicitly stating that the United States would intervene militarily in the Senkakus dispute...​

Meanwhile, what is he saying?

...Hagel said it is understandable that countries are concerned by the unfolding events in Ukraine, where Russian troops remain massed along the border. The issue reverberates in Asia where China, Japan and others are in bitter territorial disputes, including over disputed islands in the East China Sea.

“It’s a pretty predictable, I think, reaction, not just of nations of this area and this region but all over the world,” Hagel told reporters traveling with him to Tokyo...​

and what does your source say that U.S. policy towards the Senkakus is?

...The U.S. has said it takes no side on the question of the disputed islands’ sovereignty...​

We are deliberately leaving ourselves wiggle room. If I were a Japanese analyst, I would absolutely be assessing that that was because we intended to use it.

6) Given the lack of native population on the islands, it would be impossible for China to conduct the kind of annexation Russia has with an election and "restless natives" it would be impossible to have any other narrative besides one of open aggression, open aggression over what they say is a fair claim, but open aggression none the less.

You think China cares about restless natives? Having no populace on the island makes it easier to occupy. You throw a couple of PLAN Marine companies on them and declare that any attempt to forcibly remove or embargo them will be considered an act of war, requiring a full and appropriate response. You get to wave the flag a bit, it makes you look good at home (and the CCP is going to desperately need something that makes them look good at home in the next year or so as their economy readjusts and they are forced to realize large losses due to bad debt), and the likelihood of having actual damaging blowback is minimal. Japan will be infuriated and you will likely lose some trade. Obama will be irritated at being inconvenienced and you will be hectored in some speeches. And that is likely to be it, because Japan is pr-o-b-a-bly (?) not going to go kinetic over the Senkakus unless she knows that we have her back, and our messaging will make it quite clear that we maintained that wiggle room for a reason.

So I don't see how it would impact the perceived willingness by other countries of the United States perceived willingness to make good on promises to defend their territory, the US had no such promise with Ukraine. The 1994 agreement recognized the boundaries of Ukraine but it by no means promised military help to defend them

No, it simply promised that we would help them maintain their territorial integrity in return for them giving up their nukes without saying how. We maintained.... oh, what's a good phrase.... "wiggle room".



Japan is fully rational to worry that the U.S. has become a demonstrably less credible security partner. That doesn't mean that we will abandon them - simply that we are more likely to do so.

 

[Wiseone]

The United States is required by international agreement to defend both nations territorial integrity - our Security Agreement with Japan and the Budapest Memorandum with Ukraine. We told Ukraine if they agreed to give up their nukes we would protect them, and when the chips were down, we told them too bad so sad, that's what you get for trusting us in the first place.



China has the ability to take possession of the Senkakus while probably moving fewer men and material than Russia used. Nor is it terribly difficult to maintain a small garrison in a contested maritime environment - even the Philippines and Vietnam do so.



That is an interesting assertion. It is your belief, then, that China's Second Artillery Corps does not maintain lines of communication with her Navy?

China's A2AD capability is a problem for our Navy, much less the Japanese Maritime Self Defense Forces (that actually come closer to tying the PLAN than you are allowing for). The JASDF is yet to on-board the F-35's that we are selling them, yet China is prepping multiple full 5th Gen fighter lines and has a lethal drone capability while Japan only just announced its intentions to start looking to buy them.



1. No we haven't. See below.

2. And so what? We gave Ukraine security assurances too.

That's what happens when you prove that you can't back up your promises. All the others that you have made come under suspicion. Even if we do actually commit to the defense of the Senkakus (and I would be very surprised if we were willing to risk major conflict with China over that), the fact that we have made it so doubtful that we will incentivizes China to maximize her position in the area, betting that we won't. Whimsical, reactive, inconsistent foreign policy makes it more likely that we will actually have to back up a threat down the road because we cast doubt on our willingness to do so.

Incidentally, You may want to check that claim:

...in meetings over the last few weeks, Obama administration officials said, Japanese officials have been seeking reassurances that the security treaty will apply to the Senkakus.... Obama administration officials say they stand by the American commitment to protect Japan, while refraining from explicitly stating that the United States would intervene militarily in the Senkakus dispute...​

We are conducting patrols of the Senkakus?



:lol: yeah, but what is he not saying?

...Obama administration officials say they stand by the American commitment to protect Japan, while refraining from explicitly stating that the United States would intervene militarily in the Senkakus dispute...​

Meanwhile, what is he saying?

...Hagel said it is understandable that countries are concerned by the unfolding events in Ukraine, where Russian troops remain massed along the border. The issue reverberates in Asia where China, Japan and others are in bitter territorial disputes, including over disputed islands in the East China Sea.

“It’s a pretty predictable, I think, reaction, not just of nations of this area and this region but all over the world,” Hagel told reporters traveling with him to Tokyo...​

and what does your source say that U.S. policy towards the Senkakus is?

...The U.S. has said it takes no side on the question of the disputed islands’ sovereignty...​

We are deliberately leaving ourselves wiggle room. If I were a Japanese analyst, I would absolutely be assessing that that was because we intended to use it.



You think China cares about restless natives? Having no populace on the island makes it easier to occupy. You throw a couple of PLAN Marine companies on them and declare that any attempt to forcibly remove or embargo them will be considered an act of war, requiring a full and appropriate response. You get to wave the flag a bit, it makes you look good at home (and the CCP is going to desperately need something that makes them look good at home in the next year or so as their economy readjusts and they are forced to realize large losses due to bad debt), and the likelihood of having actual damaging blowback is minimal. Japan will be infuriated and you will likely lose some trade. Obama will be irritated at being inconvenienced and you will be hectored in some speeches. And that is likely to be it, because Japan is pr-o-b-a-bly (?) not going to go kinetic over the Senkakus unless she knows that we have her back, and our messaging will make it quite clear that we maintained that wiggle room for a reason.



No, it simply promised that we would help them maintain their territorial integrity in return for them giving up their nukes without saying how. We maintained.... oh, what's a good phrase.... "wiggle room".



Japan is fully rational to worry that the U.S. has become a demonstrably less credible security partner. That doesn't mean that we will abandon them - simply that we are more likely to do so.

I don't think anyone has understood the Budapest Agreement to mean that the US and other signatories would use military force to enforce the treaty, no one from Ukraine, Russia, the US or any other signatory or any analyst has suggested that it does. It may be possible to use it for legal justification for an intervention however there's already sufficient legal justification without that treaty in other international law like the UN charter. Perhaps its just a realization of the reality and knowing what military action to liberate Crimea would mean and knowing the cost would be too high, however I don't think even without this situation anyone would seriously suggest that in 1994 the US promised to use military force to protect Ukrainian territory.

Also its not correct to compare the 1994 agreement with the US/Japan security treaty, the two are wildly different and to say that because we didn't use military force against Russia in Ukraine that we won't honor our agreement with Japan is completely baseless. The two agreements are wholly different and their importance is vastly different as well.

You also missed the part in my link where it said we were doing reconnaissance around those islands, its true we are leaving ourselves some wiggle room which I honestly think is us not wanting to tempt the Japanese to do anything rash either. I was wrong to say they are specifically protected by the security agreement, but that doesn't necessarily mean they aren't either.

As for the 2nd Artillery Corps, its ballistic missiles could reach Senkaku but I've never heard of unguided ballistic missiles being used against a Navy before.

I don't believe that China upgrading its military capability is a sign of perceived weakness on the part of anyone, after all what would you do if there is no perceived weakness in your adversary hypothetically that you would be outclassed in every possible way? You'd upgrade as well, so that alone is not enough by itself to say they view the US as weak and/or unwilling.

 

[Respecthelect]

The lesson of Crimea is that every country in the would should get weapons of mass destruction of all kinds ASAP. If not, they are subject to invasion and to their government otherwise being attacked by the "super powers." Preventing nuclear proliferation is not only even a legitimate topic for discussion anymore.

Absolutely correct analysis. Obama has shown cowardice and world leaders see it. Obama will not live-up to defense treaty obligations. By sanctioning Iran's nuclear weapons development (see Kerry's permission slip), Obama sanctions and invites all nations to nuke-up. This is consistent with his belief that the U.S. is no better than any other country and we should all have an equal seat at the nuclear table. The incentives for countries to avoid nuclear weapons were just removed by Obama in four short years. The U.S. will not defend non-proliferators nor punish proliferators. Dozens of unstable countries are now or soon will develop nuclear weapons.

Even hard-core Democrats should be able to see this? After all, when the nukes start going off, they'll kill just as many Democrats as Republicans.

.

 

[thinkforyoursel]

Oh wow news flash...Crimea has been lost a long time ago.
Ukraine may be next as half the people there want to be part of Russia. The crony Government there can only be propped up by the West for so long! Even though you may not like the former regime you just can't forcefully over-throw them and then claim it's democracy.

America has been in that country for years sowing the seeds of that government take-over...just like they were in countries like Egypt....and look how great that plan worked!:roll: America is using the same propaganda machine to tell you sheep(s) here that Iran is evil .... just the way they have their spies in Iran today trying to indoctrinate the youth. This game is going to be less and less effective as time goes on.

 

[cpwill]

I don't think anyone has understood the Budapest Agreement to mean that the US and other signatories would use military force to enforce the treaty

No - as I stated, we left ourselves wiggle room. Just as we are doing with Japan, which is why she is (rationally) worried.

no one from Ukraine, Russia, the US or any other signatory or any analyst has suggested that it does

No, but Ukraine did request military aid from us, in order to return themselves to credible deterrent status, since we had them give away their nukes. We sent them MRE's.

Also its not correct to compare the 1994 agreement with the US/Japan security treaty, the two are wildly different and to say that because we didn't use military force against Russia in Ukraine that we won't honor our agreement with Japan is completely baseless.

That is incorrect because in both instances what is at question is whether or not the U.S. will back it's commitments to preserve the territorial integrity of other nations when we don't want to.

The Japanese have been worried about this longer than Crimea, you are attempting to focus in on a single point in this trend as though the entire position rested upon it.

You also missed the part in my link where it said we were doing reconnaissance around those islands

Actually I read that. It stated that we intend to send drones to Japan, and that they will (future tense, note) be used to conduct reconnaissance in the areas around the islands. So your earlier statement that we are (current tense) conducting patrols of (ie: in the waters around or the sky above) the Senkakus remains undemonstrated and I do not think that you will be able to demonstrate it, because I do not think it is accurate.

its true we are leaving ourselves some wiggle room which I honestly think is us not wanting to tempt the Japanese to do anything rash either.

That would suggest a deliberate strategic decision, which would be..... very unusual for this administration. What are the Japanese going to do that is rash? Continue to fish around their own islands? Have people land on their own islands?

I was wrong to say they are specifically protected by the security agreement, but that doesn't necessarily mean they aren't either.

We are deliberately leaving them out. Your own source confirmed that.

As for the 2nd Artillery Corps, its ballistic missiles could reach Senkaku but I've never heard of unguided ballistic missiles being used against a Navy before.

The 2nd Arty Corps only has Unguided Ballistic Missiles that aren't for ships?

May I suggest some reading for you?

I don't believe that China upgrading its military capability is a sign of perceived weakness on the part of anyone

No, but increased assertiveness/aggression will come in the wake of the changing calculus that such moves will not see deterring response from other actors, mainly, the United States. That's why our decision to have our "serious response" to Crimea with a slap on the wrist for 12 of Putin's cronies is so damaging. It teaches others that that is what we consider that sort of thing justifiably a "serious response", and it means that the next time we threaten "serious consequences", there will be reasonable belief among those whom we are threatening that we are threatening them with a wrist slap or a wag of the finger.

after all what would you do if there is no perceived weakness in your adversary hypothetically that you would be outclassed in every possible way? You'd upgrade as well, so that alone is not enough by itself to say they view the US as weak and/or unwilling.

Actually, the CCP developed the 4GW theory that willingness is all you need to attack. If I could recommend one more piece of reading. The Chinese do not look at us and see no perceived weakness.

 

[cpwill]

Readying the stage for Hillary to run as a Notobama, or perhaps a maverick, just as McCain ran as a maverick (i.e., Notbush) in '08. History repeats itself. Since the Republicans weren't successful with that strategy, one has to wonder just why the Democrats think it will work this time around.

Because it's Them, and they are so smart, and stuff, is my bet.

 

[USViking]

For the information of anyone who is interested here is a link to the text of the
documents being discussed:

Text of 1994 Budapest Memorandum

Text of 1960 Japan-U.S. Security Treaty

Nothing in the Ukraine memorandum can reasonably be interpreted as a commitment
to use military force; our only specific obligation in the event of aggression is "to seek
immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine"
and also to "consult" with Russia and the UK.

The text of the Japanese treaty is far stronger, specifically granting the US a military
presence in Japan for the specific purpose of "contributing to the security of Japan".

Since the Japanese treaty does not address the issue of territories where sovereignty
is disputed (and there are several) Japan might actually have good reason to be
anxious about American intentions vis a vis Senkaku. However, it would have reason
to be anxious even if there had never been a 2014 Crimean crisis.

And now cp- are you going to answer my questions any time soon, or do you intend
to stay in the whining stage forever?

(reply #7 to this thread):

Lot of bellyaching from you but zero specific policy recommendations. What do you think
the US should do? Wage declared war on Russia? Wage undeclared war with Russia?
Or just do something like send troops to Ukraine?

The rest of NATO is damn sure not ready to make any such moves, and I doubt there
are very many US Republican Senators and Congressmen who are either, so maybe you
should expand the list of targets of your indignant ire. And of your policy recommendations,
should you ever get around to making any.

Also:

(from reply #13 to this thread):

The United States is required by international agreement to defend [emphasis added] both nations territorial integrity - our Security Agreement with Japan and the Budapest Memorandum with Ukraine. We told Ukraine if they agreed to give up their nukes we would protect [emphasis added] them, and when the chips were down, we told them too bad so sad, that's what you get for trusting us in the first place.

Are you deliberately leaving yourself wiggle room by continuing to evade defining the words
"defend" and "protect"? They are apparently not part of the language of diplomacy, since
they do not occur in either the Ukraine memorandum or the Japanese treaty.

 

[CRUE CAB]

So you think that Kim is taking notes?

 

[USViking]

So you think that Kim is taking notes?

I expect he has already noted America's explicit treaty obligation to South Korea. See link:

Text of 1953 Mutual Defense Treaty Between the United States and the Republic of Korea

Not to mention 28,000 US soldiers stationed in SK.

 

[CRUE CAB]

I expect he has already noted America's explicit treaty obligation to South Korea. See link:

Text of 1953 Mutual Defense Treaty Between the United States and the Republic of Korea

Not to mention 28,000 US soldiers stationed in SK.

I got good money says that Obama wouldnt lift a finger to support those troops short of just trying to get them out, maybe.

 

[Wiseone]

No - as I stated, we left ourselves wiggle room. Just as we are doing with Japan, which is why she is (rationally) worried.



No, but Ukraine did request military aid from us, in order to return themselves to credible deterrent status, since we had them give away their nukes. We sent them MRE's.



That is incorrect because in both instances what is at question is whether or not the U.S. will back it's commitments to preserve the territorial integrity of other nations when we don't want to.

The Japanese have been worried about this longer than Crimea, you are attempting to focus in on a single point in this trend as though the entire position rested upon it.



Actually I read that. It stated that we intend to send drones to Japan, and that they will (future tense, note) be used to conduct reconnaissance in the areas around the islands. So your earlier statement that we are (current tense) conducting patrols of (ie: in the waters around or the sky above) the Senkakus remains undemonstrated and I do not think that you will be able to demonstrate it, because I do not think it is accurate.



That would suggest a deliberate strategic decision, which would be..... very unusual for this administration. What are the Japanese going to do that is rash? Continue to fish around their own islands? Have people land on their own islands?



We are deliberately leaving them out. Your own source confirmed that.





The 2nd Arty Corps only has Unguided Ballistic Missiles that aren't for ships?

May I suggest some reading for you?



No, but increased assertiveness/aggression will come in the wake of the changing calculus that such moves will not see deterring response from other actors, mainly, the United States. That's why our decision to have our "serious response" to Crimea with a slap on the wrist for 12 of Putin's cronies is so damaging. It teaches others that that is what we consider that sort of thing justifiably a "serious response", and it means that the next time we threaten "serious consequences", there will be reasonable belief among those whom we are threatening that we are threatening them with a wrist slap or a wag of the finger.



Actually, the CCP developed the 4GW theory that willingness is all you need to attack. If I could recommend one more piece of reading. The Chinese do not look at us and see no perceived weakness.

You've clearly got a better understanding tactical equipment, but still I think its irrelevant considering the treaty between the US and Japan. No Chinese planner would be so rash as to state that the US reaction to Russia in Crimea would be grounds to judge how the US would react to aggression in the Pacific.

Putting the tactical argument aside, I acknowledge its perhaps possible that China would defeat Japan in a strict conflict over the Senkaku without going further away from the Chinese mainland you've convinced me there, I don't see the connection between Crimea and Senkaku

 

[USViking]

I got good money says that Obama wouldnt lift a finger to support those troops short of just trying to get them out, maybe.

You got good money in the same hole in the ground you mistook for your ass.

 

[CRUE CAB]

You got good money in the same hole in the ground you mistook for your ass.

Yea, Oblameo has really shown some spine in his 6 years. Hahahahahaha