politics

Japan, NATO to step up military cooperation

23 Comments
By MARI YAMAGUCHI

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2022 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

23 Comments
Login to comment

6 planes shows a strong commitment and close cooperation?

Let me know when weekly sorties are fully integrated in the region. If it is news worthy, we aren't working together enough. Nearly full integration and swapping of front-line people between the different countries is needed.

Train as you expect to fight.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

NATO will now demand full access to Japan, and its airspace and maritime territory. Of course Japanese taxpayers will pay for accommodation and resupply. Europe is on the other side of the world, so we will have give then fuel from our Saudi emergency supplies because they can’t get fuel from Russia.

This will very annoy China, who will probably do a nuclear bomb test. Next…

-2 ( +9 / -11 )

@Rodney

Europe is on the other side of the world

In actual fact Russia is 77% an Asia country .

I think you don't realize just how large both China and Russia are.

Obviously China and Russia are not as worried about the USA , NATO as it appears you believe.

Yes NATO is just using Japan as a pawn in it's agenda.

It's a slippery slope for Japan

5 ( +14 / -9 )

Hopefully Japan doesn't repeat Ukraine's mistakes. It's a foolish strategy to poison relations with your near neighbors and expect far flung foreigners will save you.

3 ( +12 / -9 )

not good news for Japan and for peace in our area.

Japan have agreement with US occupying forces for decades,foreign boots are stationed here and all of us are collecting money from our taxes for their lavish lifestyle so there is no need extra agreement with NATO at all.

Dont need to mention that we are sponsoring JSDF beside that.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

Japan has more in common with NATO than it does with Russia and China, that’s for sure. Good decision and a wise choice.

4 ( +12 / -8 )

Us versus them.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Who said NATO wasn't an expansionist organisation? North Atlantic my a##

1 ( +9 / -8 )

This isn't just about fighting as you train, it is about international votes in international organizations. Japanese leaders know this. Seems that having most European countries with a slight interest in friendly relations with Japan is a win-win proposition.

But I don't think in the Xenophobic way that many Japanese seem to think, so perhaps the cultural differences are just too great to consider a loose partnership?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Has NATO ever invaded or threatened to invade another country?

Have Russia and China? Oh, yeah. Big time.

Keep your powder dry and stick together.

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

Hmmm.. Didn't NATO do the Balkans? Afghanistan Wasn't NATO? And I think even /Libya was kind of NATO.... and they threaten plenty.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

@stormcrow

Has NATO ever invaded another country

Yes NATO it has and still is !

Has NATO ever threatened to invade another country

Yes NATO it has and still is !

Surely you cant be that naive or ignorant ?

I thought you were more aware !

Oh well .

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Why are people so stupid. Obviously the army is necessary. Why does Japan need an army, because the war does not depend on Japan. It's not that people don't want war, that there's no war in this place. If you don't have an army, then you will be threatened, they will use the army to make you compromise in all aspects, and you will lose all interests.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Japan has been too "peaceful" for too long. Got the Germanic disease too. Aggression is one thing, active defense against totalitarian regime is another. Japan should rearm and strengthen relations with other democratic countries, including strong, dependable European ones, and Taiwan too, so long as latter is not governed under the pro-China KMT.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

KaerimashitaToday  02:51 pm JST

Hmmm.. Didn't NATO do the Balkans? Afghanistan Wasn't NATO? And I think even /Libya was kind of NATO.... and they threaten plenty.

The answer to your question is that NATO offers some support to it's members missions very rarely if or when the UN's hands are tied. Why would the UN's hands be tied? Surely you must know the answer to that. NATO was involved in Afghanistan as the country was harbouring Al Qaeda bases and Al Q were attacking and plotting to attack NATO member countries.

They were in Libya to support the implementation of a UN resolution, they were in The Balkans because Russia had vetoed UN intervention and the war was causing considerable issues to neighbouring countries.

So no, NATO does not invade countries, it upholds security threats to its members and by the looks of things Japan is actively inviting NATO, not the other way round. Quite clearly NATO expansion is needed for security, as the UN with Russia and China involved is basically useless for regional security.

Unsurprisingly, it's the same old suspects here who suck up Russian propaganda crying foul. NATO is not an active threat to peaceful nations.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Japan has to protect itself at all times, like in boxing

It's better to be prepared and ready but not use it, than be unprepared and have to use it like Ukraine

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Xin,the US is the big dog,in the block

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Why use violence,when psychological warfare work better

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@kaerimashita

The Balkans?

Didn't NATO bring a stop to the genocide going on there? It certainly didn't seem like NATO was there to enrich themselves.

Afghanistan?

UBL and AQ were there, otherwise, the U.S. led coalition wouldn't have jumped into that quagmire. Russia, on the other hand, did a few decades ago for other reasons, so the comparison doesn't really stack up, does it? Oddly enough, when the U.S. and its allies did finally leave Afghanistan, it looked like the whole country tried to follow them out. Why was that?

@kyo wa etc. "Yes NATO it has and still is!"

Who are you talking about? Also, be more specific. I don't see the world through the same looking glass as you, that's very true. I don't see NATO invading its neighbors to enrich themselves. Can you please give more detail about all of the damage NATO has caused that is equivalent to Russia's invasion of Ukraine or China's invasion of Tibet or its actions against the Uyghur. I don't see anything comparable as you do, so could you please share your insight. Stopping genocide and embracing it are two completely different things.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

No Russia-lover has ever been able to explain why NATO should ignore Russia's provocation in expanding their territory towards NATO borders? Why is Putin trying to provoke NATO into WWIII?

I think NATO should fire a couple of missiles at the kremlin. The loss of all Russian leadership would make the planet such a better place.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Hmmm.. Didn't NATO do the Balkans? Afghanistan Wasn't NATO?

The operation in the Balkans was conducted under a UN Resolution 1244 and included military units from many otherwise neutral nations who are not members of NATO, such as Switzerland and Austria. Military operations were conducted by the European Union, not by NATO, under a UN appointed commander (a French General).

NATO entered Afghanistan under Article 5. An attack on one NATO member, in this case the US, is an attack on all NATO members. In addition some non-NATO members such as Sweden sent their forces to fight in Afghanistan. Do not forget the US was attacked by an Afghan based and Taliban protected foreign enemy on 9-11. The US demanded the Afghan government (which was controlled by the Taliban) hand over the AQ members and specifically Osama bin Laden or else. They refused and continued to protect him so they got the or else.

Military operations in Libya were, like the Balkans, conducted under UN Security Council Resolution 1973 in order to stop a civil war where crimes against humanity were being committed by the Libyan government. When a no fly zone and UN approved sanctions failed to end the violence the UN approved a military intervention against Gaddafi's forces.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

While I understand the comments that NATO has conducted some operations in support of UN resolutions, they do seem selective. I'm thinking of the Palestine situation. Shouldn't they have been in there?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

While I understand the comments that NATO has conducted some operations in support of UN resolutions, they do seem selective. I'm thinking of the Palestine situation. Shouldn't they have been in there?

There would first have to be a UN Resolution, probably from the UN Security Council, calling for a military intervention in the Occupied Territories. That is a tough row to hoe. Three of the five permanent members of the Security Council, the US, UK and France would certainly oppose such a resolution. Each holds a veto if it came to that. I don't think even the Russians would support such a resolution because of the effect it would have on their operations in Syria where Israeli and Russian forces do a delicate dance trying not to come into direct conflict with each other. The Russians and Israelis do a brisk mutual business as well. If you notice Israel has not joined the west in its sanctions against Russia or any of the Russian oligarchs, many of whom have properties and business in Israel.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites