politics

Japan ramps up diplomacy to help ease Ukraine-Russia tensions

29 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

29 Comments
Login to comment

Let Russia reap what it sowed, until it stop being a backwoods country

1 ( +16 / -15 )

Japan told Ukraine and Russia on Tuesday that diplomacy is the path toward defusing their escalating crisis

What a relief....both Russia and Ukraine must be greatful for the words of wisdom and advice from Kishida. Japan is renowned as a diplomatic heavy weight uniquely skilled in de-escalating conflict worldwide. True story . Phew, it was close though as today, Feb 16 was the invasion day.

-3 ( +12 / -15 )

Japan comes late to the game and thinks it has any relevant power to actually do something. Right.

-1 ( +12 / -13 )

Japan doesnt have to move a mountain.

If all countries did their part to stop aggression, war can be prevented before it begins.

A lot of bias on anything Japan does. While giving a complete pass to many countries which do nothing and say nothing.

For a Pacifist country Japan is doing more then South Korea is, and more then many countries who keep quiet and unwilling to stand against aggression.

-3 ( +12 / -15 )

Yeah sure,Japan international policy is a light weight.

Interesting that in all the western European news no one talks about Japan’s diplomacy but the one made by Marcon first and Scholz later.

JT make the news to the reader feel like Japan really has something to say in this but fact is that no one cares in the world.

1 ( +11 / -10 )

Kishida is just doing this for points at home. Nobody cares what Japan says about this situation. If you doubt that, imagine what you would think if the French president came and offered to settle a dispute between Korea and Japan. People would be like "What is he even doing here?"

This is an issue for neighboring countries and global powers.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

For a Pacifist country Japan

Just by allowing all those US military bases, soldiers and god knows what weapons to remain there really makes that sentence laughable. That's like harboring criminals.

-9 ( +6 / -15 )

Seems Japan has been a supporter of Ukraine for quite some time.

https://www.ua.emb-japan.go.jp/files/000336611.pdf

Recently:

"TOKYO (Reuters) - Japan is ready to extend at least $100 million in emergency loans to Ukraine, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida told Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy on Tuesday, the Japanese government said in a summary of their phone call."

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2022-02-15/japan-offers-ukraine-100-million-in-loans-in-show-of-support#:~:text=TOKYO%20(Reuters)%20%2D%20Japan%20is,summary%20of%20their%20phone%20call.

3 ( +10 / -7 )

Japan will amend her constitution to provide humanitarian supports to Ukrainians. That will take two years!

But first, they need to negotiate with Russia about the return of the Kurile islands!

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Must have been awkward for Zelenskyy to wait for the call to end to get back to actually important matters. Kishida's words hold no water when he is leading the party which actively pushes to change the constitution to allow military conflict abroad.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

how is russian invasion to Ukraine doing?

i have read "news" that russian agression will happen today from "verified sources" like Bloomberg,CNN etc...even old fella from whitecottage have said something like this Wednesday will be D day...but yes opposite happened and russian troops are going back to own bases...where did you dear comrades have made a mistake errrrr... :)

anyway Japanese involvement is as usual-just empty words and keep nice face of JapanInc abroad when no one expect any impact from this talk at all.

btw how many tankers with gas were sent to Europe already by japanese companies?

so far i have catched some completely non sense "news" here a few days ago...?

are we living in times when "hoaxes" became truth in just a few days?

dont you feel shame from spreading of all this baseless antirussian propaganda here for months?can you understand that you have lied to us all the time?

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

Japan should be talking to Biden and the democrats instead, they are the ones who clearly wanted to start a full scale war. No one wants this war more than Biden and the democrats. It wouldn't even surprise me to have a Gulf of Tonkin incident just so that a war can start. The liberal left is also 100% in support of full scale warfare with a nuclear power and is going around attacking anyone who does not want war or even consider diplomacy.

-6 ( +5 / -11 )

For a Pacifist country Japan is doing more then South Korea is"

SK is completely irrelevant to this article.

"TOKYO (Reuters) - Japan is ready to extend at least $100 million in emergency loans to Ukraine...

With the proviso of buying what kind of Japanese equipment?

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

"Prime Minister Fumio Kishida spoke by phone with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to underscore Japan's support for Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, saying that his country opposes the use of force to change the status quo."

Yeah, and then added, "But please understand we can't actually impose sanctions on Russia because of the uniquely difficult situation Japan faces. I'm sorry? Sure, I'll have some cake... and yes, I'll eat it, too. What do you mean, 'play both sides'? Hello? Hello?"

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

Yesterday people were having a go at Australia for asking China to speak out against a Russian invasion and today people dismiss Japan also speaking out for peace.

Many must prefer that middle power nations just keep quiet until asked to give their opinion. Keeping quiet is part of the problem for the world when ever the specter of war looms. Regardless of who is invading who, or who looks like it, all nations should give an opinion. It is too late to speak out once the first shot is fired.

Kudos to Japan and Australia for having an opinion and stating it. Alone they are not heavy weights but the more nations speaking up gives more weight to the discussions and the possible outcomes.

Issues like this do not often just go away and fix themselves without help. Thanks to those who are trying to help.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

We should stay away from American Wars. We have Article 9. We didn’t lose the Vietnam or Korean or Afghan or Iraq wars because…we are peaceful. We are not NATO. We are peaceful.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Must be why Putin is suddenly saying he is withdrawing troops from the border. Well done Japan!!

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Yes diplomacy is always the best path towards solving conflicts, many U.S and European media outlet have already started the war and if you listen closely to them you would fooled to think that the situation has reached the point of no return and shot could be fired at any moment, it's a strategy to drag Russia into a conflict hoping that Russia will take the bate.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Peter14: "Many must prefer that middle power nations just keep quiet until asked to give their opinion."

Actually, I think what people would prefer is that nations do a little more than just talk, and then turn around and go against what they say a short time later. Member how Japan condemned the Junta taking power again in Myanmar, then allowed Kirin, Nissan, and others to operate? Member how they condemned Iran and said they back US sanctions on them, but then asked to be an exception to the US freezing assets of nations that continue to deal with Iran and import oil from them? How they stand behind and love Taiwan, but recognize it as part of China?

It becomes a little hard to take the "middle countries" seriously in terms of efforts to actually do anything, or on their stances, when there's nothing to back it up in terms of action. As for stating opinions, as you say, I haven't heard anyone against that at all -- just questions of efficacy or why the back-patting as though their "suggestions" to Russia have any consequence in this case. Maybe if instead of evacuating their embassy in Ukraine while telling them they stand behind them, Japan could send in ambassadors to both nations to try and calm things a little?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

smithinjapan

I think what people would prefer is that nations do a little more than just talk, and then turn around and go against what they say a short time later. Member how Japan condemned the Junta taking power again in Myanmar, then allowed Kirin, Nissan, and others to operate? Member how they condemned Iran and said they back US sanctions on them, but then asked to be an exception to the US freezing assets of nations that continue to deal with Iran and import oil from them? How they stand behind and love Taiwan, but recognize it as part of China?

So you prefer things to stay the same and not change. Like I loved Windows XP and it was the best only they changed their mind and brought out a different OS and then a year or so later another different one. Thats called "updating". Governments also update their advise when new information comes to light, or a new person takes over with different ideas or something just changes.

Sure, I am first to point fingers at governments or leaders that get things wrong in my opinion, or they flip flop on positions more often than they change clothes. But life is change, not always for the better.

Japan having and stating opinions is better than being secretive and not telling the public anything.

Nobody will always agree unless they are paid to do so. And of course your free to tell them they have done poorly and vote for the opposition in the next election. The right to object and to speak out is not available to everyone everywhere. Be thankful you can voice such opinions freely. I know I am.

Japan is just exercising it's right to take part in international diplomacy and voice it's concerns, giving the best advise it can and hoping to do what it can to keep peace. I can find no fault with that.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Good for Japan ramping diplomacy..

Not like US ramping fear, caos and war..

As always..

0 ( +3 / -3 )

And LIES..

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Must be why Putin is suddenly saying he is withdrawing troops from the border. Well done Japan!!

Lol..yep, that was the game changer.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

SCOTT RITTER: As someone who once trained to fight the Soviet Army, I can attest that a war with Russia would be unlike anything the US military has experienced – ever. The US military is neither organized, trained, nor equipped to fight its Russian counterparts. Nor does it possess doctrine capable of supporting large-scale combined arms conflict. If the US was to be drawn into a conventional ground war with Russia, it would find itself facing defeat on a scale unprecedented in American military history. In short, it would be a rout.

Don’t take my word for it. In 2016, then-Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster, when speaking about the results of a study – the Russia New Generation Warfare – he had initiated in 2015 to examine lessons learned from the fighting in eastern Ukraine, told an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington that the Russians have superior artillery firepower, better combat vehicles, and have learned sophisticated use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for tactical effect. “Should US forces find themselves in a land war with Russia,” McMaster said, “they would be in for a rude, cold awakening.”

In short, the USA would get their ass kicked.

America’s 20-year Middle Eastern misadventure in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria produced a military that was no longer capable of defeating a peer-level opponent on the battlefield. This reality was highlighted in a study conducted by the US Army’s 173rd Airborne Brigade, the central American component of NATO’s Rapid Deployment Force, in 2017. The study found that US military forces in Europe were underequipped, undermanned, and inadequately organized to confront military aggression from Russia. The lack of viable air defense and electronic warfare capability, when combined with an over-reliance on satellite communications and GPS navigation systems, would result in the piecemeal destruction of the US Army in rapid order should they face off against a Russian military that was organized, trained, and equipped to specifically defeat a US/NATO threat.

The issue isn’t just qualitative, but also quantitative – even if the US military could stand toe-to-toe with a Russian adversary (which it can’t), it simply lacks the size to survive in any sustained battle or campaign. The low-intensity conflict that the US military waged in Iraq and Afghanistan has created an organizational ethos built around the idea that every American life is precious, and that all efforts will be made to evacuate the wounded so that they can receive life-saving medical attention in as short a timeframe as possible. This concept may have been viable where the US was in control of the environment in which fights were conducted. It is, however, pure fiction in large-scale combined arms warfare. There won’t be medical evacuation helicopters flying to the rescue – even if they launched, they would be shot down. There won’t be field ambulances – even if they arrived on the scene, they would be destroyed in short order. There won’t be field hospitals – even if they were established, they would be captured by Russian mobile forces.

What there will be is death and destruction, and lots of it. One of the events which triggered McMaster’s study of Russian warfare was the destruction of a Ukrainian combined arms brigade by Russian artillery in early 2015. This, of course, would be the fate of any similar US combat formation. The superiority Russia enjoys in artillery fires is overwhelming, both in terms of the numbers of artillery systems fielded and the lethality of the munitions employed.

While the US Air Force may be able to mount a fight in the airspace above any battlefield, there will be nothing like the total air supremacy enjoyed by the American military in its operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The airspace will be contested by a very capable Russian air force, and Russian ground troops will be operating under an air defense umbrella the likes of which neither the US nor NATO has ever faced. There will be no close air support cavalry coming to the rescue of beleaguered American troops. The forces on the ground will be on their own.

This feeling of isolation will be furthered by the reality that, because of Russia’s overwhelming superiority in electronic warfare capability, the US forces on the ground will be deaf, dumb, and blind to what is happening around them, unable to communicate, receive intelligence, and even operate as radios, electronic systems, and weapons cease to function.

Any war with Russia would find American forces slaughtered in large numbers. Back in the 1980s, we routinely trained to accept losses of 30-40 percent and continue the fight, because that was the reality of modern combat against a Soviet threat. Back then, we were able to effectively match the Soviets in terms of force size, structure, and capability – in short, we could give as good, or better, than we got.

That wouldn’t be the case in any European war against Russia. The US will lose most of its forces before they are able to close with any Russian adversary, due to deep artillery fires. Even when they close with the enemy, the advantage the US enjoyed against Iraqi and Taliban insurgents and ISIS terrorists is a thing of the past. Our tactics are no longer up to par – when there is close combat, it will be extraordinarily violent, and the US will, more times than not, come out on the losing side.

But even if the US manages to win the odd tactical engagement against peer-level infantry, it simply has no counter to the overwhelming number of tanks and armored fighting vehicles Russia will bring to bear. Even if the anti-tank weapons in the possession of US ground troops were effective against modern Russian tanks (and experience suggests they are probably not), American troops will simply be overwhelmed by the mass of combat strength the Russians will confront them with.

In the 1980s, I had the opportunity to participate in a Soviet-style attack carried out by specially trained US Army troops – the ‘OPFOR’ – at the National Training Center in Fort Irwin, California, where two Soviet-style Mechanized Infantry Regiments squared off against a US Army Mechanized Brigade. The fight began at around two in the morning. By 5:30am it was over, with the US Brigade destroyed, and the Soviets having seized their objectives. There’s something about 170 armored vehicles bearing down on your position that makes defeat all but inevitable.

This is what a war with Russia would look like. It would not be limited to Ukraine, but extend to battlefields in the Baltic states, Poland, Romania, and elsewhere. It would involve Russian strikes against NATO airfields, depots, and ports throughout the depth of Europe.

This is what will happen if the US and NATO seek to attach the “sacred obligation” of Article 5 of the NATO Charter to Ukraine. It is, in short, a suicide pact.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Our so-called diplomacy is only strong when it comes to words. Strong words, strong disagreements. That's all. When it comes time for action, suddenly everything has to be thought through, "it's complicated", and other excuses. As far as Russia is concerned, our so-called diplomacy will do nothing. Because for the last few decades everything goes to the hand of trying to regain the "northern territories" and thus kissing the Russian bums. If anyone trusts our diplomacy, they are either a traditional LDP voter or fresh off the boat.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Well hopefully Japan will understand its never going to get those islands back up from Russia.

One things for sure... if there was ever a reason for Ukraine to join NATO....this is it, and another reason fro North Korea to show it is never worth giving up its nukes.( I bet Ukraines kicking itself for doing just that).

Now its up to the west to show it will help a country that wants to make its OWN choices. Democratically!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

LDP as usual putting on a brave face to back up their master.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I think both Napoleon and Hitler made it abundantly clear that it is better to leave Russian alone.

Eh, maybe not. Both the Swedes and a Polish-Lithuanian confederation managed to conquer Moscow and install their own monarchs over Russia. The Finns fought off a Russian invasion in 1939 inflicting severe casualties on the Russians in the process. They lost some territory in that war but later during WWII reconquered their lost territory and took Leningrad (now St. Petersburg). And of course the Mongol Golden Horde curb stomped the Russians invading from east to west and making it all the way to Kiev fighting all through the winter on horseback.

0 ( +0 / -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