Expatriated_Realist comments

Expatriated_Realist: So you say that Japan is and has only been a sitting duck? Japan can defend itself, even more so since the changes to article nine. NOBODY can truly defend against multiple Nuclear strikes and if you think we could win a nuclear war, I'd say that's crazy!

That's not at all what I said nor intended to say. Please read my post more carefully before posting gibberish.

So military action led by the US that resulted in the overthrow of Gaddafi wasn't in your opinion even a military operation? Now Libya is a terrorist state. Obama broke Libya - isn't he now responsible for fixing it? Of course no one cares about the Libyan people now - there is no political gain in that.

I don't think the U.S. is solely to blame for the Libya debacle. I would place the blame on the UN and its intention to make the "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) and international norm by which to conduct humanitarian interventions. In the Libya case, R2P was invoked, given legal sanction by the UNSC, and the mission conducted by NATO, all of which ended up making a bad situation much worse. The whole concept of R2P is a joke in my book as we'll never get states to set aside their national interests and engage in interventions on pure humanitarian and human security grounds. Libya proved this.

True the US played a leading role, but it isn't solely to blame. Besides, it was the French that were the most insistent the R2P be invoked and implemented in Libya because French national interests in Northern Africa were at stake. The intense focus on the US is intellectually dishonest, to say the least.

Successive U.S presidents from Bush I to Obama have screwed the proverbial pooch in the Middle East. Simply, the U.S. has lost focus and no longer focuses on pure balance of power politics that will bolster American power and secure it's interests. Instead, the U.S. formulates its foreign policy on moralism and a do-gooder ideology, which only serves to feed the beast. What the U.S. should be doing is allow the conflict in the Middle East to run its course by letting the Saudi's and Iranians have it out. This will allow the U.S. to focus on the true threat to American interests, China. All the focus on the Middle East drains American power and credibility while China sits on the sidelines licking its chops waiting for the day it can push the U.S. out of the Asia.

Morality has no places in international politics, and until the U.S. realize this it doesn't matter who is President, U.S. foreign policy will continue to be marked by failure.

Totally disagree with the above. Those nations have already welcomed Japan's change in military position. And merely "having" offensive capability does not increase a threat unless that nation already poses a threat. Which in the case of those countries does not exist. If a pacifist nation acquiring offensive weapons is enough to "set alarm bells ringing" what about the existence of a Non-pacifist nation already possessing not only offensive weapons but nuclear capability as well?

Philippines and Vietnam are not only welcoming a more assertive Japan, but also encouraging it by accepting military hardware and training from Japan. As far as nuclear weapons, regardless of its anti-miltartist norms and strategic culture of pacifism, the relative decline of the U.S. virtually guarantees that Japan will eventually acquire nuclear capabilities. They technology is already there. Japan will eventually come to realize that the U.S. no longer has the resources, nor the will, to protect and ensure Japan's security and national interests. China and North Korea both have nuclear weapons. Japan won't be a sitting duck and allow a nuclear China and North Korea run roughshod over Japan. I would argue a nuclear Japan will offer more, not less, stability in East Asia. China and North Korea would be far less likely to challenge a Japan that possesses the capabilities to fight back.

The trip may be delayed, but it won't be cancelled. The two may disagree on the fate of the Kuriles/Northern Territories and Japan may be siding with the West for the sake of the U.S-Japan alliance, but in the long-term the two need each other. Russia needs Japanese FDI to help in developing the Russian Far east to aid in diversifying its economy and stemming the flow of Chinese pouring over the border into Siberia. And, Japan, by cutting a deal with Russia over the Kuriles will effectively secure its northern border for it can turn its full attention to the south to deal with Chinese expansion. Japan will also benefit by securing a flow of Russian natural resources and allowing MNC's opportunity to cash in.

Both have an interest in balancing against China. Russia may be cozy with China now, but it doesn't trust long-term Chinese intentions in the Russian Far East. Japan and Russia need each other for sound economic and security reasons. All the haggling over Ukraine is mere semantics and politicking that will be set aside in due course.