Fleetinglife

Member
  • Content count

    439
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Fleetinglife

  • Rank
    - - -

Personal Information

  • Location
    Belgrade, Serbia
  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,350 profile views
  1. I must admit what got me bursting out all in laughter just now, since I didn't expect it at all in a first opening sentence, was not when he at the end compared people who are a part of Antifa to Story of Cain and Abel from the Old Testament, but when he with all due seriousness of his conviction began his opening statement (baited by Ngo though prior by using the "animalistic" adjective in his forwarded question to JP) by saying in a very serious, attempt at authorative and convicted tone that: "that they are worse than animals". They way he said it all due seriousness blew my prior expectations of what to expect of the tonality set for this video. The way he said with such seriousness that it almost felt like a skit to me, well I guess not to though to the people who believe and share his feelings and opinions on about what he is saying and the implications of it and parallels drawn to it of course. There is a lot projection mechanisms going on in JP's rhetoric, I wager IMHO, and satisfactory psychological conclusions for him to deal with life phenomenona that feel uncomfortable and unsavoury to him and his follower base, hence they project on them their own actual inner feelings towards them, of why they are there and why are they like that in the first place. A lot of psychologically deceptive games of cat and mouse is actually going in the backdrop of all that comotion I personally feel (cat painting the mouse as the devil for wanting to grab and/or eat/steal a bit of cheese from the shelves while it wants to eat the mouse and it's whole family itself).
  2. BTW If I may ask what is the background history of that new "anti-war flag"? I saw that it was first created shortly after the onset of the invasion of Ukraine in February by a Russian art designer expat in Berlin, Germany, as symbol of the Russian opposition to the war in Ukraine. It has no official name, it is only called the "white-blue-white" flag, removing the supposed red, and it's supposed associated added symbolism as of late, from the 1896 or "Vlasov" tricolour flag. BTW Official interpretation on Wikipedia: "The Russian tricolour flag was adopted as a merchant flag at rivers in 1705. These colours of the flag of Russia would later inspire the choice of the "Pan-Slavic colours" by the Prague Slavic Congress, 1848. Two other Slavic countries, Slovakia and Slovenia, have flags similar to the Russian one, but with added coats-of-arms for differentiation. On 7 May 1883, the Russian flag was authorized to be used on land, and it became an official National flag before the coronation of Tsar Nicholas II in 1896. At the times of Alexander III of Russia [when first officially introduced in 1896] the official interpretation was as follows: the white color symbolizes nobility and frankness, the blue for faithfulness, honesty, impeccability, and chastity, and the red for courage, generosity, and love. A common unofficial interpretation was : red: Great Russia, white: White Russia, blue: Little Russia."
  3. Slovak political philosopher Juraj Mesik made a stark prognosis and prediction, following a similar train of thought of the late Russian historian Andrei Amalrik who in the hayday of the of the USSR in the 60s wrote an essay predicting and setting the date of it's collapse (symbolically) in the year 1984, that the Russian Federation, excarcabated now even further by the outcome and by the crippling from the Ukrainian war, might collapse as whole unified polity in 3 to 5 years (even sooner than his original prediction setting the date in the year 2031. before and without counting and factoring the war and the subsequent sactions), here is what he wrote in an recent essay he wrote, attempted to be very similar in nature to the one Amalrik wrote in his day regarding the remaining lifespan and future outcome of the USSR and it's political influence and reach as a whole polity as well: "Despite the fact that the Russian historian Andrei Amalrik warned them in his famous essay from 1969 "Will the Soviet Union survive until 1984"? (This happened during the occupation of Czechoslovakia and at the time of Moscow's greatest achievements in space) Western leaders ignored the possibility he pointed out, as did others in 1990-1991. which predicted that the USSR would disintegrate. None of the Western Soviet scholars in the late 1960s could have imagined the collapse of the USSR, and slogans on the buildings of occupied Czechoslovakia boldly proclaimed "With the Soviet Union forever and never differently!", Points out Slovak foreign policy expert Juraj Mesik for European Justice. The USSR, as the incarnation of the Russian Empire at the time, was shrouded in communist ideology and seemed firm and unyielding. In just a few years, history has shown that Amalric was right in his prediction. However, if you had been told in the summer of 1989 that the occupied countries of Central Europe would be liberated from Moscow before the end of the year and what would happen to the USSR itself before Christmas 1991, you would doubt the narrator's mental health. The result is numerous political mistakes that have cast a shadow until today, says Juraj Mesik. After all, people often miss the "most obvious things". The result was improvisation and tragic failures, the consequences of which lasted for decades. Today we see them through the Russian occupied territories in the countries of the former USSR and especially through the bloody war in Ukraine. Russia's collapse is also inevitable, Mesik believes, stating that if Europe and the West are not ready for this, the consequences will be equally tragic. Missed, slow or wrong decisions of unprepared Western politicians can lead to the long-term Balkanization of today's Russia. Unlike the Balkans, the territory of Russia is 50 times larger than the territory of Yugoslavia and 6 times larger in population. At the same time, they have nuclear warheads. So speculation about Russia's impending collapse is not fun or a wish, as supporters of Putin's regime believe. Without thinking about this scenario, we will not avoid it - and vice versa, thinking about it, we will not challenge it, even if we want to. There are hidden internal reasons for that, and the question is not whether the "Russian Federation" will fall apart, but when it will happen. The initials, quotes in the name of the state are not accidental, because today's Russia is a vertically controlled and centralized empire that has nothing to do with a real federation. The very name of the country is the classic Potemkin village, an invention designed for naive foreigners: The Russian Empire is held together by only three powers: the superpower ideology, the security apparatus, and oil and gas revenues. The latter allows you to fund militarism, the repressive apparatus and corrupt politicians in Europe and around the world. All three of these forces will weaken and collapse dramatically in the coming months and years as a result of Russia's long-term military defeat in Ukraine, Western sanctions and the rapid development of electric mobility. Russia's military and repressive forces are bleeding in Ukraine, Russia's great chauvinism will be mortally wounded, and the rapid decline in oil and gas sales, combined with later sanctions, will destroy the Kremlin economically and prevent it from bribing political elites at home and abroad. Without the corrupt government of carrots and sticks, the ideology of imperial Russia will not be sustainable and it is degrading. In the essay from 2016, "Will the Russian Federation survive 2031? Russia, China and the inevitable consequences of climate change," I assessed Russia's disintegration as the topic of the next decade. However, the attack on Ukraine radically accelerated the development of events - therefore, the disintegration of the Russian Federation will become a matter of the next 3-5 years. Of course, this is only an estimate - various subjective factors and specific decisions of specific politicians can speed it up or, on the contrary, delay it a bit. However, Europe is waiting for the disintegration of the Russian Federation. The defeat of the Russian army in Ukraine means a significant weakening of the repressive military apparatus that keeps the peoples detained in Russia in slavery. Of the officially 140 million inhabitants of today's Russia (their actual number may be smaller), only about 75 percent of the population are ethnic Russians, and their share is constantly decreasing. On the contrary, the number of non-Russian, especially Muslim, ethnic groups is growing. In addition, a figure of 75 percent can be significantly overestimated. Representatives of many oppressed ethnic groups often identify with the Russian ethnos because it benefits them. Maybe we don't need to explain this to Slovaks - just remember the "Hungarian" ethnic Slovaks of Hungary in the 19th century or the suspiciously small number of Roma in Slovak censuses. The same phenomenon is at work in Russia - and apparently, due to the long-term pressure of Russification, it can be much more widespread. This is especially true for the descendants of Ukrainians in mixed Ukrainian-Russian marriages, where Russian identification is very common, so the actual number of Ukrainians living in Russia can be significantly higher than the official 1.4 percent. Given the demarcation lines of Russia's impending collapse, it is easiest to start from the territories it occupies. First of all, it means the return of the occupied Crimea and Donbas to Ukraine, Abkhazia and South Ossetia to Georgia, Transnistria to Moldova. There is nothing to discuss here. The issue of returning the Kuril Islands under Russian occupation to Japan and Karelia to Finland is also simple. There could be more discussions among Europeans about the future of occupied and annexed Kaliningrad. After all, it can be reasonably suspected that Russians living in St. Petersburg, the Urals, Siberia or the Far East will want to remain under the rule of a sincerely hated Moscow, which both Urals and Siberians perceive as a voracious parasite. Thus, Russia can be divided into several smaller Russian-speaking countries. However, something else is important: the West should already be analyzing possible scenarios for the disintegration of the Russian Federation. This is important because such a break will open up great challenges and risks and opportunities. The risk is that the post-Russian population will face Balkanization, a long period of poverty and violence. Or the West can act prudently, quickly, pragmatically and sensitively - and give the people of Russia and the Russians themselves a chance for a decent future in freedom and at least relative prosperity. But you have to be ready for this. And that, at the very least, requires the abolition of the "internal taboo" in Europe from the talks on the possible collapse of Russia." END.
  4. Atlas Plug - Truth be Known (discovery via MOBA Dota 2/Dotacinema YT Channel Playlists for Top Featured Weekly Plays Clips/Nostalgia from Teen/Adolescent Online MOBA Gaming Years/Now the Same ImminentJourney/Quest/Victory/Triumph /Discovery/Revelation Vibes I feel and get from when revisiting and listening to the track for time to time when I feel like it/Repurposed for Other Means and Life Goals)
  5. Both countries, as far as I know, already had strong military intercooperatibilty, interoperatibilty and ties to NATO beforehand, even some decades ago, and frequently join and partake in military exercises with NATO aligned countries and major players, and the Nordic countries close to them are often used as host for major joint US and NATO countries military training exercises, and also have an influential and strong not insignificant presence in the US/European/ Western/NATO arms market, and military gear supply department, so as far I see they are now only making this membership bid official and that would only lead to the increase of both of their joint military presence in the alliance - though the bid for Finland will be more difficult to be realized in the exact same moment and time as a bid for Sweden will - because of the closer geographic proximity issue and some past unsettled territorial interlaping boundaries and issues following heated political disputes with Russia in history and in the not so recent past after the breakup of the USSR - I would maybe only hope that that particular country waits a few months or years after Sweden in joining the Alliance after the dust settles from the Ukranian war and when Russia feels that it is in a less vulnerable and weaker moment, not to make it seem that it is doing it as militarily opportune moment and not to allow itself to fall into doubt to be misinterpreted as a militarily aggressive and provocative move in the moment and not it's own general defensive bid for it's own safety and security concerns and not as a useful vessel for someone else's wider political goals and military strategies - though the general idea and hope seems to be to get all of those Nordic countries and geographical region together in one fell swoop and bid - same as they did before with Baltic countries and South Eastern European countries with former historical and political ties to Russia and the Soviet Union.
  6. There is no other way to write and to read but in a literal form 😁 It's kinda odd not to be literal and unironic when stating one's wants, reasons and motivations for country one's lives in wanting to join a security alliance, which pretty much affects one's life there, no? The truth of any matter is usually not black and white, and it is not exclusively an abstract geometrical object for you so you can speak of it in rotational degrees and turn it in the way you like and then declare that to be truth, for how one's needs currently suited to be so. I urge you then to use it more efficiently and be more precise and clear when writing and stating your opinions or thoughts on some matter in public forums and spaces, for it cannot be easily seen or deduced by others that you are being "not literal" when you write them in the open with no further notice and disclaimers for all to read and see lol.
  7. Lol you base your opinion on believing and doing the complete opposite of what some source of authority that you don't personally like says and believing and doing the almost exact same thing that some other source of authority wants you too, in the version it wants to present itself as, that you are survivally biased towards and like says. A semi-useful analogy for your method and level/stage of reasoning and thinking about politics in the world would be the following: If you by chance were born and incarnated in the 15th or 16th century in some Northern or Central European country back then, with your logic now that you are only applying to Russian places of power and authority, by believing and doing the complete opposite of what they say in a mindless contrarian way, you wouldn't respond to the religious authoritarianism and repressions of the Catholic Church by reassessing, improving, and revising their presented official version, doctrine and dogma of a "only one way right Christianity and to be a Christian" by becoming part of the Reformation and becoming a Protestant for example, no you would probably land yourself, with this logic that you apply to the current Russian government institutions transposing only it to the Catholic Church then in this hypothetical, by doing, as you say, the complete 180 opposite of what they say, in some occult or satanist cult existing back then, just in order to spite the Church and to do the complete opposite of what they say you should believe or do as a Christian, you would go so far as to cease completely being one just in order for you to spite them and do complete opposite of what they recommended or said that you should believe or do. Needless to say this kindergarten level of behaviour, psychological development and reasoning about politics and the world - "The daycare teacher that I don't like and hate said I shouldn't do this so that must mean I should do it because she probably doesn't want me to do it because it's going to be fun for me, and that's the only reason she doesn't want me do it because her sole reason of existence is to deny me fun and doing things that are fun to me - and then you would proceed to suddenly run up and jump towards the fence and impale your genitals on it and fracture your skull and have a head concussion when doing a back flip landing on the other side in the process." Btw to mention in advance before judging the merits of my analogies and arguments based on the projection of my percieved personal political affiliations and their political implications notice I haven't written anything in this criticism of this type of reasoning and argumentation about whether or whether or not should Sweden, the Swedes and the Swedish citizens and the Swedish government decide to join and become an official member of NATO relatively very soon at this moment and period of time in international politics - no I just criticized the utter asinine brain rot contrarianist way of having a slightest indication of a thought about that prospect directed exclusively towards spitting and being contrarian for being contrarians sake (like 3-4 year old child not getting what it wants from it's parents) the percieved "others" way of seeing things from their perspective and concerns approach of a method of the way how you are going to be doing and conducting such a thing and applying for such a process - hopefully in a layered, step-by-step reasonable transition process with no antagonism prejudice attached towards some percieved "other" threat, mostly for one's own sake, stability, integrity and sense of independence and self-reliant security.
  8. This was later claimed to be a Ukrainian T-64BV tank on the video approaching the Ukrainian soldiers and a a tragic mishap case/incident of Ukrainian friendly fire, with the Ukrainian tank operator captured on the video misidentifying those Ukrainian soldiers on the ground as Russian troops viewed from a slight distance. This is one of the unintended indirect consequences and effects broken down and spiralling down on the level of a chance of individual error and mistake happening of giving reprisal instant shot to kill orders of allegedly spotted RF soldiers, even when not posing an immediate threat, on sight, and of harsh eye for an eye reprisals treatment of captured Russian POWs.
  9. This guy was like the biggest psychological cope mechanism and make believe opportunist impostor, pretender imaginable in recent, modern Russian political history memory, and a fairly tragic one at that, a man of Jewish roots, heritage and origin LARPing as a Russian Orthodox ultranationalist, lobbying for the Russian government on the part of it's disputes and PR presentation of Ukraine and doing PR for it in Israel regarding it's near domestic and foreign policy goals and objectives, until fairly recently: "Zhirinovsky was born in Almaty, the capital of the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic, modern-day Kazakhstan. His father, Volf Isaakovich Eidelshtein, was a Ukrainian Jew from Kostopil in western Ukraine, and his mother, Alexandra Pavlovna (née Makarova), was of Russian background from Mordovia region. Zhirinovsky only inherited his surname through Andrei Vasilievich Zhirinovsky, Alexandra's first husband. His paternal grandfather was a wealthy industrialist in Kostopil, who owned the largest sawmill in (what is now) Ukraine and was head of the Jewish community. His grandfather's mill today has an income of $32 million a year, and over the years Zhirinovsky demanded successive Ukrainian governments return it to him. In July 1964, Zhirinovsky moved from Almaty to Moscow, where he began his studies in the Department of Turkish Studies, Institute of Asian and African Countries at Moscow State University (MSU), from which he graduated in 1969. Additionally, he studied law and international relations at the Institute of Marxism-Leninism. Zhirinovsky entered military service in Tbilisi during the early 1970s and worked at posts in state committees and unions. He was awarded a Dr.Sci. in philosophy by MSU in 1998. Although he participated in some reformist groups, Zhirinovsky was little known in Soviet political developments during the 1980s. While he contemplated a role in politics, a nomination attempt for a seat as a People's Deputy in 1989 was quickly abandoned. In 1989, he served as a director of Shalom, a Jewish cultural organization; unknown in Jewish circles before, he is thought to have been invited to join by the Anti-Zionist Committee of the Soviet Public, but subsequently forcefully opposed its influence in the group. Jewish heritage Four of Zhirinovsky's relatives were murdered during the Holocaust. Zhirinovsky's parents split while he was still an infant. Abandoning the family, Zhirinovsky's father, Volf Eidelshtein, emigrated to Israel in 1949 (together with his new wife Bella and his brother), where he worked as an agronomist in Tel Aviv. Zhirinovsky's father was a member of the right-wing nationalist Herut party in Israel, and died in 1983 when he was run over by a bus near Dizengoff Street in Tel Aviv. Zhirinovsky did not find out the details of his father's life in Israel until many years later, or even that he had died. Zhirinovsky said that he was an Orthodox Christian. In 1994, presented with a birth certificate indicating his original name as Eidelshtein, Zhirinovsky said the document was faked. Zhirinovsky denied his father's Jewish origins until Ivan Close Your Soul, published in July 2001, in which he described how his father, Volf Isaakovich Eidelshtein, changed his surname from Eidelshtein to Zhirinovsky. He rhetorically asked, "Why should I reject Russian blood, Russian culture, Russian land, and fall in love with the Jewish people only because of that single drop of blood that my father left in my mother's body?" According to Zhirinovsky, "My mother was Russian and my father was a lawyer". Zhirinovsky later disowned the statement after researching his father's life in Israel. Discussing the statement, Zhirinovsky says: "Journalists mocked me: for saying I was the son of a lawyer. And I am really the son of an agronomist." Discussing his father, Zhirinovsky said with tears in his eyes: "All my life I was looking for him. I believed that he was alive. I believed that someday he would find me... But there is a silver lining. I tried to imitate him... And I was able to achieve a certain position in life, even without the support of my father." Zhirinovsky Israeli relatives included an uncle and cousin, meeting and befriending them for the first time only after discovering more about his family's story in Israel. Zhirinovsky's Israeli family did not know that he was a politician in Russia but responded warmly to his invitation to stay with him in Moscow." source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Zhirinovsky R.I.P. Vladimir Volfovich Eidelshtein, Zhirinovsky
  10. Well as I mentioned above they have airfields with their latest generation stealth fighters currently in their hangars already there on the largest of the disputed/claimed southern islands Iturup/Etorofu and combat hypersonic missile systems installed/or currently stationed there to project power and influence in the near abroad in these close internationally militarily and international economic trade flow highly dense concentrated and inflection point maritime and island archipelago areas. I will give you an attempt of a semi-equivalent analogy (made even more prescient given the fact that all this is happening almost identically close to the 40th anniversary of the attempt of cementing the Malvinas and Falklands status by war): It's probably slightly less important to the Russians than the Malvinas are to the British (i.e. eng. Falklands) are to the British as an imperial era relic, tool of national consolidation past glory pride, means of abroad, from mainland islands directed, settler control, furthering the British EEZ zone at the expense of Argentina, naval military base, and checkpoint refueling station under their control for staging Antarctica expeditions and their transatlantic connecting tissue point for furthering their exclusive economic claims and control and influence for some newly discovered resources in the Antarctica South Pole region of the globe as the Argentinian Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation explains in this article written for this anti-colonial African based paper illuminating the issue of the current Malvinas status: https://kawsachunnews.com/malvinas-40-years-its-time-to-end-colonialism "The permanent increase of the military presence and the refusal during these four decades of the United Kingdom to resume the dialogue for sovereignty in the terms proposed by the United Nations in its resolution 2065 (XX), show the illegality and illegitimacy of the usurpation that took place in 1833 and reveal the economic, geopolitical and military interests that drive the British to try to perpetuate the usurpation of an important portion of the Argentine territory. It should be noted that, after the 1982 war, on November 4 of the same year, the UN General Assembly approved Resolution 37/9 which stated: “the governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are urged to resume negotiations in order to find a peaceful solution to the sovereignty dispute over the Malvinas Islands as soon as possible”. At the same time, it instructed the Secretary General to initiate a new good offices effort to comply with this resolution. The current global situation, marked by the armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine, once again showed the double standard with which the United Kingdom conceives its international policy. On the one hand, it condemns the rupture of the territorial integrity of Ukraine by Russia and, on the other hand, it maintains the occupation of a vast territory in the South Atlantic that prevents our country from exercising its sovereignty over its entire extension. This is not the only case. The United Kingdom is the administering power in 10 of the 17 colonial situations pending before the United Nations Decolonization Committee. After its independence from Spain, Argentina exercised full sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands. On January 3, 1833, the United Kingdom, in full colonial expansion, violently evicted the representatives of the Argentine government and its settlers and established another population, coming from the metropolis itself. It should be noted that from the very moment of their usurpation, Argentine governments have been uninterruptedly demanding the restitution of the full exercise of sovereignty over the Islands. Even with different emphases and strategies, since 1833 no Argentine government has consented to or legitimized the colonial occupation. In 1994 this claim was unanimously incorporated into the National Constitution. The British Government has failed to comply with UN resolutions and has ignored all the statements of multilateral bodies. Despite trying to base its position on respect for the “self-determination” of peoples, the economic and geopolitical interests underlying its claim to perpetuate the colonial situation are becoming increasingly evident. The United Kingdom is trying to force the interpretation of the principle of self-determination for the Malvinas question when the United Nations does not consider it applicable because it is not a question of a colonized or dominated indigenous population. Those who originally lived there were the Argentines who were expelled by the British. The implantation of a population brought from the metropolis was precisely one of the mechanisms of colonization. In the case of the Malvinas, the real motives seem evident: military control of the South Atlantic situation, exploitation of the natural resources existing in the region, the need to maintain a bridgehead for logistical support of their pretensions in the Antarctic and control over the strategic bioceanic passage. The British military presence contradicts General Assembly Resolution 41/11 (Zone of Peace and Cooperation in the South Atlantic) which, among other provisions, calls upon States of all other regions, especially militarily important States, to scrupulously respect the South Atlantic region as a zone of peace and cooperation. On the other hand, the exploration and exploitation of natural resources in a vast area of the Southwest Atlantic – extremely rich in hydrocarbon, fish, mineral and biodiversity resources – openly violates UN Resolution 31/49. Another aspect by which the United Kingdom asserts its colonial presence in the Malvinas Islands is their proximity to Antarctica. Taking into account the strong British presence in the sixth continent and its claim to sovereignty -which includes the entire Argentine Antarctic sector and part of the Chilean sector- its position in the Islands constitutes a strategic situation"
  11. Have come compassion and understanding for some of the people and the current politics there. How else do you expect them to garner support, sympathy and compassion of some voters in western countries to justify the necessity of sacrifice of their current declining of living standards and economic scarcity of some goods by indefinite maintainenace of sanctions against the Russian economy and for the politicians there to maintain their politics of wartime economy mobilization justifying the steady increase of greenlighting for even more and more of their taxpayers money going into military aid funding increase, defense spending and in private defense corps pockets for more advanced weapons shipments flooding into the country.
  12. amid Ukraine war. "Southern Kurils occupied by Russia, Japanese Foreign Ministry official claims The Japanese authorities have been refraining from the term "occupation" in the recent years, instead preferring to say that "these islands are covered by the Japanese sovereignty" TOKYO, February 28. /TASS/. Russia occupied the southern part of the Kuril Islands, which contradicts the international law, as well as the invasion of Ukraine, Japanese Foreign Ministry Europe Department Director Hideki Uyama said during debates in the parliament Monday. "The Northern Territories [Japanese name for the Southern Kurils - TASS] are occupied by Russia, and we believe that this contradicts the international law, as well as the ongoing attack of the Russian army on Ukraine," the official said. The Japanese authorities have been refraining from the term "occupation" in the recent years, instead preferring to say that "these islands are covered by the Japanese sovereignty." Moscow and Tokyo have been engaging in talks on development of the World War II peace treaty since mid-20th century. The sovereignty of the Southern Kuril Islands remains the main obstacle. After the war, the entire archipelago became a part of the Soviet Union, but Japan challenges the sovereignty of the islands of Iturup, Kunashir, Shikotan and a group of smaller uninhabited islands. Russian Foreign Ministry repeatedly stated that the sovereignty of these islands is cemented in international documents and cannot be challenged." https://www.google.com/amp/s/tass.com/politics/1412893/amp "TOKYO -- Russia's invasion of Ukraine has produced a noticeable shift in Japan's diplomatic effort to reclaim Russian-controlled islands lost in the waning days of World War II. Prime Minister Fumio Kishida's government has reverted to long-standing basic principles on the Northern Territories, dropping the nuanced language used by predecessor Shinzo Abe, who had tried to speed up negotiations on a diplomatic solution with Russian President Vladimir Putin. With progress toward a postwar peace treaty now looking unlikely, Kishida's government has brought back the descriptions of the islands as "inherent territories of Japan" that have been "under illegal occupation" by Russia. The islands form the southernmost end of the Kuril archipelago. Kishida discussed the Ukraine situation with Abe in a 20-minute meeting Wednesday, later telling reporters that he had "received advice on diplomacy and national security" from his predecessor. The Japanese government had used "inherent territories" for many years, until around 2018, when the Abe government began calling them "islands over which Japan has sovereignty," and saying that Russia's occupation was "without legal grounds" rather than "illegal." When Abe met with Putin in Singapore that year, the two sides affirmed they would accelerate talks toward a treaty based on a 1956 joint declaration between Japan and the Soviet Union. This declaration stipulated that Moscow would "transfer" two of the four disputed islands, Shikotan and the Habomai islets, to Japan once a treaty was concluded. The Soviet Union occupied the islands in 1945 after renouncing a neutrality pact with Japan. Moscow holds that the occupation is a legitimate result of the war, and that it is offering to hand over two of the islands in good faith. Asked in parliament in 2019 whether it considered the islands an inherent part of Japan's territory, the Abe government declined to respond, on the grounds that it could hinder negotiations with Russia. Senior government officials said the flip-flop in rhetoric owes to bureaucrats from the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry who pushed ahead with negotiations with no regard for diplomatic consistency. Kishida said on Monday that he has "no memory" of differentiating between the "inherent territories" and "sovereignty" language. Asked about not using "inherent territories," Foreign Minister Yoshimasa Hayashi told reporters Tuesday, "I used the 'islands over which Japan has sovereignty' expression from a diplomatic standpoint." The decision to make the change now was "based on the fact that we're not in a position to talk about the prospect of peace treaty negotiations," he said. On the return to the "illegal occupation" language that the government had previously avoided, Hayashi said that "the occupation of the Northern Territories is illegal in the sense that it lacks any legal basis." Soon after taking office in October, Kishida had intended to follow Abe's strategy, pursuing greater economic cooperation with Russia to build rapport for peace treaty negotiations. After an October call with Putin, Kishida said they had agreed to "firmly work on the peace treaty negotiations" based on past agreements, including the 2018 accord in Singapore. But the situation has changed dramatically since Russia invaded Ukraine in February. With the U.S. and the European Union imposing sanctions on Russia, it became increasingly difficult for Tokyo to maintain a business-as-usual relationship with Moscow. "I cannot speak on the outlook of peace treaty negotiations with Russia at this time," Kishida told reporters on March 3. Japan has joined the push to exclude certain banks from the SWIFT international payment network, signaling its opposition to unilateral attempts to change the status quo by force. Some lawmakers from Kishida's ruling Liberal Democratic Party as well as the opposition also want to scrap a cabinet position created in 2016 to oversee economic cooperation with Russia. In a document approved by the cabinet on Tuesday, the government said it would not immediately eliminate the position, and will instead consider how to best demonstrate its stance to the rest of the world." https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/After-Ukraine-Japan-reverts-to-old-line-on-Russian-controlled-islands The problem with all this rhetoric and shifting of official stances is that Russia has on the largest one (russ. Iturup, jap. Etorofu), of the southern Kuril four island chain claimed by Japan historically, in recent years, since 2014 especially, worked on building dual purpose (military) airfields, which it uses to station from time to time in their hangars the latest stealth fighter generations of SU-35 jets and has also hypersonic missiles and combat system installments of the Sarmat type as well. In other words they have been used and repurposed as prime Russian military real estate and strategic possession for power projection and extension in the Far East. Russia can sink Japan? "Chinese experts from Bai jia hao portal prepared material in which they discussed the hypothetical possibility of a military conflict between Russia and Japan. SOURCE: SPUTNIKMONDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2021 | 16:50 As they say, that is the last, but still possible option, because the relations between the two countries have worsened since Japan got a new prime minister. The article states that Russia could use the new "Sarmat" combat system in the conflict, which is known in the West as "Satan 2". The flight range of the missiles of that system is 16.000 kilometers. "Russia's Avangard strategic intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) have terrifying power," the Chinese portal writes. The authors of the article described in four words the consequences of "Russia's attack on Japanese territory": "Japan will end up under water". They add that Tokyo should not count on the help of the American missile defense system. Earlier, the new Prime Minister of Japan, Fumio Kishida, stated that Tokyo's sovereignty extends to the southern Kuril Islands. In that regard, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov stated that Russia does not agree with the statement of the new Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida on the topic of the Kuril Islands, because those islands are the territory of the Russian Federation. The Kuril Islands dispute, known as the Northern Territories dispute in Japan or the current border contestation between Japan and the Russian federation concerns the rightful ownership of Iturup, Kunashir, Shikotan, and the Habomai Islets. These four islands are the southernmost part of the Kuril Island Chain, which stretches northeast from Hokkaido, Japan to Kamchatka, Russia. Japan claims ownership by Japan on these islands, referring to the bilateral Treaty on Trade and Borders from 1855. Tokyo set the return of those islands as a condition for concluding a peace agreement with the Russian Federation, which was not signed after the Second World War. The Soviet Union and Japan signed a Joint Declaration in 1956, in which Moscow agreed to consider handing over the islands of Habomai and Shikotan to Japan after the conclusion of the peace agreement, and the fate of Kunashir and Iturup was not mentioned. Moscow's position is based on the fact that the South Kuril Islands became part of the Soviet Union after the Second World War and that Russia's sovereignty over them, which has the appropriate international legal basis, is not in question. After the meeting of the leaders of Russia and Japan in Singapore on November 14, 2018, the then Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe stated that the parties agreed to speed up the process of negotiating a peace agreement based on the 1956 Joint Soviet-Japanese Declaration." https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.b92.net/eng/news/world.php%3fyyyy=2021&mm=10&dd=25&nav_id=112073&version=amp
  13. Did I call it or had a hunch or what 😁 Let's if it actually transpires that way and if it's not overly confident optimistic hopes and assessments or propagandistic disinformation campaign attempt directed towards the Russian military by Ukranian counter- intelligence services.
  14. The lowest bar, in my estimate at least, that the Russian military and its current leadership would be willing to go at this stage of things would be to declare a Pyrrhic, yet semblance of a strategic victory - no NATO membership for Ukraine and the severe crippling of its Armed Forces and their foreign military aid - so they might try to force some kind of armistice or peace agreement until annual May 9 Victory March Parade event in Russia - if they have of course the resources to maintain waging the war at this intensity for that long - so they can attempt to declare some type of symbolic victory during that event - or at at least a threshold achievement or victory point in the war to paint it until then as some sort of victory in the war at least in one strategic domain crippling some nationalist strongholds of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. They need to do this in order to maintain support for the war and to prepare in advance and pre-emptively lessen the incoming potential aftershock blow for the status, image, and credibility of the long term continuity of the survivability of their regime with the way they were unable to fulfill some of the political and strategic objectives and goals promises they made at the start of the declaration of the war. They can't afford for the sake of the survivability of their regime, at any point, for the war to be painted overall as a loss for them in all the crucial strategic domains for which they decided to wage it and pursue it as a ''forced hand political option'' in the first place.