Russia is coming to play! That's (if my figures are right) the equivalent of an Army Corps! Thats' more tanks than the US Army has in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Infantry Divisions combined. That's more men than those previously listed divisions combined with the 1st and 2nd Marine Divisions. They're light on planes though and I find that curious, but 70 ships is impressive. Yeah. This will garner the attention of pretty much every spy asset that isn't already assigned in the Pacific. Oh and with 70 ships out emitting this will be a US Sub Commanders wet dream!
Note: Kris sent me a follow up link to a Facebook Page that goes into greater detail and speculates on the reasons behind this exercise.
Suffice it to say that I've been educated. I thought only the Chinese and other Pacific nations had claims on the Spratly Isles. I forgot all about Russia. Consider this nightmare scenario. The Chinese and Russians both move in and land troops and station ships throughout the chain. Who would step forward to repel that land grab? Wouldn't it be a fait accompli? I think so, its up for you to decide though.
Note: Kris sent me a follow up link to a Facebook Page that goes into greater detail and speculates on the reasons behind this exercise.
Suffice it to say that I've been educated. I thought only the Chinese and other Pacific nations had claims on the Spratly Isles. I forgot all about Russia. Consider this nightmare scenario. The Chinese and Russians both move in and land troops and station ships throughout the chain. Who would step forward to repel that land grab? Wouldn't it be a fait accompli? I think so, its up for you to decide though.
http://rt.com/news/russia-war-games-far-east-084/
ReplyDeletethe original page with a video!
Cheers
KG
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130714/DEFREG03/307140002/Japan-s-Blunt-Stance-Riles-China-S-Korea
ReplyDelete"A key element of the security guarantee is Article 5, which commits the US to defend Japan should hostilities break out. The least Japan can do is make things easier for the US, he said.
“This white paper is necessary. This is the first time Japan honestly opened up. If we don’t defend ourselves, we cannot expect the US to aid Japan under Article 5,” Kawakami said.
“And the language is moderate. The US is facing sequestration and budget cutting and urging us to institute the right of collective defense, and we are saying we need limited amphibious force,” he said. “It is the language of a normal country.”
Sure seems to me that the arms race isn't going to abate anytime soon..interesting to note that amphibious forces are specifically mentioned.
The Japanese defense white paper not only draws fire from chicom as we expected, it also pissed off South Korea. I seriously doubt that we will ever see a Washington-Tokyo-Seoul axis anchoring on the strategically located Northeast Asia bridgehead. Mutual distrust between Japs and Koreans runs too deep.
ReplyDeleteKoreans are a bunch of ungrateful people. Most of them are very nationalistic and xenophobia. They desire US security protection and yet being very anti-American at the same time. Why we even consider them as allies really baffles me. On the other hand, the Japanese doesn't do us any favors by those stupid historic claims which adds oil to the fires.
ReplyDeleteJapan and Korea is of the few countries who successfully resisting perverts coup, and does not import wild savages from abroad, i can only admire such nationalism.
DeleteThey resent that they need us which manifests itself in anti-Americanism. That and they have had 60 years of American bases surrounded by red-light districts. Would you want a bunch of foreigners poaching your young-women?
DeleteIt's like the brits said in WW2, "the problem with Americans is that they are overpaid, oversexed and over here"
Someone in the US needs to take the leadership of the Liberal Democratic party to task and inform them that they need to knock off the tone-deaf statements. Then they need to start addressing their apologist thought processes.
I think the Japanese have never really admitted their culpability in WW2 and so they never have had the open conversations about Unit 731, the Rape of Nanjing, Comfort Women, Bataan Death March, etc. There school books never mention this stuff, so when they open their big mouths and start with the apologist crap, they piss every body off. Which makes it very difficult to be an ally with them.
Yet, the Japanese need allies and they need South Korea. The US needs to step in and mediate an agreement on the Takeshima issue.
Then prepare a dossier of all of the recorded Japanese war crimes and give them a history lesson, then tell them to shut the fuck up.
The problem with any Russia/China alliance is China has been quietly invading Russia for a generation.
ReplyDeleteHuge swathes of Siberia are 70%+ Chinese, 50 years ago they were 100% Russian.
It might be a wargame, but a serious part of the message is Russia demonstrating to China that it can kick some arse in the far east, with a qualitative superiority akin to what we have over them, if not wider
What 'swathes' or those specifically? What numbers are you relying on?
DeleteRussia has nukes. They don't need to worry about an invasion to control territory with natural resources.
DeleteEven ignoring nukes, there is no benefit to seizing a limit territory when that would mean Russia would cut off all trade from other regions of Russia.
Sol, your comment about the Spratley's sounds a bit off-base:
ReplyDelete1) Russia is a Pacific country
2) Russia has no claims on the Spratleys
3) Russia has no claims on territory it does not control that another country does (the exact limits of arctic maritime zone is unresolved, but submitted to UN bodies for adjudication, and Russia already bilaterally resolved it's maritime border with Norway)
4) Russia does control the South Kuril islands which it considers Japan to have ceded to it.
5) Japan did renounce claims to "the Kuril Island chain" without further qualifications in the treaty it signed with the US.
6) Japan's Foreign Minister at the time testified to their Diet (Parliament) that this did mean renouncing claims to the "Northern Territories" (Japan's name for the particular province of the Southern Kurils, which is irrelevant when referring to the geographic term "Kuril Island chain" without any further qualifications)
7) The USSR had previously offered to transfer to Japan the two smallest, south-easterly islands (one is more a collection of 'rocks') as part of a formal peace treaty. These islands are "plausibly" interpretable as not belonging to the Kuril chain (but rather, pertain to Japan's northerly major island, Hokkaido), and thus their exchange is "in line" with the basic principle that Japan renounced claims to the Kuril Island chain.
8) Japan was set to accept that, but US pressure threatening to not withdraw control of Okinawa changed Japan's position.
9) Since disollution of USSR, Russia has established commercial agreements allowing Japanese fisherman to harvest sea resources (fish, seaweed) from the sea surrounding those SE islands.
10) Japan has floated various ideas amounting to variations on the idea of splitting the islands based on 50/50 proportional split of land mass area, which has never found serious reception from Russia, no doubt because they are sure of the legal basis behind their position with Japan having signed a treaty renouncing their claim to the Kurils "period" (without reference to Japanese administrative districts).
11) Incidentally, the idea of transferring to Japan only the two smallest SE islands in dispute would actually transfer to Japan very nearly 50% of the MARITIME territory those islands are associated with, and the maritime resources are largely the major resource associated with this area.
12) The latter is the basis of any realistic agreement on the matter.
13) With Japan's problems with China and South (and North) Korea, and no other realistic way to change the status quo, signing such an agreement is not an entirely unrealistic option for Japan in the near future. It brings direct benefits to the local people, draws a line under the issue historically and removes a point of conflict with Russia, and strengthens the possibility of economic cooperation with Russia such as pipelines or tunnels/bridges giving Japan a rail link to Europe and Central Asia.
As to the Spratley's themself, consider that Russia has strong military cooperation with Vietnam which holds conflicting claims with China (and others) as to the Spratley's. Russia is decidedly neutral on that issue, and China has shown no indication of trying to shift Russia's position on that matter.
ReplyDeleteIf anything Malaysia and Brunei should be offended by Russia's arming of Vietnam whose claims conflict with their own (when they are the ones whose territory is most immediately adjacent and they are basing their claim on continental shelf, while Vietnam along with China rely on 'historic usage' claims). But Malaysia is not particularly offended by Russia, and in fact is not particularly offended by any of the other claimants.
While the marginal states of Vietnam and Phillippines are hysterical over China's conflicting claims, the more successful middle-income country of Malaysia (and Brunei) does not over-react but is willing to negotiate with all parties, China, Vietnam, and the Phillippines.
Reducing things to black and white and ignoring the full picture just tends to strengthen the hand of the weakest actors which are willing to cooperate with an outside power to get their way.
sorry. i totally disagree. you stated much opinion backed by little fact in order to take a position contrary to my own.
Deletei'm not impressed.