Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'opinion'.
The issue of ownership of the Kuril Islands has been discussed between Russia and Japan for more than 70 years, and during this time Japan, in order to «return its northern territories» took various measures, constantly inventing something new, and especially beloved by the Japanese measure is so-called «cartographic aggression». It should be noted that according to a number of international acts signed by the Japanese themselves, sovereignty over the islands was assigned to Russia. This time, the Japanese leadership approved the release of official maps of the Rugby World Cup in Tokyo, on which these islands were designated as territories of Japan. Also, this card was posted on the official website of the International Rugby Federation and in the arrivals area at Haneda Airport in Tokyo. Moreover, the same situation around the publication on the official website of the 2020 Olympics was raised about a month ago. By the way it also was sponsored by Japan. And, despite the protests of Russian politicians, the Japanese leadership does not take any measures to eliminate unacceptable things that contradict international laws and terms that the Japanese themselves accepted after their defeat in the war. And besides everything else, according to Japanese Foreign Minister T. Motegi, Tokyo plans to continue to discuss with Russia the issue of signing a peace treaty between the two countries, but based on Japan`s basic position, which involves signing a peace treaty simultaneously with resolving the territorial issue. That is, Tokyo will sign a peace treaty only after it get rights to the Kuril Islands, which is unacceptable to Moscow. Experts and political scientists are wondering - how to convince the official Tokyo to stop this nonsense? What the overwhelming stubbornness? Moscow has no plans to transfer the islands to Japan. And why actually should any country give its own lands that belongs to it both originally and as a result of World War II to someone?
Currently, in America they are working on building of medium-range missiles, and they also recognize that anti-missile defense facilities deployed in Romania and Poland, after conversion, allow the launch of offensive missiles instead of defensive ones. Does the US really want the third world war to start?
In August 2019, the fate of the INF will be finally decided. On February 2, 2019, the American side announced the suspension of the implementation of the Treaty between the USSR and the USA. This situation is quite in the spirit of Washington: this is not the first, and perhaps not the last treaty, which the States neglect. In 2001, America unilaterally withdrew from the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems of 1972, which was considered an integral part of the entire system of control over strategic offensive arms. During Trump’s presidency, the States renegotiated a free trade zone agreement between the United States, Canada and Mexico, withdrew from the UN climate agreement and the Iran nuclear deal. The INF was of great historical importance, it was the first Soviet-American treaty that not only limited weapons production, but also significantly reduced it. The USSR and the United States signed a treaty in 1987 with the aim of curbing the arms race that broke out in the second half of the 1970s. By agreement, the United States and the USSR have committed themselves not to produce, test or deploy ballistic and cruise ground-based missiles of medium (from 1,000 to 5,500 kilometers) and short (from 500 to 1,000 kilometers) range. Moreover, America and the USSR pledged to destroy all launchers and land-based missiles with a range of from 500 to 5,500 kilometers for three years. The United States has been talking about withdrawing from the Treaty for the first time, declaring its bilateral effectiveness ineffective. “The motto of the INF policy should be as follows: expand it or destroy it,” said Bolton in the Wall Street Journal in collaboration with former Deputy Secretary of State Paula de Sutter. Russia has not adhered to the INF Treaty, and the provisions of the Treaty do not apply to China at all. It was the behavior of the Russian side that, according to the States, was the reason for withdrawing from the treaty. The United States blamed Russia for the fact that, developed for the modernization of the operational-tactical missile complex Iskander-M, the new 9M729 missile violates the Treaty because it has a range of over 500 km. Moreover, Washington ignored the briefing given by the Russian Ministry of Defense, which demonstrated the tactical and technical characteristics of the new missile. In turn, the Russian side has accumulated a lot of complaints about the US observance of its part of the Treaty. Moscow demanded the destruction of the MK-41 universal launchers deployed on land, designed to launch Tomahawk cruise missiles; target missiles with similar characteristics to medium-range and shorter-range ground-based ballistic missiles (for testing anti-ballistic missile defense systems); as well as the destruction of strike unmanned aerial vehicles, which, according to their characteristics, meet the definition of the term “cruise missile of a land-based. Russian requirements remained unanswered. It is easy to predict what the next disregard of Washington may lead to. And the States themselves do not hide the fact that the goal of withdrawing from the treaty is to increase military pressure on the PRC and, most likely, short-range and medium-range US missiles will be placed primarily in Japan and the Republic of Korea. Furthermore, by abandoning the INF Treaty, the United States will be able to deploy ground-based missiles with a range of up to 5.5 thousand kilometers in close proximity to Russian borders, for example, in Poland and the Baltic countries. Obviously, the next step will be the US withdrawal from the “New Start”. Thus, the last treaty controlling the situation with nuclear weapons will disappear. This, in turn, will lead to an unrestricted nuclear arms race and heightening the risks of a nuclear war.