The following is from an article by Shigeki Hakamada, professor emeritus at Aoyama Gakuin and Niigata Prefectural University, which appeared in today's Sankei Shimbun Sound Argument under the title "Putin-style imperialism" background.
It is a must-read not only for the Japanese people but also for people worldwide.
Those who have been pro-China in Japan and the world must always keep this paper in mind.
Their pseudo-moralistic and deceitful brains characterize them, but they are responsible for all the disasters, such as the recent invasion of Ukraine and the power shortages in Japan.
They should be ashamed and disappear from the speech world.
The emphasis in the text except for the headline is mine.
Although President Putin is from the intelligence community, he was too naive to recognize the decision to invade Ukraine.
His plan to fall to Kyiv within days and eliminate the Selensky regime as "neo-Nazis" has met unexpected resistance.
It is due to the overconfidence of the experience of the bloodless "annexation of Crimea" by military force in 2014.
In addition, Putin's lighthearted view was that Zelensky had a comedian's background and could not deal with the critical issue of war.
However, his death-defying resistance and eloquent international activities have boosted the morale of the Ukrainian people, and the world's criticism of Putin and support for Ukraine has increased dramatically.
Not that Putin's personality has undergone a radical transformation.
Vladimir Putin's unabashed imperialist mindset, which led him to invade Ukraine with an unrealistic demand for unarmed neutrality and, in fact, an insistence on establishing a Russian puppet government, is not the result of a sudden change in his thinking or personality.
I point out that its roots run much more profound. The conventional Western and Japanese policies toward Russia, which have accommodated his imperialist behavior, have given rise to today's situation.
In the immediate aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union, Vladimir Putin envisioned the creation of a community of independent states in the former Soviet republics, with a joint (Russian-led) military force and a common currency, the ruble zone.
In 1999, the year before he became president, he published his so-called "Millennium Papers," in which he expressed a compromise between "adherence to the universal value of democracy and emphasis on Russian values.
Immediately after his inauguration, however, international energy prices skyrocketed, and Russia regained its sense of great power through an economic revival.
It is because, for example, former Deputy Prime Minister A. Chubais, a reformist responsible for the marketization policy in the 1990s, and reformist leaders, even V. Tretyakov and others, glorified Russianism and imperialism from around 2003-06 and held referendums to return former Soviet regions to Russia. He began to affirm the annexation of the country (The Independent, October 2003 (Moscow News, March 2006)).
Russian Reformists Pander to Vladimir Putin
Russian reformists have long opposed imperial Russia and Soviet-style imperialism, but the two were sensitive to President Putin's intentions and complied.
What is important is the announcement by the Russian Foreign Ministry on June 1, 2006, that Russia would shift the principle and axis of governance from "territorial integrity" to "the right to self-determination.
In the 1990s, Russia had emphasized "territorial integrity" out of concern that the Russian Federation itself would collapse following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Still, after being restored as a significant power, it shifted its policy to emphasize the "right to self-determination," or the integration of the territories of neighboring countries into Russia through a "referendum.
Foreign Minister Lavrov stated that Georgia (Georgia), where South Ossetia and others had launched an independence movement, was not a unified sovereign state (Izvestia, June 2006).
The Russian government's shift in focus from "territorial integrity" to "right to self-determination" created a sense of crisis in the former Soviet states but was largely ignored in our country and around the world.
As a result of this policy shift, "independence" of South Ossetia and Abkhazia was declared with the Russian invasion of Georgia in August 2008, and Russia used the geopolitical term "special interest circles" (influence circles) for the first time.
However, U.S. President Barack Obama, who took office in January 2009, first launched a policy to reset (improve) U.S.-Russian relations. In October of the same year, he received the Nobel Peace Prize.
In other words, both the U.S. and the world virtually recognized Russia's aggression against Georgia.
In 2012, Obama declared that the use of chemical weapons was a red line (for a military response) to the Syrian problem. Still, when chemical weapons were actually used the following year, he shifted responsibility to Congress and was saved by Putin's "International Control of Chemical Weapons" proposal.
Thus, the Obama administration completely lost control of the initiative to Putin.
Immediately after the "annexation" of Crimea in 2002, Russian military expert A. Khramchukhin ridiculed NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) as a "soap bubble, not a paper tiger." (The Independent).
National Sovereignty, Security Fundamental Review
In January last year, President Biden surprised and delighted Mr. Putin. When he took office, the latter was most afraid of an arms race by proposing an unconditional five-year extension of the New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty).
He also declared before the military invasion of Ukraine that the U.S. would not use force.
All of these things encouraged Mr. Putin to invade Ukraine this time.
I am not suggesting that the U.S. should declare the use of force.
I am saying that a strategy that keeps that ambiguous is a deterrent and that the Obama/Biden approach and the G7 that approved of it ultimately encouraged Mr. Putin's decision.
Can we not hold not only Russia but also the U.S. and the U.K. responsible for the 1994 Budapest Memorandum of Understanding that guaranteed Ukraine (then the world's third-largest nuclear power) its independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity in exchange for its atomic renunciation and accession to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?
The aforementioned Russian military expert stated that if Ukraine had possessed even 10% of the nuclear weapons it had abandoned, the annexation of Crimea would never have taken place.
On March 21, Russia announced the suspension of negotiations for a peace treaty between Japan and Russia and the noncontinuation of joint economic activities in the four northern islands. Still, these were nothing more than an admission of an established fact.
Shouldn't Japan take the initiative rather than simply agreeing to the G7 sanctions against Russia as a country whose sovereignty has been violated?
It is time for the Japanese people to reconsider the fundamentals of national sovereignty and security issues, with China and North Korea also in mind.
It is a must-read not only for the Japanese people but also for people worldwide.
Those who have been pro-China in Japan and the world must always keep this paper in mind.
Their pseudo-moralistic and deceitful brains characterize them, but they are responsible for all the disasters, such as the recent invasion of Ukraine and the power shortages in Japan.
They should be ashamed and disappear from the speech world.
The emphasis in the text except for the headline is mine.
Although President Putin is from the intelligence community, he was too naive to recognize the decision to invade Ukraine.
His plan to fall to Kyiv within days and eliminate the Selensky regime as "neo-Nazis" has met unexpected resistance.
It is due to the overconfidence of the experience of the bloodless "annexation of Crimea" by military force in 2014.
In addition, Putin's lighthearted view was that Zelensky had a comedian's background and could not deal with the critical issue of war.
However, his death-defying resistance and eloquent international activities have boosted the morale of the Ukrainian people, and the world's criticism of Putin and support for Ukraine has increased dramatically.
Not that Putin's personality has undergone a radical transformation.
Vladimir Putin's unabashed imperialist mindset, which led him to invade Ukraine with an unrealistic demand for unarmed neutrality and, in fact, an insistence on establishing a Russian puppet government, is not the result of a sudden change in his thinking or personality.
I point out that its roots run much more profound. The conventional Western and Japanese policies toward Russia, which have accommodated his imperialist behavior, have given rise to today's situation.
In the immediate aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union, Vladimir Putin envisioned the creation of a community of independent states in the former Soviet republics, with a joint (Russian-led) military force and a common currency, the ruble zone.
In 1999, the year before he became president, he published his so-called "Millennium Papers," in which he expressed a compromise between "adherence to the universal value of democracy and emphasis on Russian values.
Immediately after his inauguration, however, international energy prices skyrocketed, and Russia regained its sense of great power through an economic revival.
It is because, for example, former Deputy Prime Minister A. Chubais, a reformist responsible for the marketization policy in the 1990s, and reformist leaders, even V. Tretyakov and others, glorified Russianism and imperialism from around 2003-06 and held referendums to return former Soviet regions to Russia. He began to affirm the annexation of the country (The Independent, October 2003 (Moscow News, March 2006)).
Russian Reformists Pander to Vladimir Putin
Russian reformists have long opposed imperial Russia and Soviet-style imperialism, but the two were sensitive to President Putin's intentions and complied.
What is important is the announcement by the Russian Foreign Ministry on June 1, 2006, that Russia would shift the principle and axis of governance from "territorial integrity" to "the right to self-determination.
In the 1990s, Russia had emphasized "territorial integrity" out of concern that the Russian Federation itself would collapse following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Still, after being restored as a significant power, it shifted its policy to emphasize the "right to self-determination," or the integration of the territories of neighboring countries into Russia through a "referendum.
Foreign Minister Lavrov stated that Georgia (Georgia), where South Ossetia and others had launched an independence movement, was not a unified sovereign state (Izvestia, June 2006).
The Russian government's shift in focus from "territorial integrity" to "right to self-determination" created a sense of crisis in the former Soviet states but was largely ignored in our country and around the world.
As a result of this policy shift, "independence" of South Ossetia and Abkhazia was declared with the Russian invasion of Georgia in August 2008, and Russia used the geopolitical term "special interest circles" (influence circles) for the first time.
However, U.S. President Barack Obama, who took office in January 2009, first launched a policy to reset (improve) U.S.-Russian relations. In October of the same year, he received the Nobel Peace Prize.
In other words, both the U.S. and the world virtually recognized Russia's aggression against Georgia.
In 2012, Obama declared that the use of chemical weapons was a red line (for a military response) to the Syrian problem. Still, when chemical weapons were actually used the following year, he shifted responsibility to Congress and was saved by Putin's "International Control of Chemical Weapons" proposal.
Thus, the Obama administration completely lost control of the initiative to Putin.
Immediately after the "annexation" of Crimea in 2002, Russian military expert A. Khramchukhin ridiculed NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) as a "soap bubble, not a paper tiger." (The Independent).
National Sovereignty, Security Fundamental Review
In January last year, President Biden surprised and delighted Mr. Putin. When he took office, the latter was most afraid of an arms race by proposing an unconditional five-year extension of the New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty).
He also declared before the military invasion of Ukraine that the U.S. would not use force.
All of these things encouraged Mr. Putin to invade Ukraine this time.
I am not suggesting that the U.S. should declare the use of force.
I am saying that a strategy that keeps that ambiguous is a deterrent and that the Obama/Biden approach and the G7 that approved of it ultimately encouraged Mr. Putin's decision.
Can we not hold not only Russia but also the U.S. and the U.K. responsible for the 1994 Budapest Memorandum of Understanding that guaranteed Ukraine (then the world's third-largest nuclear power) its independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity in exchange for its atomic renunciation and accession to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?
The aforementioned Russian military expert stated that if Ukraine had possessed even 10% of the nuclear weapons it had abandoned, the annexation of Crimea would never have taken place.
On March 21, Russia announced the suspension of negotiations for a peace treaty between Japan and Russia and the noncontinuation of joint economic activities in the four northern islands. Still, these were nothing more than an admission of an established fact.
Shouldn't Japan take the initiative rather than simply agreeing to the G7 sanctions against Russia as a country whose sovereignty has been violated?
It is time for the Japanese people to reconsider the fundamentals of national sovereignty and security issues, with China and North Korea also in mind.
