>

The only country talking about "talks" is Russia.
What value does a treaty with Russia have? >

The Ukraine invasion is a massive violation of the Budapest Memorandum, so zero. >

The Budapest Memorandum isn't/wasn't a treaty, it was basically a 'gentleman's agreement' which Ukraine agreed to because NATO and CIS were doing the national equivalent of wandering around Ukraine going "wow, gosh, this place sure is inflammable.  You better hand those nukes over to us or this whole regime might just go up in flames."  They received no real guarantees or assurances in exchange except the signatories 'super double pinky swearing' to not invade them.
Russia has violated a lot of treaties, though.  The Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty, Open Skies treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention, and IIRC they've recently begun to renege on their commitments to the new START treaty (although I could be wrong on that one.) >

Also Russia had the codes these nukes were not usable for Ukraine. >

This is true but college kids have been assembling plans for workable nuclear and atomic bombs since the 80s, using publicly available documents. 
The thing holding most countries back from building a bomb is the fissile material. 
Ukraine scientists didn't even need  to research existing documentation.  The weapons they had could be reverse engineered and of course had all the fissile material they needed. >

If you didn't invade Ukraine for no reason maybe they wouldn't have sanctioned you... >

Not only that but Russia has occupied Japanese islands within eye sight of Hokkaido since WWII and instead or keeping tensions down, Russia has continued to relocate Russians and Ukrainians to the island. >

Yeah but after the forced deportations/imprisonments or killing of the ~~original~~  japanese population by the soviets, the Kuril Islands have now ~~close to~~ zero Japanese population.
OTOH maybe they should all agree to give the islands to a newly formed Ainu state. >

Its true between Russian and Japanese colonialization the Ainu indigenous people got it rough. Most see Canada and US begin to talk about their inhumane history with their indigenous people, but most fail to realize this is a problem nearly everywhere, from Asia (Taiwan, Indonesia, many more) to Africa (dominant tribes and ethnicities are happy to see minor tribes wiped out) to Latin America. Anglo colonialists are among the first to reflect on reconciliation but eventually much of the rest of the world needs to start that process too. Not that "starting conversations" is enough, reconciliation is a long process. >

Sauce on anglo colonies being amongst the first? I have seen this conversation happen all around the world in the postcolonial era. And I've read moral takes on this that are centuries old. >

Yes, it also mentions the US having Indigenous rights issues. How does that suggest that anglo countries are amongst the first to reflect on reconciliation? >

I am not going to lie I was being VERY generous adding US to that list. Australia is only just getting started too. South Africa had to begin early too (good) although issues linger. The only one really quite ahead I would argue is New Zealand. 
I see Americans say, "Canada, all those unmarked church graves", as Canada has begun working with communities to find clarity/investigate the past. But they don't realize there are likely countless more unmarked graves in their own baptist schools etc. and they just haven't started yet. 
Canada still has major issues with drinking water and access to services, and indigenous women go missing far too often and the police do little to help. Huge issues. Quite frankly, "starting the reconciliation process" is just that, the start. 
But my original comment was that indigenous people are being denied rights, abused, or even wiped out globally still to this day and most don't even realize indigenous people are almost everywhere. >

Ohh, yeah, sorry, I was born under the US' thumb, so I'm a tad oversensitive about it. >

So Russia can go get fucked? >

dont worry currently getting fucked actually. >

Ooh, after 80-odd years Russia was finally just about ready to negotiate over those Northern Territory islands. Japan must be just kicking themselves.
Unless Russia is lying and were just using the Northern Territories to keep Japan sweet like literally every other time, of course. But what are the odds of that? 99.9%? 99.99%? No matter what you say that's still technically less than 100% and that's all that matters. >

The way Russia negotiates, it would just be them showing up and demanding immediate recognition of Hokkaido as an integral part of the Russian nation. >

That's actually part of their admitted negotiating strategy of 


Demand something they have absolutely no right to.


Don't move on that position at all. 


Wait for the West to offer them something. >

Well, we learned from the last big war that appeasement never works. So they can get fucked. >

Did we learn? >

We apparently had to relearn this halfway through the last decade, after we forgot the WW2 lesson. >

Everyone: “Russia’s entire history of foreign policy makes treaty talks impossible” >

Japan should hold referendum in northern territories... I somehow feel I can predict the results >

Who would have thought engaging in Imperialism in the 21st Century could lead to a bunch of countries sanctioning you and hating your guts. >

The US definitely hasn't. It should have that fear too. >

Has the US invaded any countries with the intent to permanently annex their territory in the 21st century? >

No, but it did get a few millions killed with their 21st century wars. Are you implying we shouldn't care about the millions of victims of the US? 
Imperialism is not only annexation. It is imposing your interests over other countries. >

Yeah no after the display they’ve put on of perceived “Russian military might” in Ukraine pick any day of the week you want at anytime the JDSF will come and clap you. >

The great russian fleet sailing around africa to get bitch slapped a second time would be a hilarious start to WW3. >

Would they get a chance to fire on some british fishing ships along the way this time too? >

Oh yeah, definitely the "anti-Russian course" that's causing problems, not the 300+ annual incursions into Japanese air space by Russian bombers. >

Stop sharing TASS and "Russia said" propaganda ffs >

No no, keep on sharing it, we need some good laughs. >

I learned about the Northern Territory when I visited Sapporo’s old city hall museum.
The Ainu are thought to predate the Yamato as the indigenous peoples of Japan, having settled Hokkaido and the Northern Territories as early as the 9th century CE. They were consumed by Edo Japan in the 1600s when they signed a trade agreement with the Matsumae clan. 100 Ainu people resided in the Northern Territories in the late 19th century.
Obon is a yearly occasion where many Japanese visit their ancestors. Many ancestral Ainu graves occupy those islands. The increased nationalization of the Northern Territories throughout the Cold War created a climate where Ainu Japanese could only visit their ancestral graves under the auspices of “Humanitarian Missions.” It broke my heart to learn that generations of people, having been subjugated as far back as the Muromachi period of Japan and the Ming Dynasty of China, could only visit their families under the rarest of circumstances.
The Ainu are the true stewards of those islands. Politicizing and turning these places into geopolitical flashpoints only serves to further erase the culture of the people who legit want to visit there. And fish there. And do the shit they did for centuries before drawn into this whole game. If Russia requires humanitarian visas for Ainu to visit their ancestral graves, then it’s a humanitarian imperative to give them free access. They’re the ones militarizing it instead. 
further reading >

Correction, the Ainu do not predate the Yamato. However, Ainu habitation of Hokkaido predates Yamato settlement of the island, although there have always been cultural and genetic connections between Hokkaido and Honshu. >

Cohen is wrong. The maori arrived in NZ in around 1300 and are considered indigenous, yet the Yamato who settled in Southern Hokkaido in 1400 are colonisers?
What’s up lately with all the propaganda about the Yamato not being indigenous to the Honshu islands these days? If they aren’t indigenous, no one are. >

Yeah, it's hard to get more indigineous to Honshu than the Yamato, considering that the genetic makeup of modern Japan was settled on Honshu.
I've never heard the Inuit called colonizers or non indigenous, even though they are a later expansion who displaced earlier arctic cultures. >

Wonder what's the exact cutoff line before you can be considered indigenous vs invader that displaced previous culture. >

Probably time for which they were there and how completely they wiped all traces of previous settlements >

So you're indigenous if you're really good with genocide? >

Not necessarily - it is possible that you really are first colonist there; previous settlements could die on their own or could be abandoned; or you could assimilated them into your culture so completely that nothing of their original culture remained (which is what Japanese, Chinese and to some degree Russians tried to do with ethnicities they conquered).
But genocide is always an option, if you want to strengthen your claims. >

The only treaty with Russia that's worth signing is one that involves Russia surrendering and Putin being clapped in irons and shipped to The Hague. >

Russia makes talks with Russia impossible.
Any other statement is Russian propaganda. >

This sounds like propaganda in itself lmao >

Okay then stop acting like a country run by isis. >

I don’t know… isis might over all be worse, but I think Russia is trying quite hard to keep up.
It is worth noting I don’t actively follow ether of these topics well enough to make any meaningful comments on them… but with all I’ve seen in the news about the two and one side preventing girls form higher education, and the other bombing church’s, hospitals, and daycares… I’m actually thinking they are closer to blow for blow the. One being worse then the other… however I could, and probably have, missed a lot. >

You're not talking about ISIS, you're talking about news about the Taliban, they're not the same and ISIS is exponentially worse than the Taliban any day.