Today I learned...

... that World War II is not over:

Medvedev Indifferent to Japan’s Reaction on his Kuril Visit

04:46 05/07/2012 Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said on Thursday he is indifferent to Japan’s reaction over his trip to one of the Kuril Islands earlier in the week.>>

Other news of the day

So, technically, Russia and Japan are still "fighting" WWII? How does that work?

I think disputed border territories ought to have some sort of time limit imposed. They can only be disputed for, say, 50 years? Is that reasonable? After that point I think you should take a poll of the people who live there and ask them who they'd rather be (Russian or Japanese, Russian or Georgian, Russian or Estonian, Turkish or Armenian, Turkish or Cypriot...) and let them decide for themselves.

This isn't too extreme a suggestion, is it?

12th September, 2001

A lot of people have been writing about the 10th anniversary of the September 11 attacks on the US. I don't want to write about that.

The 11th of September, 2001 was a day of shock and tragedy. People lost loved ones, they lost friends and family, and they lost a whole range of other things that can't quite be defined. That day is the day to remember who was lost and offer support to those who were left behind.

September 12th, 2001, is a different date, though. That was the date when America missed the point. The troll in the playground had walked up to the USA, slapped the country in the face and said "fight me". The right answer to that, of course, was "not on your ground, and not by your rules." But, instead, the country simply responded with the battle cry of the little boy: "I'll get you for that! You're dead!".

I remember being really angry with the way the world responded to the attacks on America. There were countries all over the world who had dealt with much, much worse. No one suddenly rose to arms to defend their honour. Why did America feel they had a God given right to go through history untouched, when no one else on earth had? Why was a single attack on three buildings in America worth more than leveling half of Sarajevo? Why was one spectacular statement worth more than all of the strife and turmoil happening in the Gaza Strip? Or the continuing pain of African countries tearing themselves, and each other, apart?

With so much terror and violence happening all over the world, why did a relatively small attack on the USA require such a massive response? What had happened to perspective?

And how could a country that was so proud of its ideals of freedom and equality justify responding to this single event by becoming so restrictive and controlling - and demanding that everyone else follow their commands or suffer consequences? America had built a mythology of being the bastion of all things noble, shining and good. Over the last ten years, since 12th September, 2001, it has steadily lost its claim to any of those things.

The ends do not justify the means, because the means will eventually become the ends. If you torture, you do not become heroes, you become torturers. If you kill indiscriminately, you do not "save the day", you become indiscriminate killers. There is no such thing as "collateral damage", only avoidable deaths. If you dictate to people what they can and cannot say, you do not become "patriots", you become dictators. You can call it what you want, but then you become just like every other malevolent force in the history of mankind which has tried to use language and ideology to cover up failures.

And that is what has, ultimately, happened to America. No matter what else it has done, no matter what else it might have achieved, it has failed. It has failed to live up to its own reputation and idealism. It has become just like all of the other countries who have convinced themselves over the years that it is okay to do the wrong things if it's for the right reasons.

On September 12th, 2001, America missed the point. It was given the opportunity to show that it really was the land of the brave and the home of the free. It was given the opportunity to take the high road and respond with dignity and determination. It was given the opportunity to be the America it always thought it was. Instead, it allowed a bully to provoke it into behaving in a way that should have been beneath such a proud country. And it took us down with it.

Monopoly

If the world were a giant game of monopoly, then it would make perfect sense for someone to buy Russia out of the Baltic Sea.

Seriously. Whenever Russia starts looking at buying boats, all of the other countries on the Baltic Sea put a hand on their metaphorical sword-hilts while trying to look nonchalant. Wouldn't it just be easier if they all pitched it to buy that weird little piece of Russia that sits between Poland and Lithuania?

Sure, Russia would still have that stretch of land in the Gulf of Finland, so Estonia would still have to keep looking over her shoulder, but at least that's on the same side of the country as the land boarder. It makes for easier deployment of defences...

Not that anyone would think of deploying defences, of course. The very suggestion would be an insult to Russia. You just ask the Russian government. The same Russian government that thinks it's perfectly reasonable to bolster their own defences against...

What, exactly? Is anyone thinking of invading Russia? I know the French and the Germans gave it a good try before realising that invading Russia is a bad idea. That was quite a few years ago, though, and if history has taught us nothing else, it has taught us that invading Russia is a bad idea.

My knowledge of Russian history is admittedly limited, but from what I remember Russia's greatest threats have all been in-house. The only people even capable of taking on the Russians in Russia are other Russians.

The Chinese might be able to do it, but quite frankly I think they'd just focus on that part of Eastern Russia out to the Sea of Okhotsk. Even that might fall into the too-hard basket.

The fact of the matter is that only Russians are capable of making a decent fist of Russia. They're the only race on the planet with the fortitude for it - with the possible exception of the Inuit, but when was the last time the Inuit ever invaded anyone?

The Vikings could have done it, I suppose, but I think we're out of those now.

So, here we have a country which is is known for a) being really difficult to invade, and b) quite successfully invading other countries. And Russia feels she has a legitimate reason to keep a "defensive" presence in the Baltic Sea, which will be easy enough to justify for as long as there is a piece of Russia touching the Baltic Sea.

So, why don't the other countries with Baltic frontage buy them out? I'm sure it could be done - if not wholesale, then piece by piece. It's the 21st Century, after all, and everything has a price...