Ukraine has a proper army and the support of Europe, albeit with dated weapons. Japan has neither and it's dubious whether the United States would step in. Hokkaido has always been under threat from Russia and the Soviets quickly took the Kuril Islands, which wasn't even originally theirs.

▲ axiolite 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Japan has neither and it's dubious whether the United States would step in.

There is NO QUESTION the US would provide a full defense of Japan against any aggressive party.

The US has multiple military bases in Japan, with 35,000+ military personnel. Japan pays the US billions every year to support the US military presence there. Japan is also a too-big-to-fail economy (4th in the world) and US trading partner. And strategically, what do you think the US "pivot to Asia" means, if not defending close US allies in the Asia-Pacific from unprovoked aggression?

    For over 60 years the United States-Japan Alliance has served as the cornerstone of peace, stability, and freedom in the Indo-Pacific region.  The U.S. commitment to Japan’s defense under the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty of 1960 is unwavering. https://www.state.gov/u-s-security-cooperation-with-japan/

▲ danielscrubs 9 hours ago | parent [-]

The Budapest Memorandum (1994) gave assurances, that the U.S. would militarily intervene or defend Ukraine under attack like an alliance-treaty.

Ukraine surrendered the sharpest tool in its arsenal for those assurances, its inherited nuclear arsenal, the world’s third-largest at the time. But the loss was broader than warheads; it was the surrender of a strategic future.

America first means America first. All politicians will say one thing and do another, always check the incentives…

	▲	anonymous908213 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The Budapest Memorandum did no such thing. It is completely and totally incomparable to the US-Japan alliance. At most, it calls for a weaselly "security council action to provide assistance". `>Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".`

▲ laughing_man 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

No. The only way the Russians could prevail is to break out the nukes, and that would always run the risk of a nuclear response from the US. Japan's navy is more powerful than the Russian pacific fleet in a conventional conflict. Any attempt to land on Hokkaido would be stillborn.

Even if they managed to land they would probably be pushed off pretty quickly. Japan's military is more powerful than that of Ukraine, and the Russians are already having trouble supporting troops just across the border. There's no way they would be able to support an invasion force over water. I'm skeptical the Russians could pull that off without opposition, something they would certainly have in spades.

▲ YurgenJurgensen 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The Russians lost control of the Black Sea to a country that doesn’t have a navy. Its naval incompetence is legendary. There is zero chance of them conducting an amphibious invasion against anyone any time this century.

▲ pjc50 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If the Okinawan Americans aren't going to do something useful for Japan, Japan would be very happy to kick them out and stop them harassing the locals.

A land invasion of mainland Japan is so unrealistic that even the US in WW2 didn't attempt it.

▲ bamboozled 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Japan is a turn key nuclear state, that is all…