You have the same as usual – repeated your statements, never addressed my arguments and deserted to pathetic addresses like Russia apologist”.
I have addressed your arguments. You have shown NO understanding whatsoever regarding the principle of customary international law.
Let me put in a simpler way, - it is like you would be claiming that the earth is flat, and when I would be refuting your claim and you would ask what degree in geography do I have. You are missing the point.
I have two degrees in political science and have significant coursework and independent study in the field of international law, something you have shown an alarming LACK of understanding about to this point in the discussion.
You have to prove the intent of the USSR as well you have to address and prove the intent of Japan. As well you have to try to avoid verbal fallacies such as ‘’EUropean Russia’’- which were Ukraine, Moldova and the 3 Baltic republics.
Russia was the dominant power in the USSR, and the mistake was borne of the fact that hte USSR doesn't exist anymore and my thoughts are rather fluid. Of course, such nit picking is indicative of someone who has no argument.
The USSR signed the treaty and it never intended to comply with it. Japan signed the treaty with a hope that the USSR would comply with it. The 2 evil States were playing games. Japan just got beaten severely by the USSR ( at the first application of the Soviet concept of blitzkrieg.)
The USSR signed and ratified the treaty. According to international law, they are legally bound to uphold that. As for Japan getting severly beaten by the USSR, that was because they had already been beaten by the US and China.
The USSR was preparing to occupy Europe. Japan was preparing to attack Pearl Harbor. The treaty was equally beneficial for the both states. The both states were concentrating on their main goals. It is some explanation of your lies for the visitors. Your lies yet are not addressing the points made.
I haven't lied about a thing. Both benefited. Nothing I have said contradicts this point. However, Japan maintained its responsibilities under the treaty, the USSR did not.
You still have done nothing to refute the illegality of the annexation of Karafuto and Chishima by the USSR.
It is another verbal fallacy. Russia accepted legal and financial obligations of the USSR, when other Republics of the USSR failed. It does not mean that Russia is the
‘’ successor state to the USSR’’ in its political stance and goals. In its political stance and goals has demonstrated to be a lot more away from the political stance and goals of the USSR than any other Republic of the USSR. It has been demonstrating that it follows reasons, the concept which is totally unfamiliar to you.
This is the only way of the posters like you – you have a lot of time on hand and you don’t care what you type, as long as you keep on typing to have the last word. Your fun is in your sickness.[/QUOTE]