national

Russia approves warplane deployment on disputed island near Japan

35 Comments
By Andrew Osborn

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2018.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

35 Comments
Login to comment

There are taxpaying Russians living on those islands and they deserve protection.

-11 ( +7 / -18 )

Living on stolen islands.

9 ( +16 / -7 )

counter that move by putting SDF/JASDF forces on that island, since the Russians claim the land was seized and the war is ongoing. In this case, there are not Constitutional laws to block Japan as this is something not finished and considered part of the non aggression pact unless Russia pulls out...hey the Russians started this and admit it as an invasion not over.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

I can think of a nice place to move Futenma.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Ossan - the whole world lives on stolen land.

Unfortunately (or fortunately) that has been the way of history.

Seize & Plunder. Although some have carried out the act more stealthily under the guise of "helping".

Stolen the Kuriles may have been, but there is no way they will be given back, esp the 2 larger ones.

History now deems them Russian territory - right or wrong - and they'll use them for whatever purpose, incl military exercises.

-4 ( +7 / -11 )

This puts Slav planes in unacceptable proximity to Japan. What they are doing in Asia in the first place is anyone’s guess.

To deter these morons, Japan should nuke up and have a dead mans switch set on Moscow to blanket it in nukes in case conflict happens

1 ( +10 / -9 )

The Russian response to Japan wanting to Defend itself... Japan wants a Defensive Missile System and Russia responds with aggressive tactics. Instead of trying to help diffuse the N. Korean Nuclear Weapon situation, which Russia helped create, Russia instead is playing hardball.

7 ( +12 / -5 )

browny1Today 08:42 am JST

Ossan - the whole world lives on stolen land.

History now deems them Russian territory - right or wrong - and they'll use them for whatever purpose, incl military exercises.

You must be talking about Russian history. The United States, the UK and EU consider the four southern Kurile islands in question to be Japanese territory under Russian administration...read occupation.

7 ( +12 / -5 )

These Russian planes will be used to fly on the edges of Japanese airspace and test Japan's reaction times, measuring the F35's capabilities.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Aegis U.S. missile systems in its Akita and Yagamata prefectures.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/01/31/politics/us-failed-aegis-missile-test/index.html

Its a failed system at this stage. I would not be spending 1 yen on it until its proven to be 95% effective at least.

At least a couple of years away.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

'"We believe this could result in Russia's military power being strengthened on the four islands and that contradicts Japan's position on the islands," it said in a statement.'

Well, shucks, maybe you shouldn't have agreed to taking in the US' missile system that is capable of being used against Russia, and then just dismissing Russian criticism of it. Can't have it both ways, Japan.

OssanAmerica: "You must be talking about Russian history. The United States, the UK and EU consider the four southern Kurile islands in question to be Japanese territory under Russian administration...read occupation."

Here we go again. They are Japanese when another nation administers them, and Japanese when Japan administers them. If Japan took them by force long ago they are Japanese, if other nations took them by force (or took them BACK, rather), they are Japanese. If Japan administers them there is no need to go to the ICJ, if Japan does not why don't the other countries go to the ICJ? And on, and on, and on...

They are not Japanese islands, nor will they ever be given how Japan is acting. Period. Deal with it.

-11 ( +6 / -17 )

What! Do the Russians want to own the World?

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Living on stolen islands.

I understood Japan renounced "all right, title and claim to the Kuril Islands as part of the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty." Based on this I would say the islands are not stolen. Why do you feel the islands are stolen?

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

Here is the reference. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1338718-san-francisco-peace-treaty-1951.html

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Osaka_Doug: "Why do you feel the islands are stolen?"

Some people only recognize treaties and other countries' opinions on the matter when it suits them. Hence, the silence.

-8 ( +4 / -12 )

The Treaty of San Francisco was signed by 49 nations, including Japan and the United States, on September 8, 1951. Article (2c) states: "Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands, and to that portion of Sakhalin and the islands adjacent to it over which Japan acquired sovereignty as a consequence of the Treaty of Portsmouth of 5 September 1905."

While the San Francisco Peace Treaty[1] with Japan from 1951 states that Japan must give up all claims to the Kuril Islands, but it also does not recognize the Soviet Union's sovereignty over the Kuril Islands. Japan also claims that at least some of the disputed islands are not a part of the Kuril Islands, and thus are not covered by the treaty. Russia maintains that the Soviet Union's sovereignty over the islands was recognized following agreements at the end of the Second World War.Japan disputes this claim."

The "Kuriles" as appears in the Treaty documents refers to the parts of the Kuriles that were taken by Japan in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904/1905. It was established from the Cairo and Potsdam declarations that Japan would lose territories it had gained by force or greed. While the Northern Kuriles and the southern half of Sakhalin fit this description, the Southern Kuriles (4 islands) did not. Those islands becae Japanese as a result of a negotiated treaty with Russia; The Treaty of Shimoda of 1855.

"During the talks preceding the signing of the Shimoda treaty, Russian representative Commodore Putyatin confirmed that basing on the “careful survey” the islands of Kunashiri and Etorofu were regarded as an inalienable part of Japan."

http://prokarelia.net/en/?x=artikkeli&article_id=600&author=62

The victorious WWII allied nations had agreed that taking more territory from Japan than they already had to start with was not to be permitted. The USSR of course went on an expansion spree both in Europe and Asia in the last days of WWII.

Most of the world believes that these islands were "stolen" not just because of the above but that it was after Japan announced acceptance of unconditional surrender that the USSR invaded the islands. Later evicting the civilian populations. After Japan's surrender announcement, the allied powers made no further offensive against Japan, except for the USSR which invaded the Southern Kuriles.

For this reason, the other Allied powers, the US, UK and EU do not recognize Russian ownership of the Southern Kurile Islands.

“The United States recognizes Japanese sovereignty over these islands,” Marie Harf, a State Department spokeswoman, told reporters, reiterating the U.S. position on the territorial dispute between Tokyo and Moscow."

6 ( +10 / -4 )

"most of the world believes" correction: most of the world doesnt care.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Please femind me what country lost world war II ?

Losers loses something in the process by definition.

Japan should be happy not to have been annhilated.

Russians could have reached and taken Hokkaido if not nuked...

Japanese have a far superior standard of living than Russians thanks to USA. (And even to USA). Why not be happy with this situation and stop developing conditions leading perhaps to war. Art.9 not applicable ?

You can't have the butter and the cream (French way of saying one can't have its cake and eat it too).

PS: I am pro-Japanese but also objective and realisitic, and peaceful.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

Kurils are not disputed islands; they are disputed only in the minds of Japan's rightwing politicians. Every other country recognize the Kuriles as Russian territory.

-5 ( +5 / -10 )

Ossan -

"...Ossan - the whole world lives on stolen land.

History now deems them Russian territory - right or wrong - and they'll use them for whatever purpose, incl military exercises.

You must be talking about Russian history. The United States, the UK and EU consider the four southern Kurile islands in question to be Japanese territory under Russian administration...read occupation.

The History I was talking about was figuratively speaking - ie after decades to come, most people will look back and view the islands to be Russian.

As I stated - much in the same way most of the world was at one point stolen from someone or some entity. Modern borders bear little resemblance to countries, territories, ethnic zones of long ago and not so long ago. Very rarely were there "peaceful absorptions" of one peoples land into anothers. They were mostly stolen. It is history. Simple. Right or Wrong I said. The fact - not opinion - exists. Lands are still being stolen today. Israel / Palestine, China / Tibet, to name a couple. In fact Japan tried it last century with dire consequences.

So I daresay after a few more decades most will view the Kuriles as Russian as they maintaiin possession, control, development and order over them. A magnanimous decision could be in the pipeline I suppose, whereby Russia says sorry and gives them back - but I won't be holding any hope, that's for sure.

And of course the US, UK & EU consider them Japanese. They are all allies supporting US military bases on their soil and members of NATO. Russia may no longer be USSR, but it's still determined minimally as the "soft" enemy. The US doesn't want Russian military kms from Japan.

And likewise - Russia doesn't want US military kms from Russia.

So it's a stalemate with a large dose of permanency.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

The bottom line is - rightly or wrongly - Russia will never hand back what is considered her land. Doing so after more than 70 years and a few generations would be political suicide. Just as - sadly - the annexed Crimean region will never be returned.

Please femind me what country lost world war II ?

Losers loses something in the process by definition.

That is a fair point. Germany lost approximately 25 percent of her land after WW2, mostly to Poland : history tells us it is a massive gamble if you wage wars of aggression and expansion. Japan took that gamble, and it could well have gone the other way and paid off handsomely with massive gains of land. The sooner the nationalists (both in the Diet and their violent mates in jack-boots in their black vans) in Japan accept this is a lost cause, the sooner things can move on.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

Russia definitly is just a stupid country that think that them are "geopolitical power"

How can be a geopolitical power a country that have a standard of living under a country like morroco with 64, an economy inferior to Italy and Spain?

Russia is just a poor country with nukes

4 ( +8 / -4 )

Russia is just a poor country with nukes

Then why do you care about where Russian fighter jets are placed.

Do you care about Morocco's jets (does Morocco even make its own jets?)

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

So North Korea had better be careful where their test rockets land, otherwise they could find themselves in trouble with the Russians too...

4 ( +5 / -1 )

I think all not then places in isues helping toooo native people. So called aborigines.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Put simply; In 1855, Russia and Japan signed the Treaty of Shimoda, which gave Japan ownership of the four southern islands and Russia ownership of everything to the north. Communities developed on three of the islands and by the time World War II began, there were 17,000 Japanese residents. Russia invaded and took control of the four islands at the end of the war between Aug and Sep 1945, AFTER Japan had declared acceptance of the Allied demand for Unconditional Surrender. By 1949 Russia had forcibly deported all residents to Japan. Under the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty, signed between the Allies and Japan, Japan renounced "all right, title and claim to the Kuril Islands", as well as over other possessions. But this resolved nothing, because Russia did not sign the treaty and the Japanese government has never recognized the four islands as part of the Kuril chain. In 1956, the Japan-Soviet Joint Declaration restored diplomatic ties between the two nations, but a formal peace deal remained out of reach because of the territorial dispute.

The fact remains that other WWII Allied powers like the United States and United Kingdom as well as the European Parliament all recognize these four islands as Japanese territory under Russian control/administration/occupation. In contrast, no nation other than Russia itself recognizes Russian sovereignty.

The issue today, as reflected in this article is that for the last few years while simultaneously continuing discussions with Japan regarding this disputed territory, advancing economic cooperation, with a goal of eventually concluding a formal peace treaty between the two nations, Russia has also advanced it's military presence on them. This alone is a provocative act and of highly questionable strategic value considering that the US military presence in Japan could erase any Russian assets on these islands so close to Hokkaido as to be visible, literally in a matter of minutes if necessary. A fact certainly not lost on the Russian military. So the question is what does Russia have to gain? Perhaps nothing more than their buzzing US warships in the Baltic and just part of their continuous needling.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

some impotent symbolism...

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Ossan - all of what you stated is correct.

But, to put it simply(your words), no-one, that is no-one is going to make Russia return the islands.

Treaties from history have little bearing in this case. They may have international law on their side, but in the final analysis treaties are but a pieces of paper.

The reality is Russia has the islands - that is they live on them, develop them and control them. By all accounts the Russian populace overwhelmingly supports sovereignty over the islands. Putin is extremely popular in Russia (80+% support). There will be no sudden "giving back" of the islands, esp as their strategic value is so high.

You might disagree with that situation as I might disagree with the same - but our opinions and the opinions of Japan and it's NATO friends mean nought.

Again, the reality is Russia has the islands. The ball is in their court for as long as they want it to be.

And people mentioning nukes and the like are idiots, who value false pride over the potential deaths of millions. Arm chair killers.

I

1 ( +3 / -2 )

I promote peace standing and readers think it is ok that Japan fights to gain back some little islands while they lost WWII.

It means most readers are pro-war, which is a pity.

Please learn from history with Alsace/Lorraine territory in France. There is no one German thinking this part to be German again, inhabitants are happy and like both Germany and France !

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

That Russia has possession of the islands is an obvious fact. But it is also an obvious fact that Russia is aware of it's highly questionable claim and at the same time values it's relationship with Japan in terms of economic development. Otherwise, they would not have a history of discussing this dispute with Japan for so long.

You are correct in saying that Russia will not just give them up. Why should they? Realistically, the only way that could ever happen is if all US military presence in Japan is eliminated, a highly unlikely scenario.

But you are not correct in dismissing the historical facts surrounding Russia's claim. Russia knows it's position is not on solid ice in the eyes of the world and if ever challenged at the ICJ they would be put on the defensive. That has been and will likely be prevented by the desire on the part of both nations to reach a Peace Treaty and gain the benefits of a good relationship.

I also disagree that this is a permanent status, after all no one knows what events may arise domestically within Russia in the future that may change their views and outlook on these islands. Even Putin is a mere mortal. The probability that some kind of compromise solution will be reached eventually is the most likeliest scenario.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Yes - nothing is permanent.

And I doubt Russia - in it's current form - could care less about world opinion (read as US & Japans) re the islands. If they didn't care much about all the negativity for example re bombing in Syria and the loss of countless lives, why on earth would they give a hoot about what some think of isolated islands on the other side of the earth.

And I agree as I stated many times - the only likelihood of any resolution will be the return of the 2 smaller islands (for a big price - money or otherwise), much the same as was offered 60 odd years ago but turned down after pressure from the US.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I was brought up being told that the Russians were jack booted thugs. So it's not hard for me at all to accept that they don't give a hoot about anything other than what's in their own best interests. Agree that the most likely conclusion will be some form of compromise resulting in the Peace Treaty that both nations desire. A two island each deal or some variation thereof.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Mr Abe! Mr Abe! Your good good friend, Mr.Putin has surprised you again! How do you feel?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

bjohnson23Feb. 3  07:57 am JST

counter that move by putting SDF/JASDF forces on that island, since the Russians claim the land was seized and the war is ongoing. In this case, there are not Constitutional laws to block Japan as this is something not finished and considered part of the non aggression pact unless Russia pulls out...hey the Russians started this and admit it as an invasion not over.

I could not stop laughing so hard as a read this idiotic post. A nuclear power vs a non-nuclear power with a small military and at least 2 real enemies next door and hopping the failing USA will come to their rescue. Best to not piss the bully just yet.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

You must be talking about Russian history. The United States, the UK and EU consider the four southern Kurile islands in question to be Japanese territory under Russian administration...read occupation.

It does not matter what US, UK, or EU thinks if they don't back it up with force. That goes for everything in life and in the world. It be nice if the world was not a place of power plays but considering how it is, don't expect in anyones lifetime those island returning. If Japan wants them sad to say they will have to spill a lot of blood to do it. Politics is not going to get them back ever since they have real value.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites