politics

Noda congratulates Putin; urges resolution to territorial issue

133 Comments

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

© 2012 AFP

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

133 Comments
Login to comment

thumbs down to Noda, why? because this is what i got when i congratulated Putin yesterday :) territorial issue is unlikely to be resolved.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

yes, Putin "won" the election fairly..

0 ( +2 / -2 )

yes, Putin won the "election" fairly...

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Or in fact I guess that should be.

Putin "won" the "election" "fairly"...

1 ( +2 / -2 )

I hear there weren't any serious challengers to Putin allowed to run, and that the vote was rigged with some people being paid to vote for Putin 4 times.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

What dispute? They're in Russian hands, PERIOD.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

You "heard" this and you "read" that.

Elections in the West are just as corrupt, our leaders collude with the media to have us vote for one fool or the other.

Have a look at Electronic voting in the States if you're interesting in election fraud.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Putin said the election was fair, so it must have been.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

CNNreported that there was widespread voter rig in Russia. How? Putin won in a landslide. Of course the elections were fair, why would they be not?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Whether the rumours of vote-rigging are true or not, Putin's despotism and the corruption of Russian politics in general have created an environment where the Russian public simply cannot trust anything it is told, and cannot accept any result as valid beyond dispute. Similarly, he will never have the trust of the international community. Putin and United Russia have only themselves to blame for this state of affairs.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

in which he expressed hope for the “wise” resolution of an island dispute.

I'm sure that as far as Putin is concerned......it has been resolved.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Yes, by all means; Congratulations Valdimire! Congratulations on cheating in an election that even your opposition says you would have won anyway. Congratulations on destroying a free media, the beginnings of the rule of law, and a civil society. Congratulations on transforming your county's economy from one based on weapons and vodka, to vodka and oil. Well played, Sir! Now, why don't you go kill a wild animal while shirtless or something like that. Oh? Did that one already? Well, I am sure you will think up some other way to show us what a manly man you really are.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

In Russia, it's out with the old and in with the new-old. Forward they go - into the past.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Reads as if Putin "wisely" resolved the island issue in a five minute phone call.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Pardon for using a meme that does not belong on this site but, it is too good to pass up.

In Soviet, Russia, Democracy controls the people.
1 ( +2 / -1 )

With all the disputes going on, Japan is the only common factor and a party to all of them. Hmh, how about that?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

tamanegi, why the dispute? Well Japan wants our islands back. No northern territories, no peace, it is very easy and what does Russia really have to offer? Japan would regret any dependency on Russia for anything. They broke every treaty with Japan, why should we believe them now? Hey Putin, free Yuri-to!!!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

You can tell Prime Minister NODO, that Russia will not do anything about theese islands as long a America occupy's Japan. When America leaves then Russia will talk not before. Rememberas long as America is here we an occupied country and we have no foregn policy. Only Americas., they control everything even our military. So guit asking dumb question,

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

“During the telephone talks, Prime Minister Noda congratulated Prime Minister Putin,” the statement said

Isn't he President Putin yet?

also, one crummy phone call ain't going to make the Russkis say "That's nice: let's give back to oil and fishing rich islands"

Blokes in black vans playing daft military tunes have got more hope than noda has.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

YuriOtani

Well Japan wants our islands back. No northern territories, no peace, it is very easy and what does Russia really have to offer? Japan would regret any dependency on Russia for anything. They broke every treaty with Japan, why should we believe them now?

Hey Yuri to quote a comment that you made recently about the war "Look I am not apathetic but I live my life in the present not past." So what is it you live in the present when someone else is offended but when its Japan offended you forget your mantra and demand action. But then you also said " I will never apologize for the actions of the Imperial government. What more does the new government of Japan have to do?" So you wont apologise for the criminal actions of your past generations but you demand back land that they lost through there actions. Thats hilarious good luck with that!!!

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Noda: total KY

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Putin 64% Noda 22%. I see why he congratulated Putin.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Putin's next job will be playing Frank Martin in the next Transporter movie.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Oh man, Putin is back at the helm? Better become friends with the bear than be an enemy. Surely there are legitimate spheres of cooperation in many fields between Japan and Russia. I believe even Russia is changing in this ever changing world.... and Japan needs to place itself with good partners to develop economical as well as security arrangements thta will benefit both Russia and Japan. I think Japan wants to cooperate in certain fields, but let's face it, Uncle Sam is the real boss in Japan, and as long as America continues to occupy it, Japan is forced to do it's bidding and cannot make foreign ploicy moves without Washington's approval. That is the grim reality.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hehe. 'Congrats! Now give us our land back.' Smooth Noda.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Let's hope the people will be successful in curbing his ambitions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

to YuriOtani

tamanegi, why the dispute? Well Japan wants our islands back.

Why yours ? Can you explain ?

No northern territories, no peace,

Sorry Japan Empire capitulated in 1945 . That's all guys - the same thing with Germany in 1945 - CAPITULATION . Russia does not need any peace treaty Russia Japan and lot of other cauntries have signed this act of capitulation. game was over long long time .....

it is very easy and what does Russia really have to offer?

Why Russia must offer something ?

Japan would regret any dependency on Russia for anything.

The only one place where Japanese can take enough recourses - Siberia....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cletus, I will never apologize for the actions of the now defunct Imperial Government. It slide into history I was born and was born into a American occupied Okinawa. The Americans ruled my home with an iron fist. It was all about them and in many ways remains the same. In the same light Russia never apologized for the shooting down of KAL 007. They refuse to take responsibility for the crimes of the Soviets. Again Russia is using this as a pawn in their plan to retain power. Only if their is fear can Putin remain in power.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Yes, by all means; Congratulations Valdimire! Congratulations on cheating in an election that even your opposition says you would have won anyway.

Sorry - how do you know? Putin - most popular Russian politician so his victory quite normal

Congratulations on destroying a free media, the beginnings of the rule of law, and a civil society.

You have no experience of civil society in nineties I have like most Russians We are sick of this

Congratulations on transforming your county's economy from one based on weapons and vodka, to vodka and oil. Well played, Sir!

Russia can pay its debts, can increase pensions and invest a lot in industry even during the crisis US can ? Japan, England ? Why ? What's your problem ?

Now, why don't you go kill a wild animal while shirtless or something like that. Oh? Did that one already? Well, I am sure you will think up some other way to show us what a manly man you really are.

Stop US with all the king men in South Ossetia or Syria .... Not so pleasant but funny anyway ...

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

to YuriOtani

. In the same light Russia never apologized for the shooting down of KAL 007.

And never will - this aircraft went into the forbidden zone and does not obeyed the orders of Air Defence ............... it was intelligence operation....

They refuse to take responsibility for the crimes of the Soviets.

Japanese took full responsibility for all crimes during second world war.... the same thing for Germans..

Again Russia is using this as a pawn in their plan to retain power. Only if their is fear can Putin remain in power.

Why this simple last name causing so much fear ?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

urges resolution to territorial issue...

Not going to happen. There are enough irregularities reported in the election that it would seem that the poll was rigged. Putin has already shut down the news outlets that oppose his rule. Russia is rated as one of the most corrupt contries to do business in. Putin has to do something to remain "popular" with somebody, so he'll play the nationalist card as often as he cares to. Resolving the issue of the north islands would make Putin look weak. Can't have a dictator look weak, can we.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Americans ruled my home with an iron fist

Yuri, the Americans ruled Okinawa with an iron fist?

Then what do call the rule by the Japanese from 1609 to 1945? That was iron-fisted rule. The Americans were downright benevolent compared to that.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Putin had won his third presidency long before the election. Say sayonara to democracy and lawful Russia, including the return of northern islands as many Japanese expected. For Russia, there are two elements: energy (gas & oil) and bombs. As for Putin the glory of Russia means $120 per barrel of oil, translating into supporting tension around the world for Russia's interest. This hopefully explain Putin's policy toward Iran, Syria, N. Korea...etc. Forget about the world peace and all we need is love, for $120/barrel of oil is very good for Russia. What a shame.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Olegek, Putin does not scare me. It does make me think democracy is dead in the new Russia. In my mind this confirms that Russia is an continuation of the Soviet Union. Different names but the same old name goes on. Soon very soon Putin will start a new cold war to ensure his power base. The fear I speak of is not the fear of him but the new fear of the west. It is again the new cold war in the near future. Am so happy I will not be one of the first to know when the missiles fly. It is only a matter of time now that the "reset" is going to be rejected.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

YuriOtani

Cletus, I will never apologize for the actions of the now defunct Imperial Government. It slide into history I was born and was born into a American occupied Okinawa. The Americans ruled my home with an iron fist. It was all about them and in many ways remains the same. In the same light Russia never apologized for the shooting down of KAL 007. They refuse to take responsibility for the crimes of the Soviets. Again Russia is using this as a pawn in their plan to retain power. Only if their is fear can Putin remain in power

Yuri, to use a quote that you have said many a time when others raise their issues about Japans past. "Stop living in the past that was X amount of years ago get over it"! You lost the islands 60+ years ago get over it....

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Cletus, I will never apologize for the actions of the now defunct Imperial Government. It slide into history I was born and was born into a American occupied Okinawa. The Americans ruled my home with an iron fist. It was all about them and in many ways remains the same. In the same light Russia never apologized for the shooting down of KAL 007. They refuse to take responsibility for the crimes of the Soviets. Again Russia is using this as a pawn in their plan to retain power. Only if their is fear can Putin remain in power.

You're at this again. Like it or not, the Imperial Government was a part of Japan's history, which you and your fellow Japanese need to acknowledge and accept. Like I said before, if you discount the bad things Japan did, then you're also not allowed to take credit for the goods which has come out of your culture, not you or any other Japanese. Don't apologise for the actions of your defunct imperial government if you want, but then expect the US to do the same for its occupation of Okinawa.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Cletus, there will NEVER be a peace with Russia aka Soviet Union unless the islands are returned. Putin is responsible for the collapse of relations. He is the threat to peace.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Cletus, there will NEVER be a peace with Russia aka Soviet Union unless the islands are returned. Putin is responsible for the collapse of relations. He is the threat to peace.

No, Japan is responsible. It waged a war which it lost and as a result, lost the island. Germany also had its borders drawn again after WW2. Blame the Imperial Government, not Putin.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Japan demads all four islands. Russia offers, at most, the return of two.

Since these positions are irreconcileable and neither Japan nor Russia shows any willingness to change their stance the issue should be shelved until one of the sides alters their position. It's a complete waste of time for the Japanese to constantly call for talks when nothing has changed since previous talks. I know the Japanese "negotiating" style is simply to repeat the same thing over and over and over again, but they needn't bother.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

oginome, perhaps but Russia attacked Poland at the start of the European war and Finland as well. They were in league with Germany. Putin goes on about the noble Russia but the truth is it is not noble. Japan was the 6th country attacked without provocation.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The official Russian position i that there is no territorial issue. PERIOD

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No, Japan is responsible. It waged a war which it lost and as a result, lost the island. Germany also had its borders drawn again after WW2. Blame the Imperial Government, not Putin.

???

I could of swore it was the Soviets that waged war against Japan and not vice versa.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

oginome, perhaps but Russia attacked Poland at the start of the European war and Finland as well. They were in league with Germany. Putin goes on about the noble Russia but the truth is it is not noble. Japan was the 6th country attacked without provocation.

And your country was in league with Germany too. It's so funny, both Japan and Germany claimed they were the master races of the world. How many countries did Japan attack without provocation?

I could of swore it was the Soviets that waged war against Japan and not vice versa.

I could have sworn Soviet Russa was an ally of America which Japan suicidally waged war against. America was also an ally of the UK which is why it joined with the UK when an Axis power (Japan) attacked. Better open those history books.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I could have sworn Soviet Russa was an ally of America which Japan suicidally waged war against. America was also an ally of the UK which is why it joined with the UK when an Axis power (Japan) attacked. Better open those history books.

I opened one up and it mentions a document called Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I opened one up and it mentions a document called Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact.

Yes and that was before the Soviet Union allied with America. Neutrality Pacts don't really mean much when they come from a racist murder empire which disregarded the sovereignty of nations and thought it was their destiny as the 'master race' to save their Asian 'brothers' from Western civilisation. Weird that the civilising resulted in massacres and the deaths of millions though, isn't it? It's so funny how peoples which insist they are 'the master race' plunge to the depths of barbarism and atrocity to prove this alleged superiority.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Neutrality Pacts don't really mean much

Yes it does. Hence, one of the reason why the European Commission voted for Russia to "return" the Northern territories.

You go on another thread about focusing on what Japan did to China and what others did to another is irrelevant and yet you simply can't apply the same standards to this thread. It's called Double standard. Practice what you preach.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Yes it does. Hence, one of the reason why the European Commission voted for Russia to "return" the Northern territories.

You go on another thread about focusing on what Japan did to China and what others did to another is irrelevant and yet you simply can't apply the same standards to this thread. It's called Double standard. Practice what you preach.

Um, no, the situation is completely different. Japan waging a war of aggression and losing its islands to an ally of the country it was defeated by is a completely different situation from not facing up to the millions it murdered. Japan losing the island is its own fault. It's NOT China's fault that Japan, in its racist arrogant hubris, disrespected the sovereignty of another nation, invaded said nation and butchered millions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And the Pact was denounced by Russia before Japan lost the war. Japan itself considered breaking off the Pact in 1941 when its good friend Nazi Germany invaded Russia, but only decided not to do so it could continue on its murderous rampage throughout Southeast Asia.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Um, no, the situation is completely different.

You don't seem to understand. Soviets waged a war of aggression against Japan. This is about what the "Soviets" did to "Japan". This isn't about what Japan did to China. Please concentrate.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

And the Pact was denounced by Russia before Japan lost the war.

How convenient.

Japan itself considered breaking off the Pact in 1941 when its good friend Nazi Germany invaded Russia, but only decided not to do so it could continue on its murderous rampage throughout Southeast Asia.

Which in turn enabled the Soviets to rampage Westward.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

oginome, Russia enabled Germany to invade Poland and that allowed Russia to invade Poland. Funny that is not in the history Putin speaks. Putin was the head of the KGB and he has blood on his hands. This last election can not be taken as fair. Noda-chan should not have called him. What about the massacre of 22000 Polish prisoners of war, when will you apologize Putin?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

nigelboy

You don't seem to understand. Soviets waged a war of aggression against Japan. This is about what the "Soviets" did to "Japan". This isn't about what Japan did to China. Please concentrate.

HUH!!! Im sorry did l read that right. Must be a typo on your part. So you believe the Soviets waged a war of aggression on Japan!!! HMMM So what exactly would you call Japan's action that led to the Russians declaring war on Japan, you seem to conveniently forget the bit about the Japanese being at war with Russia's allies and the agreement between these allies that the Russians would enter the war within 3 months of the end of hostilities in Europe. Which is what they did.

I opened one up and it mentions a document called Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact.

Funny you mention that given that the Japanese where giving aid and signed and alliance with the nation that was invading Russia then l think that in itself would make the pact void now wouldnt you?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

YuriOtani

Japan was the 6th country attacked without provocation.

I disagree and lm tipping the millions your country killed would also disagree that Russia attacked without provocation. You do understand that Russia was allied with the US and UK and they were at war with Japan due to Japanese aggression? Thats pretty good provocation right there Yuri.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You don't seem to understand. Soviets waged a war of aggression against Japan. This is about what the "Soviets" did to "Japan". This isn't about what Japan did to China. Please concentrate.

No, the Soviets waged war against Japan because Japan had INSTIGATED war with the Soviets' ally. This was Japan's doing and Japan's fault. Allies helped one another, while the the Axis nations also supported each other. Please concentrate.

How convenient.

But still true nevertheless. By the time Japan lost the war, the Neutrality Pact had already ceased to be. And it was hardly valid, considering Imperial Japan continued to support Nazi Germany.

Which in turn enabled the Soviets to rampage Westward.

Yes, and? Just because it ended up having a positive impact in which a straining Nazi Germany army couldn't win against a fully mobilised Russian force which was doing little fighting on any other fronts, doesn't mean Japan was trying to help... LOL. It was shortsightedness that caused Japan to lose the war. If they broke the pact themselves in 1941 and helped the Nazis in Russia and ignored Southeast Asia, who knows what might have happened in the end? Actually, it doesn't bear thinking about.

oginome, Russia enabled Germany to invade Poland and that allowed Russia to invade Poland. Funny that is not in the history Putin speaks. Putin was the head of the KGB and he has blood on his hands. This last election can not be taken as fair. Noda-chan should not have called him. What about the massacre of 22000 Polish prisoners of war, when will you apologize Putin?

Once again a democratic country (like Japan) doesn't get a get-out-of-jail-free card because a dicatorship (in this case Russia) won't face up to its own past. Yet you demand America apologise for its occupation of Okinawa while you think Japan doesn't have to do the same.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Why should Japan make an agreement when Russia has broken all of the previous agreements, yes this includes post Soviet agreements.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why should Japan make an agreement when Russia has broken all of the previous agreements, yes this includes post Soviet agreements.

An agreement? But there's no agreement necessary. These islands belong to Russia now. Japan's fault that it lost them.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

oginome, perhaps but there will be no peace treaty, I favor no trade with Russia, the forbidding of Russian ships to enter Japanese waters. If we are at war, we need to treat the Russia as foe. Next time an Russian military aircraft enters our airspace, shoot it down. The Russians shot down an airliner, their spy planes deserve the same.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Japan and Russia had the non-aggression pact until August 8 1945. Japan was actively trying to get Russia to mediate a cease fire between Japan and the U.S, not knowing that Russia had already promised the U.S. that they would enter the war against Japan. Russia conveniently ignored the Japanese requests until the U.S. dropped the "A" bomb on Hiroshima and then jumped in so as not to miss the land grab.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

to YuriOtani

Why should Japan make an agreement when Russia has broken all of the previous agreements, yes this includes post Soviet agreements.

Remember 1904 and attack on the Russian fleet with no announcement of war...

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@techallMar. 08, 2012 - 07:26PM JST

Russia have only two non-realizable ports to world ocean: Murmanks and Vladivostok.

Kuril islands are very important geographic place of our security, because:

it is our non-realizable gate to Pacific ocean while Kurils island inside in Russia then Okhotsk sea is Russian only i.e. not for world military ships

If we lose Kurils then our security will be cracked. We can't lose Kurils not for one day, easy lose Moscow (big fire in 1812 year) or Saint-Petrsburg (900 days of blockade of Leningrad in WW2 period).

Also if we lose Kurils then China and USA would be attack of Russia. If Japan need friendly relationship then Japan must respect of our security. We doing maximum power for our relationship.

All Japanese politics and experts think that Kurils are like bottle of beer, but Kurils are very important strategic place. We can't lose Kirils for Japan, USA, China and for all countries, because really it world be start of WW3.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

BessonovYan, Japan does not "need" Russian" anything, also we are only asking for the most southern islands not all of them. In a time of conflict it does not matter, understand Russia's concerns but that is where the talk comes in. If there was a true peace between Japan and Russia there would be no worries.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

HUH!!! Im sorry did l read that right. Must be a typo on your part. So you believe the Soviets waged a war of aggression on Japan!!! HMMM So what exactly would you call Japan's action that led to the Russians declaring war on Japan, you seem to conveniently forget the bit about the Japanese being at war with Russia's allies and the agreement between these allies that the Russians would enter the war within 3 months of the end of hostilities in Europe. Which is what they did.

You basically proved that Soviets did in fact waged a war of aggression on Japan by breaking the neutrality pact.

Funny you mention that given that the Japanese where giving aid and signed and alliance with the nation that was invading Russia then l think that in itself would make the pact void now wouldnt you?

Why would it? If in fact Japan were to aid Germans, they would of never signed the neutrality pact and made their campaign northward. You think Germany was happy that Japan signed such document despite being part of the Axis?

BTW, the declarations of United nations were signed on Jan of 1942.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

No, the Soviets waged war against Japan because Japan had INSTIGATED war with the Soviets' ally. This was Japan's doing and Japan's fault. Allies helped one another, while the the Axis nations also supported each other. Please concentrate.

Seriously. Soviets waged war against Japan because the Allies' member(namely U.S.) promised them South Sahkalin and the Kuril Islands.

Please bear in mind that the Soviet invasion took place after Japan's surrender in August 15 of 1945. If that's not "aggressive war", I don't know what is.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

@YuriOtaniMar. 08, 2012 - 11:31PM JST

Four little islands are very little problem for Japan but very big and important islands for security of Russia also it need for stability in Asia region. Really Japan can't solve more important island problem with China and USA. We make many force for peace and relationship with Japan but Japan not respect our sacrifice, patience, our security and peace with Russia. Japanese politics are worried only about own pride. My regrets.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@nigelboyMar. 09, 2012 - 12:31AM JST

We not need lose gate for USA.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Not one person mentions that Putin as offered to settle the issue. Not one person mentions the Breshnev formula he is reviving. Not one person talks about the JSDF relocation from Hokkaido to Kyushu and Okinawa to set the stage for a warming up of relations. Not one person talks about the fact Japan needs to lessen dependency on China, and to find a fuel source alternative to Iran, especially now its economy is being crippled by imports of fuel oil.

The time has never been better for Japan and Russia to finally address the return of the Northwest territories.

But no, we have to talk about WWII, finders keepers, China, troll, troll, troll...

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Seriously. Soviets waged war against Japan because the Allies' member(namely U.S.) promised them South Sahkalin and the Kuril Islands.

Please bear in mind that the Soviet invasion took place after Japan's surrender in August 15 of 1945. If that's not "aggressive war", I don't know what is.

Yes, the Soviets gained those islands, because it had been allies with the US during the war. Just like both Russia and the US divided Korea into North and South after the war and set up their own backed governments there.

And again, the 'Neutrality Pact' didn't exist by the time Japan lost the war. And the Soviets invaded Manchuria, which no longer belonged to Japan.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Manchuria never "belonged" to Japan. It was an independent Japanese ally (the league of nations couldn't accept the idea of a non-white country with independent colonies as full fledged nations, hence the puppet state tag) - Japanese forces jumped in to help the Manchurian army when it was attacked by USSR, and got it's arse kicked I believe, leading to the neutrality pact. Which remained completely intact until Japan surrendered, marking the end of the war. And the start of the Soviet land grab, and abduction and internment of tens of thousands of Japanese.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Manchuria never "belonged" to Japan. It was an independent Japanese ally (the league of nations couldn't accept the idea of a non-white country with independent colonies as full fledged nations, hence the puppet state tag) - Japanese forces jumped in to help the Manchurian army when it was attacked by USSR, and got it's arse kicked I believe, leading to the neutrality pact. Which remained completely intact until Japan surrendered, marking the end of the war. And the start of the Soviet land grab, and abduction and internment of tens of thousands of Japanese.

Manchukuo only existed because Japan invaded China in the first place. Yes, it was an ally of Japan, a glorified colony with delusions of independance. The Neutrality Pact didn't make exist by the time Japan lost the war.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@HikozaemonMar. 09, 2012 - 01:11AM JST

The time has never been better for Japan and Russia to finally address the return of the Northwest territories.

That is impossible I told about reasons.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Yes, the Soviets gained those islands, because it had been allies with the US during the war. Just like both Russia and the US divided Korea into North and South after the war and set up their own backed governments there

Yes. But we're talking about Northern territories in which the said islands were never part of the Soviet Union nor was taken by "greed or violence". We're talking about a declaration of war in which Soviets initiated despite the fact that Neutrality pact was in place as well as subsequent invasion despite Japan's surrender in August 15, 1945.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

BessonovYan - Are you suggesting that the Norhtern territories, 4 tiny islands crammed up alongside Hokkaido would enable Japan to shot down the Sea of Okhotsk?

Again, read my comment - what about the SDF redeployment? What about Putin saying he would return 2 islands to Japan, before winning the election there with an amazing 64% of the vote?

The two smallest islands are being returned, and this will pose no issue whatsoever to the rest of the Kurils or Russian access to the Pacific or national security. The other two islands, more problematic because they are inhabited, but also pose no risk, will be the key point of negotiations. I'm guessing that Russia may offer Japan a couple of direct oil and gas pipelines in exchange for giving up the claim, or indeed, they may offer the islands up if Japan agrees to a substantial long term energy supply agreement.

Basically, those islands are up for sale, and when they are sold, it will be a win-win for both countries.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes. But we're talking about Northern territories in which the said islands were never part of the Soviet Union nor was taken by "greed or violence". We're talking about a declaration of war in which Soviets initiated despite the fact that Neutrality pact was in place as well as subsequent invasion despite Japan's surrender in August 15, 1945.

The Neutrality Pact didn't exist anymore by the time Japan surrendered on August 15, 1945. The Soviets launched their attack on August 9, 1945, before Japan had surrendered, when the Allies were still at war with an Axis nation. The islands of the Northern Territories were never part of the Soviet Union, but neither was Korea, and Russa was 'awarded' with the Northern half after WW2 and set up their own communist backed government there. Japan losing the islands is its own fault.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Neutrality Pact didn't exist anymore by the time Japan surrendered on August 15, 1945.

How do you arrive at this? I would agree that the Neutrality Pact was "violated" by Soviets and hence from the their perspective, it no longer existed.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@HikozaemonMar. 09, 2012 - 01:53AM JST

We never need sell islands. That is your unreal fantasy. Also Putin never saying about losing islands because it name as treason. We don't know about it. If we lose one island then USA will build base on it for attack Russia. Welcome WW3! After that China will attack of Russia. Are you really suppose that we mad?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

How do you arrive at this? I would agree that the Neutrality Pact was "violated" by Soviets and hence from the their perspective, it no longer existed.

They broke it off in early 1945, months before their invasion of Manchuria. And actually, if you read the Pact, they did not violate anything.

Article three: The present Pact comes into force from the day of its ratification by both Contracting Parties and remains valid for five years. In case neither of the Contracting Parties denounces the Pact one year before the expiration of the term, it will be considered automatically prolonged for the next five years.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They broke it off in early 1945, months before their invasion of Manchuria. And actually, if you read the Pact, they did not violate anything.

Article three: The present Pact comes into force from the day of its ratification by both Contracting Parties and remains valid for five years. In case neither of the Contracting Parties denounces the Pact one year before the expiration of the term, it will be considered automatically prolonged for the next five years.

April of 1941 plus 5 years = April of 1946.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

April of 1941 plus 5 years = April of 1946.

Oh dear, maybe you should read again,

'In case neither of the Contracting Parties denounces the Pact one year before the expiration of the term,'

One year before the expiration of the term - 13 April 1945

The day the Soviets denounced the pact - 5 April 1945.

The Soviets denounced more than one year before the expiration of the term, they did not violate the contract, but ended it legally. The agreement gave both parties the option to denounce until the beginning of the final year.

Japan invaded Manchuria on August 8 1945, before Japan surrendered, so you're wrong in your assertion that Russia attacked an already surrendered Japan.

Why do you twist things? I'm pretty sure you know these details, but you chose to omit or distort them.

Japan losing the islands is its own fault, entirely.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh dear, maybe you should read again

Perhaps you should.

The Soviets denounced more than one year before the expiration of the term, they did not violate the contract, but ended it legally. The agreement gave both parties the option to denounce until the beginning of the final year.

Oh dear.

The present Pact comes into force from the day of its ratification by both Contracting Parties and remains valid for five years. In case neither of the Contracting Parties denounces the Pact one year before the expiration of the term, it will be considered automatically prolonged for the next five years.

If Soviets or Japan (Contracting Parties) denounces the PACT one year before the expiration of the term , the expiration is still April of 1946.

If Soviets or Japan did not do anything at all, (neither of the Contracting Parties denounces the Pact) the expiration will be prolonged to April of 1951.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

If Soviets or Japan (Contracting Parties) denounces the PACT one year before the expiration of the term , the expiration is still April of 1946.

If Soviets or Japan did not do anything at all, (neither of the Contracting Parties denounces the Pact) the expiration will be prolonged to April of 1951.

Oh dear, read again.

In case neither of the Contracting Parties denounces the Pact one year before the expiration of the term

Read this, it is made clear that both parties have been given the option to denounce. Russia decided to do so and did not violate the Pact, not at all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't know something about pacts but we do maximum force for peace. Also i sure that pacts are not very important. Real peace is more important than pacts. People need real peace but not many words about peace. Also we use own Kurils for stable own peace and peace with border countries. We never kill many people like Germany, Japan, USA and many other countries.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Read this, it is made clear that both parties have been given the option to denounce. Russia decided to do so and did not violate the Pact, not at all.

Yes. There is an option to denounce but the expiration of April 1946 remain.

If either of the Contracting Parties denounce the pact in let's say May of 1942, the expiration of April 1946 still stand.

If either of the Contracting Parties denounce the pact in let's say May of 1943, the expiration of April 1946 still stand.

If either of the Contracting Parties denounce the pact in let's say May of 1944, the expiration of April 1946 still stand.

If either of the Contracting Parties denounce the pact in let's say May of 1945, the expiration is prolonged to April of 1951.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

nigelboy, I don't think you understand. Denouncing the treaty, from either party, renders the treaty null and void, regardless of what year it was done in.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

nigelboy, I don't think you understand. Denouncing the treaty, from either party, renders the treaty null and void, regardless of what year it was done in.

I don't think you understand. If they could be voided any time by denouncing the pact, there's absolutely no point in setting a five year term.

It's simple. The Soviets denouncing the pact in April of 1945 simply means that they waived the option to prolong it until 1951 and that the said pact was going to expire in April of1946.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I don't think you understand. If they could be voided any time by denouncing the pact, there's absolutely no point in setting a five year term.

It's simple. The Soviets denouncing the pact in April of 1945 simply means that they waived the option to prolong it until 1951 and that the said pact was going to expire in April of1946.

Blame the Pact for this gaping loophole, since it gives both parties the option to denounce,even while setting a five year term. Fail. It's simple, the Soviets denounced the pact, and were well within their rights to do so, they did nothing illegal and no violation occured. And they did NOT attack a surrendered Japan, but a Japan which was already in the war.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

nigelboy

"The Neutrality Pact didn't exist anymore by the time Japan surrendered on August 15, 1945." How do you arrive at this? I would agree that the Neutrality Pact was "violated" by Soviets and hence from the their perspective, it no longer existed

Really nigelboy, how do arrive at this conclusion? Have you read the Pact? Did you read article 2, its the one that says

"Should one of the Contracting Parties become the object of hostilities on the part of one or several third powers, the other Contracting Party will observe neutrality throughout the duration of the conflict."

Well give Japan signed the tripartite pact and was allied with Germany when Germany attacked Russia, and Japan was giving aid to Germany and letting German vessels us Japanese captured ports that is hardly remaining neutral now is it.

Not to mention that Japan also signed the Anti-Comintern Pact with Germany AFTER signing the Neutrality Pact with Russia and this Pact states

"In case of an attack by the Soviet Union against Germany or Japan, the two countries agreed to consult on what measures to take "to safeguard their common interests". They also agreed that neither of them would make any political treaties with the Soviet Union, and Germany also agreed to recognize Manchukuo.

Interestingly Japan resigned this Pact in November 1941 after Germany had invaded Russia, so that pretty much disolves the neutrality pact right there wouldnt you say?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well give Japan signed the tripartite pact and was allied with Germany when Germany attacked Russia, and Japan was giving aid to Germany and letting German vessels us Japanese captured ports that is hardly remaining neutral now is it.

Gee Cletus. That's reaching a little bit, ain't it? So am I to assume that the Soviets notified their displeasure with this so-called aid to the Japanese consulate in Moscow ? I got a homework for you. Did at any time the Soviets voiced their displeasure towards Japan not adhering to Article 2 ?

Furthermore, your original argument basically states that it was the Soviet Union who failed to observe the neutrality by not adhering to article 2.

And no. Japan signed the anti-Comintern Pact before the Neutrality Pact. And my understanding of the agreement is that...

In order to avoid damaging relations with the Soviet Union, the Pact was supposedly directed only against the Comintern, but in fact contained a secret agreement that in the event of either signatory power becoming involved with a war with the Soviet Union, the other signatory power would maintain a benevolent neutrality.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Blame the Pact for this gaping loophole, since it gives both parties the option to denounce,even while setting a five year term. Fail. It's simple, the Soviets denounced the pact, and were well within their rights to do so, they did nothing illegal and no violation occured. And they did NOT attack a surrendered Japan, but a Japan which was already in the war.

There is no "loophole". The Soviets simply violated it. The expiration of the April 1946 deadline was confirmed on April 6, 1945 from Foreign Minister Motolov to Ambasaddor Sato. And Soviet did in fact attack the Northern Territories after Japan's surrender.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

to nigelboy

The expiration of the April 1946 deadline was confirmed on April 6, 1945 from Foreign Minister Motolov to Ambasaddor Sato. And Soviet did in fact attack the Northern Territories after Japan's surrender

April of 1941 plus 5 years = April of 1946.

There is no "loophole". The Soviets simply violated it.

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

And so on and so on

OK my friend So much discussion about this PACT So important.....

Lets look at the history in more details ......

1 1855 treaty of Shimoda- in this time Russia was at war against British Empire French Empire and Ottoman Empire at the same time.... Japanese government choose this time for negotiations....... It was clever choice.......

2 1904-1905 Russian- Japanese war.......... Japanese won this war -serious cause for pride BUT Japanese attacked Russian fleet in Port Arthur in peace time without announcement of war It was a little Pearl Harbor ........... As a result from the first step Japanese had some undeserved advantage ..... Was it possible to beat Russia without this "brave "attack ?? Who knows ?

3 1918-20 Japanese troops invaded Russian Far East and it was also attempt to annex this land. without announcement of war

North Sakhalin was occupied till 1925 .....

1936-1938 it was 35 big clashes at Russian border........ 1938 Japanese attack on Russian territory (Battle of lake Khasan ) 1939 Battles of Khalkhin Gol without announcement of war

5 1941-1945 IJN attacked and sank Russian merchant ships without announcement of war

during whole war one third of Russian troops remained on the Far East because of danger from Kwantung Army...

August of 1945 - time to pay............in 25 days Kwantung Army was completely destroyed

and you guys analising each letter of this "PACT"

Japan has done too much against Russia without announcement of war...

And after that... sorry guys.. you must be more realistic

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There is no "loophole". The Soviets simply violated it. The expiration of the April 1946 deadline was confirmed on April 6, 1945 from Foreign Minister Motolov to Ambasaddor Sato. And Soviet did in fact attack the Northern Territories after Japan's surrender.

The Pact gave both parties the option to denounce, so no there was no violation, sorry. And sorry, but the Manchurian invasion happened before Japan surrendered, Russia was awarded the Northern Territories, because Japan lost the war. Japan's fault.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

and you guys analising each letter of this "PACT"

Yes Olegek. "PACT" or "agreement" or "treaty" were executed by BOTH parties to avoid a full scale conflict. All your examples are "irrelavant" except the alleged IJ sinking of merchant ships since none of those events had any "agreement" similar to that of 1941 Pact.

All you have there my friend is a bunch of "without announcement of war" which was MAJORITY of the military conflicts during that time INCLUDING Soviet Union. Military engagement happen when diplomatic negotiations ends with one party rejecting other. Military engagement/conflict happen when opposing forces build up along the disputed border line.

Based on your tone, it appears that Soviets were justified in attacking the Japanese for "revenge." Like you say "time to pay". If that's the case, the Russo-Japan war example would of been fine.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

The Pact gave both parties the option to denounce, so no there was no violation, sorry. And sorry, but the Manchurian invasion happened before Japan surrendered, Russia was awarded the Northern Territories, because Japan lost the war. Japan's fault.

Repeating again.

"The present Pact comes into force from the day of its ratification by both Contracting Parties and remains valid for five years."

Stop. Read again. REMAINS VALID FOR FIVE YEARS. (April of 1946)

Even Foreign Minister of Soviets confirmed this on April 6, 1945. End of discussion.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Stop. Read again. REMAINS VALID FOR FIVE YEARS. (April of 1946)

Read again, it remains valid for five years if neither party denounces it. The Pact provides both parties with the choice of denouncing. Russia denounced it, rendering the Pact invalid

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Read again, it remains valid for five years if neither party denounces it.

Nope. It's prolonged to 1951 if neiether party denounces it. Read again.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Nope. It's prolonged to 1951 if neiether party denounces it. Read again.

Well done, but either party denouncing the Pact renders absolves the Pact regardless of what year it is done in. The Pact gives both parties the option to do this. Read again.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well done, but either party denouncing the Pact renders absolves the Pact regardless of what year it is done in. The Pact gives both parties the option to do this. Read again.

No it doesn't.

The Japanese–Soviet Neutrality Pact A diplomatic history, 1941–1945 Boris Slavinsky

"By early 1945 the heads of the Soviet Foreign Ministry were already inclined to think the Neutrality Pact would have to be denounced. Lozovskiy's note to Molotov on 10 January of that year shows that:

The Japanese are beginning to display anxiety over the question of extending the Neutrality Pact between the USSR and Japan for the next 5 years. Article 3 of the Pact states: 'This Pact comes into effect on the day of its ratification by both High Contracting Parties, and remains in force for a period of five years. If neither of the High Contracting Parties denounces it a year before its expiration, it will be considered automatically renewed for the next five years

The Japanese would very much like automatic extension of the Pact for the next five years, but precisely because the Japanese very much want it, we should weigh very carefully all the pros and cons of denouncing or extending the Neutrality Pact…. It is unprofitable for the Soviet Union to bind itself until 1951. The Pacific war will end much sooner, and we must have our hands free by then. It seems we need to denounce the Neutrality Pact before 13 April 1945 .....

I consider this question entirely clear, therefore we should decide when to do it: a few days before 13 April or sooner. But for the imminent intended meeting known to you [the Yalta conference - G.J.] and the arrival in Moscow of Chinese Minister for Foreign Affairs Sun Tsy-Wen [T.V. Soong – G.J.] this could be done on 10–12 April. But since the meeting is to take place, we must do this sooner. If we denounce the Pact after the meeting, it will be assumed all over the world, and above all in Japan, that we did so under pressure from our allies. But if we do it before the meeting, this will be received by the whole world, including Japan, as an autonomous step by the Soviet government, independent of its allies. Our denunciation must be so structured that the Japanese hope that, given serious concessions from their side, the Neutrality Pact may be extended for another five years. ...

The Soviet officials were aware of the expiration of April 1946. Every person with some basic reading comprehension is aware of the expiration of April of 1946.

And yet Oginome keeps banging the same drum. Anti-Japan is a horrible disease, I must say.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

The Soviet officials were aware of the expiration of April 1946. Every person with some basic reading comprehension is aware of the expiration of April of 1946.

And yet Oginome keeps banging the same drum. Anti-Japan is a horrible disease, I must say.

The expiration would have been April 1946 if neither party had denounced the Pact, which they were both entitled to. Jingoism is a horrible disease, I must say.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The expiration would have been April 1946 if neither party had denounced the Pact

No no oginome. You're reading it wrong. In fact, you're not reading at all.

It states,

"In case NEITHER of the Contracting PARTIES DENOUNCES THE PACT one year before the expiration of the term, it will be considered automatically prolonged for the next five years(April 1951)"

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

In case NEITHER of the Contracting PARTIES DENOUNCES THE PACT one year before the expiration of the term, it will be considered automatically prolonged for the next five years(April 1951)

Yes, read again, 'DENOUNCES THE PACT - therefore both parties were entitled to do so. Just because doing so after the four year anniversary means the pact would no longer be prolonged to 1951 doesn't mean anything. Both Japan and Russia were entitled to denounce the pact at any time either before or after the four year anniversary.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

*doing so BEFORE the four year anniversary

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, read again, 'DENOUNCES THE PACT - therefore both parties were entitled to do so. Just because doing so after the four year anniversary means the pact would no longer be prolonged to 1951 doesn't mean anything. Both Japan and Russia were entitled to denounce the pact at any time either before or after the four year anniversary.

Sorry oginome. "denounces the pact" in this agreement calls for ending the agreement in April of 1946. Based on your argument that "ending the pact at any time either before or after the four year anniversary" for the simple reason that there would not be any need whatsoever to set a term of five years. In fact, the whole article 3 becomes unncessary. But in any case, since FM Motolov(also a principal in the Pact itself) confirmed Ambasaddor Sato on April 9, 1945(after the formal announcement of denounciation" that the expiration was in fact, April of 1946, your argument is moot.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Sorry oginome. "denounces the pact" in this agreement calls for ending the agreement in April of 1946. Based on your argument that "ending the pact at any time either before or after the four year anniversary" for the simple reason that there would not be any need whatsoever to set a term of five years. In fact, the whole article 3 becomes unncessary. But in any case, since FM Motolov(also a principal in the Pact itself) confirmed Ambasaddor Sato on April 9, 1945(after the formal announcement of denounciation" that the expiration was in fact, April of 1946, your argument is moot.

No, 'denounces the pact' means putting an end to the pact, it means NOT following it through the end. If following the Pact until 1946 is what it was, then it wouldn't be denounciation. 'Denouncing the pact' means not adhering to it anymore, it means not following it all the way through. The Pact gave both parties the option to do this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

to nigelboy

Yes Olegek. "PACT" or "agreement" or "treaty" were executed by BOTH parties to avoid a full scale conflict.

......................

To avoid this full scale conflict during whole war against German invaders Russians keep at the Far East very strong army this was the reason WHY .... not the PACT Very serious reason was - Russian aviation , capable attack Japanese cities... I can remind Theory of Ripe Persimmon .... Kwantung Army was strong despite operations against China despite operations against USA and British Empire.... Why ? Japanese Army refused invade in Australia - not enough forces ! For Kwantung Army on the Russian 'neutral ' border - more than enough !

Lieutenant Colonel Ryuji Sedzima , from 1940 to 1944 operational control of the General Staff:

"As with previous operational plans, the plan for 1942 was offensive.

The operations were to begin at once. According to the plan in Manchuria was planned to focus about 30 divisions. The first front was composed of 2, 3, 5, and the 20th Army and had the task to deliver the main blow in the direction of the Voroshilov (Ussuriysk

And what about the PACT ? - it was piece of paper without strong Russian Army on Far East and Russian victories against Germany And you guys analyzing each letter of this document ....

All your examples are "irrelavant" except the alleged IJ sinking of merchant ships since none of those events had any "agreement" similar to that of 1941 Pact.

............................

I want to show that Japan recognized only club-law in international relationships (but may be Chinese or Korean people thinking different ?? who knows ?) With this fabulous Pact or without it we have international law.... From your point only Pact had any significance. Really ridiculous - the Pact was Part of International law.

All you have there my friend is a bunch of "without announcement of war" which was MAJORITY of the military conflicts during that time INCLUDING Soviet Union. Military engagement happen when diplomatic negotiations ends with one party rejecting other. Military engagement/conflict happen when opposing forces build up along the disputed border line.

..................................

My examples begins in 1904 and ends 1944 - in First World War all entry into the war were correct from legal point of view ! In Port Arthur Japanese have attacked Russian Empire not USSR . Soviet Union or not - Japanese government acting on Far East regardless International Law. Against Russia , China Korea and other guys who can't protect himself.

sow the wind and reap the whirlwind - what does it means...

Russia was not so hard hit by Japanese- I recognize this fact. But not because of International Law but because of Russian Army... Destiny of occupied nations of Far East and South -East Asia was horrible.. I have no intention to offend you but this studying this PACT letter by letter. It's real funny- we have such pact with Germany It really worked ! Before invasion.

Based on your tone, it appears that Soviets were justified in attacking the Japanese for "revenge." Like you say "time to pay". If that's the case, the Russo-Japan war example would of been fine.

............

I only want to show history of relationships - unfortunately not so good - and from the legally point of view also I would sincerely appreciate if you explain the Japanese point of view on Russian-Japanese relations 1904 1944's

To make things more clear- I'm higly estimate Japanese martial spirit . I admire of IJN , Yamamoto, kamikaze corps, Saipan defense to the last soldier, last attack of Yamato and so on.... For me (and I'm Russian) Japanese really deserved respect because they can fight face to face

BUT- you guys studying this poor piece of paper so attentively.... like well payed lawyers Before German invasion we have signed such piece of paper with Germans.. Nobody studied it today.... It's not interesting

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Four sets of treaties signed between 1907 and 1916 were annulled unilaterally by the Soviets. The Neutrality Pact of 1941 was just as we all witnessed. All the while the Soviet-Japanese Basic Convention of 1925 had been almost ignored. And now again the Soviet-Japanese Joint Declaration of 1956 seems to be treated likewise as Mr. Lavrov questioned the validity of the pact itself at the foreign ministers' conference in Yokohama in November 2010. Still I believe it's not a mere piece of paper to be so often dismissed by Russians. And I want to believe Putin doesn't dismiss it as such.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

YuriOtani: " Well Japan wants our islands back."

And yet when it's the issue involving the Japan/China island dispute your rationale behind those islands being Japanese is, quite simply, "Well, Japan has them now, so they are Japanese". At least that's what you argued. Well, guess what, Russia has these islands now, so they are Russian. Korea also has Dokdo, so it's Korean.

Noda didn't really start things off on all that positive a note by calling with the ulterior motive in mind. They are Russian islands, and Russia will keep them.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

"Good Bad YuriOtaniMAR. 08, 2012 - 07:33AM JST oginome, Russia enabled Germany to invade Poland and that allowed Russia to invade Poland. Funny that is not in the history Putin speaks. Putin was the head of the KGB and he has blood on his hands. This last election can not be taken as fair. Noda-chan should not have called him. What about the massacre of 22000 Polish prisoners of war, when will you apologize Putin?"

Admired the surprising selective memories when it comes to self- victimization : fine, if one wants to talk about the past now, Okinawa was annexed by Japan & Okinawans were utilized as the last shield & asked by the Imperial Army to jump off the cliffs when American soldiers landed towards the end of the WWII..it was really a serious crime of the humanity as compared to the iron- fisted U.S. Occupation.. Who should stand out & apologize then. Even then, what has Japan done to bring about all these issues ( disputed territories in the north, hatred towards Japan after 75 years etc. ) Regret to observe so much contradictory comments towards Korea, China & Russia -- & as per the above, towards the Americans too ). Hence, if the logic stands true as per the above, there is always ONE victim in the universe supported by past...present.. Again past evidences as per the arguments require!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Out security is more important than all pacts in the world. Japan don't lose somebody important. Japan can live without Kurils more 1000 years. We can't live without Kurils. Japan needs Kurils not for own, but only for US Army that will sometime attack on Russia. That is means what Japanese words about peace with Russia is false.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

BessonovYan, as you write there can be no peace treaty. The return of the islands is the condition for a peace treaty. Japan should impose trade sanctions against Russia. This discussion is not worth having and while I understand Russians views. I do not understand why anyone else would support it. They do not have a dog in the race. So again there will be no peace treaty. Russia can sell its oil at discount to China. Putin has made peace impossible for internal political gain.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@YuriOtani

Not problem! Do it now!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

BessonovYan, Wish the politicians in Tokyo would follow my plan. Talking with Russia is wasted effort. Why should Japan sign a treaty with Russia when we get nothing but empty promises? The Japanese government should stop talking with Russia. No new things or old things discussed until there is a peace treaty. Japan is not a threat to Russia but Putin insults on treating Japan as an enemy. No Northern Territories, No Peace!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Putin should give Japan back those islands in exchange for a small monetary gift.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@YuriOtaniMar. 12, 2012 - 04:54AM JST

I told to you many times about Kurils and our security. We can't lose it. What peace between Japan and Russia? Now we make guaranty of energy for Japan. We not need some peace from Japan because we do real energy peace for you. If Japan not want to be as partner of Russia then Japan will be under USA and China. While we have some resources and we gave chance to Japan. Your vote to be: freedom or slave. Japan don't make peace and partner relationship with Russia this like as fight with own shadow.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

BessonovYan, being dependent of Russia for anything is slavery. My example is Europe and Russian gas. The Russians cut off the pipelines and force the Ukraine to yield. Japan is not asking for all of the islands back just a few. Second the Kurils do not help Russian defense. Japan can sink the entire Russian fleet while it is still in harbor. These islands are no threat to Russia but Putin's ego. Anyhow if Japan becomes dependent on Russia for oil and gas they can control the price, make Japan do things under threat of cutoff. Without these islands Russia would not be our peace partner but peace bully.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Yury don't mock Russian fleet Japan cent sink Russian fleet one Russian submarine would able to swipe Tokyo from face of earth bay racket БАРЕИ ( BAREJ from Çikotka or from north poll as much I now Japan dos not hav military ship able to swim in northern see well I don't won such war even tu happen for I love Japan and Russia wary much for tos hum sames that Russia is week I recommend tu remember 2008 8 august the Gorgea ho was armed with latest USA wapons ware defeated in 8 days first lesion newer newer do underestimate Russia and you Yury shod not forget that Japanese self defense force are strictly restrained bay the pace trite of 1945 further more the depth of Japan is 120% of its yearly income such war would led to bankruptse of Japan it wooden even bay fule for its military and you understands yury wath it mens stop ships stop airplanes awry thing stops Japan woundint able to continuun war game over but. Hope it will not happen

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Janis Murniesks, it is not the amount but quality and all of Japans major weapons systems come from America. Georgia was a lot smaller than the Russians. I say look to Libya and Iraq, both of these had modern Russian weapons. My point is not that Japan will attack Russia but these islands offer no additional protection. Most of Russia's ships can not leave port, it would be a turkey shoot. Again the peace loving people of Japan would not attack first.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

YuriOtani

Janis Murniesks, it is not the amount but quality and all of Japans major weapons systems come from America. Georgia was a lot smaller than the Russians. I say look to Libya and Iraq, both of these had modern Russian weapons. My point is not that Japan will attack Russia but these islands offer no additional protection. Most of Russia's ships can not leave port, it would be a turkey shoot. Again the peace loving people of Japan would not attack first.

Yuri, Yuri, Yuri, always with the turkey shoot analogy and talking up the capabilities of your 9-5 military. Im sorry but without the US providing the Japanese military with a backbone and strength your akin to a bowl of jelly. Its funny you keep demanding the US military leaves Japan yet you keep playing up just how good your military is. All l can say is hope that you never need to find out how bad it really is. But shouldnt worry you as you live in the US anyway right???

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@YuriOtaniMar. 13, 2012 - 05:51AM JST

We not waiting conflict with Japan. We need Kurils for defense from USA because they planing use it for attack Russia and sometime they do it. We can't live without non-freezable gateway to Pacific ocean. Many Asian countries have non-freezable way to Pacific ocean but have it right too.

Also I sure that Node never say what Japan is energy slave of Russia. We quickly help to you without something problems. You have not right name us bully.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@YuriOtaniMar. 13, 2012 - 11:20PM JST

You are have not full information about relationship between Japan and Russia. Our politics told that we doing some military projects. Don't worry about relationship Japan and Russia.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

BessonovYan, what makes you think we would let the USA put military on those islands? Anyhow part of the treaty would prohibit Japanese military outside of the coast guard and police. Just how far south does the ice extend? Remember there are other places for Russian ships and if there is war the passages (all of them) are natural choke points. About the oil, well it is a tough one. Last time Japan invested in Russian oil/gas they got burned.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The Japanese themselves have become increasingly open to expanding economic ties with Russia despite the territorial dispute, removing another incentive for Russia to make major concessions. Russians can challenge Japan aggressively regarding the islands and still secure considerable Japanese investment and commerce. In the long term, one would expect the Japanese to make the most concessions, since China's continuing rise presents a greater threat to Japan's interests. In addition, better ties between Russia and Japan might prove to be important for near future geopolitical realignment that sees Russia adopt a more guarded approach to China. Until such a softening occurs on the Japanese side, Russia has little incentive to change its approach to the island dispute, and many reasons to maintain its tougher stance.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sfip330, what "concessions" can the Russians make to Japan. Sell oil/gas is just not enough! Japan should stay neutral in any China Russia conflict. Tell me please what benefit would signing the peace treaty with out the return of the islands be worth? Other than oil and gas, what do they have to offer?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

YuriiOtani, From Russia's perspective, a series of weak Japanese leaders have lacked the political support necessary to negotiate a compromise deal with Russia. The Japanese government's also has strained ties with other key countries may also explain Russia's harder line. The Japanese government cannot respond strongly to Russia's moves given its current strained relations with China and North Korea.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sfip330, if what you say is true it is pointless for Japan to talk to the Russians. Time to show strength to them, place pac III missiles in Hokkaido and reinforce the defenses. If they do not want to be our friends than prevent a Russian attack by being strong. I did my service during the cold war and do not believe it really ever ended. The Russians are are foes today just as they were when they attacked us in 1945. So Tokyo needs to stop all talks with Russia beyond what is needed to keep diplomatic contact open.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

@sfjp330Mar. 14, 2012 - 04:15AM JST

Russians can challenge Japan aggressively regarding the islands

We never doing something bad for Japan. We only help to Japan. We have not time for stupid "aggressively regarding". We doing real peace with Japan. But Japan hear only own song of pride. Japan can not respect interest of neighbors. Also Japan respecting only aggressive USA and aggressive economic politics of China. Japan can be as slave but can not be as partner.

@sfjp330Mar. 14, 2012 - 04:25AM JST

YuriiOtani, From Russia's perspective, a series of weak Japanese leaders have lacked the political support necessary to negotiate a compromise deal with Russia.

Many times we make many economic concession for Japan. But Japanese politics never respect our effort for peace. Japanese politics need told about Kurils not for peace but only for demonstrate of own pride.

I told many times: we can not lose Kurils. Because that gateway to Pacific ocean. All Asian countries have non-freezable way to Pacific ocean. We have right to that too for our economic interests and our security.

Japanese politics nor respect of our interests because Japan be as slave for China and USA but not partner of Russia. So it your own freedom vote. We love Japanese culture and we doing real peace with Japan. We not use Kurils for pride only for security for our breakable peace and world. Japanese politics have not respect of peace. They don't know something about suffering because they irresponsible, pride and egoistical.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

BessonovYanMar. 15, 2012 - 04:32AM JST. Many times we make many economic concession for Japan. But Japanese politics never respect our effort for peace. Japanese politics need told about Kurils not for peace but only for demonstrate of own pride.

For Japanese companies, without a Russian partner will be a tough environment, not impossible, just tough. The business mentality is utterly unconstrained by any ethical or legal considerations...none. It's strictly a matter of whom you know and whom can you intimidate. "Trust" doesn't enter into the matter...power, and only power, does.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

BessonovYan, what concessions? Russia is going to use Japanese money to develop these oil and gas fields and than take the Japanese investment. What about the stealing of Shell's 55 percent to 25 percent? The Dutch company lost billions of dollars. The project was in doubt until some stupid Japanese investors paid 3.8 billion to help finish it. The question is will Russia sell the production to Japan or China? The truth is Putin used the power of Russian government to give away the investments of foreign companies to his friends in Russia. So again what concessions?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@sfjp330Mar. 15, 2012 - 06:14AM JST

Toyota is alone build factory in Saint-Petersburg without russian partners. But off course that project have backing from Kreml. We can not very quickly update our political and economics systems for full freedom. That is long and hard way. We not happy from that.

@YuriOtaniMar. 15, 2012 - 07:02AM JST I sure that you not right. Japanese companies are very pragmatic.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

BessonovYanMar. 16, 2012 - 03:48AM JST. Toyota is alone build factory in Saint-Petersburg without russian partners. But off course that project have backing from Kreml. We can not very quickly update our political and economics systems for full freedom. That is long and hard way. We not happy from that.

Toyota is only making a modest initial investment of $90 million over three years. If GM and Ford was not already there, they would would not build a factory. Toyota is following the footstep of GM and Ford, which already has factory in St. Petersburg. Compare to Toyota, GM is planning to invest more than $1 billion in Russia over the next five years. But GM and Ford want its traditional supply network to follow along from U.S. Toyota might be interested in getting the same supplier that GM and Ford currently use. There is a significant growth potential in 5 to 10 years. As it expands in Russia, GM,Ford and Toyota would like to bring key suppliers with them to help improve the quality of the vehicles it sells across Russia. The supply base in Russia isn’t very mature. The Russian government wants the automotive sector to expand.

Plants built by U.S. suppliers also will help meet the Russian government’s goal of 60% local content as part of the agreement that will let the Russian Federation into the WTO next summer. The Russian economy has expanded for 10 consecutive years, it has the world’s third largest reserve of foreign currency, little government debt and huge oil reserves that are rising in value.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's a shame Noda would come on to congratulate Putin for his win while suggesting that Russian territory is Japanese, while at the same time Japanese suggest certain islands are theirs based on the same standards Russia claims the Kuriles. Is there a definition for 'hypocrisy' in Japanese besides, 'please don't let it apply in this case'?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

YuriOtani: I notice you could not address my previous post on your contradictions about ownership of territories. I'm not surprised, of course, given your history of not being able to back up your arguments, but still. Why are certain territories Japanese based on some 'rules' but the same 'rules' suddenly don't apply to other nations who administer certain areas?

Certainly can't be bias, so I'm curious.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Why are certain territories Japanese based on some 'rules' but the same 'rules' suddenly don't apply to other nations who administer certain areas?

One was incorporated without force while the others were taken by force. Is that simple enough for you smith?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

"sfjp330Mar. 16, 2012 - 07:13AM JST

If GM and Ford was not already there, they would would not build a factory.

Yes, Japanese companies are often make maximum force for lose of markets.

The Russian economy has expanded for 10 consecutive years, it has the world’s third largest reserve of foreign currency, little government debt and huge oil reserves that are rising in value.

Yes, not LAST oil. Lukoil topmanager official public told that after 3 years temp of production activity oil will falling.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

to YuriOtani

fip330, if what you say is true it is pointless for Japan to talk to the Russians.

Japan has never tried

Time to show strength to them, place pac III missiles in Hokkaido and reinforce the defenses.

no problems - you can do what you want - on your territory

If they do not want to be our friends

is it possible ?

than prevent a Russian attack by being strong.

who's going to attack ?

I did my service during the cold war and do not believe it really ever ended.

Clear enough

The Russians are are foes today just as they were when they attacked us in 1945.

History does not begin at 45 ....

So Tokyo needs to stop all talks with Russia beyond what is needed to keep diplomatic contact open.

talks about islands ?

BessonovYan, what concessions? Russia is going to use Japanese money to develop these oil and gas fields and than take the Japanese investment. What about the stealing of Shell's 55 percent to 25 percent? The Dutch company lost billions of dollars. So again what concessions?

Sorry I can explain - in 90-ty with Boris Yeltzin.... and other democratic guys Russia was VERY weak and corrupted. So some clever boys treating Russia like colony state and press on leonine contracts....

With Vladimir Putin this things ended . Western powers also had such concessions in China in 19 th century

0 ( +0 / -0 )

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