politics

Putin indicates Russia will not negotiate territorial dispute with Japan

50 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

50 Comments
Login to comment

Russia should return the islands or get lost..

-6 ( +23 / -29 )

@dan

From Russia's perspective, Southern Kurils were Russian Islands that Imperial Japan stole and the Soviet Union recovered at the end of WW2.

The whole idea of Russia handing over any part of Southern Kurils to Japan is a non-starter. Russia will hold onto them irrelevant of who's in Kremlin in perpetuity, well after Putin's death/retirement.

The last time Japan could have acquired any piece of Southern Kurils was during Yeltsin's era, when Russia was desperate enough to sell a couple of islands for tens of billions. That window has long closed.

-4 ( +21 / -25 )

@ Samit

On September 1, 1945, or one day before the surrender documents of World War II were signed on September 2, 1945, in accordance with decisions made at the Yalta Conference, the Soviet Union acquired the Kuril Islands. This occurred after the Soviet Union renounced the Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact in April 1945 and declared war on Japan on August 9, 1945 (formally, the pact itself remained in effect until April 13, 1946). Although Japan agreed after deliberations to cede its claims on the entire island chain including the Northern Territories as part of the Treaty of San Francisco in 1951, the Japanese government has claimed since the 1960s that the southern islands were not part of the ceded Kuril Islands.

16 ( +24 / -8 )

From what I understand of this diagreement, Japan took these islands from the Soviet Union after the Japan-Russia war, and after WW2 the Soviet Union took them back. Seems fair enough to me.

-9 ( +15 / -24 )

"From what I understand of this diagreement, Japan took these islands from the Soviet Union after the Japan-Russia war"

Your history needs revising and correcting.

That's incorrect.

12 ( +25 / -13 )

I don't see a reason, why Japan should even consider negotiating with Russia. Russia want's to believe that everyone is against Russia and Batushka Putin, so let's give them a reason. They are just behaving like the school bully who is bullying all the children but once someone stands against the bully, the bully runs to the principal's office. We don't need those islands, we don't need Russia. They just live in the old, WW2 days and are obsessed with anything that is military, weapons, violence, WW2, seeing fascist everywhere and not having little green men anywhere.

15 ( +22 / -7 )

Great ! Now on top of everything else we need a nuclear war with Russia .

-12 ( +2 / -14 )

How about focusing on the issues that really matter not some islands that make no difference to any member of the public.

-3 ( +12 / -15 )

Kuril islands are russian territory.

Japan have lost WW2 and islands as well.

Case is closed.

-6 ( +18 / -24 )

Russia should return the islands or get lost..

Hmm...prediction, neither will happen. Japan has no cards to play...zilch.

Japan have lost WW2 and islands as well. Case is closed.

Precisely....

-6 ( +13 / -19 )

Russia should return the islands or get lost..

And Ryukyu?

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

If Putin hands over the islands, several countries in Eastern Europe and even Japan's old ally, Germany, might start making noises for the Russians to hand back territories snatched after WW2. The Japanese should be thankful for small mercies and that Hokkaido, too, didn't disappear down the Soviet rabbit hole.

18 ( +22 / -4 )

The islands were there long before Japan and Russia were even concepts. Each side has their own history and narrative and neither side will budge from it. Therefore the best option for Japan is to move forward and engage in mutually beneficial economic activities and pass on the rest. The next time Russia comes needing a handout to support the northern islands and offering to "discuss the future of the islands," Japan should say "No thanks." And if anyone is curious to see how different things are under Japanese management and Russian management then check out Nemuro and then visit one of the islands. The former is a nice, comfortable fishing town and the latter is, well, let's just say that I bet Putin is glad that he doesn't have to live there.

17 ( +19 / -2 )

Is there a single reader of this article who is surprised by this? Anyone with their thinking cap on surely has realized Russian never intended to turn those islands back to Japan. Why would they? What possible advantage would that have given them?

22 ( +22 / -0 )

Putin has shown himself to be an evil and murderous ex-Commie, and a supporter of stealing land from other nations. His actions in stealing land from Ukraine proves this.

Give Japan back her inalienable territory!

13 ( +21 / -8 )

Perhaps Japan should hold loosely, but don't let go . . . . and perhaps one day Russia will get tired of controlling these islands far distant from the rest of Russia . . . .

13 ( +17 / -4 )

Laughing out really loud at the ridiculous Japanese nationalists claims... So Japan wants to get back what it initially captured as a result of a war, and what it afterwards lost as a result of another war, both wars being started by Japan..

Does this logic make any sense except for brain rotten old nationalists of Japan?

-10 ( +11 / -21 )

Japan MUST sanction Russia. Do not sell or buy anything to and from Russia. Don't admit anybody from Russia. That is the only way to deal with such a scumbag like Putin.

13 ( +20 / -7 )

When did anyone other than an LDP member expect anything different?

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

When you roll the dice and lose a war, there are consequences. Germany lost 30% of its territory. Japan lost a few worthless islands. I think Japan came out pretty well. It could have been much worse for them. The Soviets wanted Hokkaido and they wanted to divide Tokyo like Vienna and Berlin.

-10 ( +7 / -17 )

Alan HarrisonToday  08:06 am JST

From what I understand of this diagreement, Japan took these islands from the Soviet Union after the Japan-Russia war, and after WW2 the Soviet Union took them back. Seems fair enough to me.

You understand incorrectly. The four islands in question were never taken by war either the Russo-Japanese War of 1904/05 or WWII of 1939-1945.

The four islands became Japanese territory by a negotiated treaty with Russia signed in 1855.

You can look up these facts anywhere.

11 ( +14 / -3 )

If Russia returned these islands, there would be more US military on its border. It’s not gonna happen.

11 ( +16 / -5 )

If Russia returned these islands, there would be more US military on its border. It’s not gonna happen.

Have you seen the size of these islands? Zero chance the US will build bases on them. Japan, when she rightfully gets them back, would be able to develop eco-resorts and farming on them, and clean them up from the pollution the Soviets and Russians have inflicted.

Give those islands back, Russia.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

THE KOURILE : SHARED SPACE AGAIN ?

°

May be asking opinion of the locals ? Do they feel russian ? japanese ?

Learning to work together to help them.

My main concern are for the ainous and other locals. Russia is far. They are more free than usual. The other one is North Corea. Russia may know some about some disparition.

But using money over family axe to get them back.... that is bad.

°

NadAge

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Yup. Give us back our Hoppo Ryodo. Fascinating that any credence is given to ridiculous claims like the Falklands or Gibraltar or Senkaku or Dokdo islands but not to this claim that only goes back to the end of WW2

0 ( +2 / -2 )

*You understand incorrectly. The four islands in question were never taken by war either the Russo-Japanese War of 1904/05 or WWII of 1939-1945.*

*The four islands became Japanese territory by a negotiated treaty with Russia signed in 1855.*

You can look up these facts anywhere.

@OssanAmerica. The Treatly of Commerce and Navigation, signed in Shimoda in 1855 makes no mention of territory, or ownership of territory, (informlation from 1926 encyclopedia. That is the earliest information I can find).

It seems to be more an issue of opening up certain ports in Japan, for commerce and trade.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

He basically means: "Kiss my ****"

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Give those islands back, Russia.

What would they....Russia would loose a strategic advantage in exchange for what? Japan has no leverage at all...the issue is just milked by LDP to keep rightwingers votes, that's all. General public doesn't give a damn as they are busy trying to survive the ever increasing taxes and fees their families.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Why do people have so much time???.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

It is game over for Japan at this point.

The USA definitely won't help Japan as the Yanks gave those islands to Russia in the first place.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Why do people have so much time???.

Because of a pandemic.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Alan HarrisonToday  05:44 pm JST

@OssanAmerica. The Treatly of Commerce and Navigation, signed in Shimoda in 1855 makes no mention of territory, or ownership of territory, (informlation from 1926 encyclopedia. That is the earliest information I can find).

It seems to be more an issue of opening up certain ports in Japan, for commerce and trade.

You didn't do much searching.

"Northern Territories/Southern Kuriles history is a history of treaties and the first treaty between the two countries signed in 1855, the Treaty of Shimoda situated the boundary as it related to the Kurile Islands between Etorofu and Urup, placing the four islands disputed today under Japanese sovereignty."

http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:950319/FULLTEXT01.pdf

"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 took control of the islands at the end of the war, and by 1949 it had deported all residents to Japan."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-11664434

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Fighto!

Have you seen the size of these islands? Zero chance the US will build bases on them.

Have you? Only Etorofu is 4 times bigger than Guam.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Japan must get serious. Break off diplomatic ties with Russia is step one. Stop all trade with Russia is step two.

Vote for any anti Russia resolutions in the UN and world bodies that comes up. Predicate all relations with Russia on the fact there is no peace treaty from WWII and that no treaty can be signed until stolen territories are returned to Japanese control.

Russia knows Japan is not yet serious about this subject because all it hears are words and it see's no consequences for keeping Japanese territory.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Alan HarrisonToday  05:44 pm JST

@OssanAmerica. The Treatly of Commerce and Navigation, signed in Shimoda in 1855 makes no mention of territory, or ownership of territory, (informlation from 1926 encyclopedia. That is the earliest information I can find).

It seems to be more an issue of opening up certain ports in Japan, for commerce and trade.

You didn't do much searching.

*"Northern Territories/Southern Kuriles history is a history of treaties and the first treaty between the two countries signed in 1855, the Treaty of Shimoda situated the boundary as it related to the Kurile Islands between Etorofu and Urup, placing the four islands disputed today under Japanese sovereignty."*

http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:950319/FULLTEXT01.pdf

"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 took control of the islands at the end of the war, and by 1949 it had deported all residents to Japan."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-11664434

Thank you for your very informative information.

It seems to me that in those days (1855) agreements were of the "gentlemens agreement" with nothing specific written down regarding ownership.

So really, in the world of 2021 the current starus quo "is what it is".

As many commentator's say, it's no big issue really, 99.9% of people have more important things to worry about.

(Although looking at these encyclopedia s, it's interesting to see the world through the eyes of 1926 during this time of my reduced hours of work).

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

See, that's what happens when you loose territory in war, it called "spoils of war."

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Quote:Russia, the largest "country" in the world, is big, very big, comprising roughly 1/6th of the world's land mass!

-How much land do you Russians need?with a similar population to Japan. Apparently Everything and more!

-Russia also wants the Artic. I guess we give them that too. They said it's theirs.

-Russian wants the planet Venus, they landed there first, send the most probes. Guess it belongs to Russia too.

Fun fact:

Whatever this disgusting oversize, cancer like shape and form. Should be counter, stopped, land taken back. In East Asia and in Europe.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

"It seems to me that in those days (1855) agreements were of the "gentlemens agreement" with nothing specific written down regarding ownership."

"Pacta sunt servanda." - A very well established principle of International Law.

Certainly, you have heard of its existence, even if in passing.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

"Pacta sunt servanda." - A very well established principle of International Law.

Certainly, you have heard of its existence, even if in passing.

Probably done by diplomats and aristocracy in those days (fully aware of the principle).

Although, an agreement to be fully secure would have to be "set in stone".

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Let's just agree that Putin is a cretinous villainous nasty piece of work and be done with it.

He won't budge an inch.

I say stop trading with them and foil them as much as possible at the U.N etc.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Not exactly a surprise. Not at all sure why this should even be classed as “news” just reiterating what everybody knows. As Japan will not do anything to back up it’s claim beyond what has failed for the last 70 odd years Russia knows it can play what ever games suit it at the time with utter impunity.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't know much about the Kuril Islands. I do understand that they were part of the Ainu homelands as the names a derivatives of the Ainu language.

However, "after over a hundred years of forced assimilation and discriminatory policies, in 2008, the Japanese government finally recognized Ainu as an indigenous people of Japan".

I just don't think that the Japanese Government Deserve the rights of any of these islands and they should be returned from Russia and from Japan to the people of Ainu descent. Anyway that's my opinion.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

"Probably done by diplomats and aristocracy in those days (fully aware of the principle).

Although, an agreement to be fully secure would have to be "set in stone".

If you are "aware" then you MUST know this is/shouldbe international practice, not simply "something done by diplomats and aristocrats)

I do not want to get involved into pointless arguments about something well established.

"international treaties

In treaty

…keeping with the principle of pacta sunt servanda (Latin: “agreements must be kept”), arguably the oldest principle of international law. Without this principle, which is explicitly mentioned in many agreements, treaties would be neither binding nor enforceable."

"https://www.britannica.com/topic/pacta-sunt-servanda"

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Japan can always reconquer Chishima retto (Kuril) along with Karafuto (Sakhalin). Nothing is impossible, as the Japanese themselves had shown during the 1st Russo-Japanese war. The only obstacle that are hindering Japan from doing so is the no longer relevant Yankee-written Art. 9 of the Japanese constitution. Abolish them and re-arm the Japanese military back to its WW2 era level.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

PM Suga should ask President Biden to make those islands covered by the US-Japanese Defense Pact like the Senkakus.

I'm sure da-kine ally Washington is more than willing and able to say YES!

After all what are true friends for?

The USA can then transfer Kadena and all the bases in Okinawa to all those four islands!

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Those four islands were never Japanese legally owned, they were under occupied!

Neither was Hokkaido!

THEY WERE NOT YOUR ISLANDS!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Good crabbing there.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Alan HarrisonFeb. 16  08:27 pm JST

Thank you for your very informative information.

It seems to me that in those days (1855) agreements were of the "gentlemens agreement" with nothing specific written down regarding ownership. So really, in the world of 2021 the current starus quo "is what it is". As many commentator's say, it's no big issue really, 99.9% of people have more important things to worry about. (Although looking at these encyclopedia s, it's interesting to see the world through the eyes of 1926 during this time of my reduced hours of work).

That is an awful lot of vague words to simply say that you were completely wrong when you wrote;

Alan HarrisonFeb. 16  08:06 am JST

From what I understand of this diagreement, Japan took these islands from the Soviet Union after the Japan-Russia war, and after WW2 the Soviet Union took them back. Seems fair enough to me.

The four islands in question were never taken by war from Russia or the USSR.

That is one of the reasons that the United States, United Kingdom and EU consider them to be Japanese territory under Russian administration (ie; occupation). Other reasons include the Cairo and Potsdam declarations during WWII where it was agreed that only territory taken through war by Japan would be taken away, and that the WWII Allies would not seek to expand their own territories. Another reason is that while Japan gave up sovereignty of the islands to the 49 signatory nations to the 1951 San Francisco Treaty, the USSR was not one of them. Threfore the 49 signatories do not recognize Russia's occupation as legal.

The USSR took the Southern Kuriles knowing full well that it was not entitled to them, as part of the massive land grab at the end of WWII which put Eastern Europe under their control for decades thereafter. Their goal was to enter Japan the way they did with Germany and put it under there influence. Only the fear of direct confrontation with the only power in the world with nuclear weapons at the time kept them from trying to take at least Hokkaido. Hope this helps you understand the facts.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

JamesFeb. 16  11:22 pm JST

I just don't think that the Japanese Government Deserve the rights of any of these islands and they should be returned from Russia and from Japan to the people of Ainu descent. Anyway that's my opinion.

Are you aware that Ainu people hold Japanese nationality and consider themselves Japanese?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Split em 50/50.

2 islands for Japan, 2 for Russia.

Or split the islands in half, like the Dutch/French island of Saint Martin.

Fun!

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