politics

Russia building new military bases on islands claimed by Japan

86 Comments

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

© 2015 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

86 Comments
Login to comment

With all due respect, Japan, despite all of your protests regarding rightful ownership, I think that is the equivalent of check and mate.

13 ( +21 / -8 )

Japan will not get back any territory from Russia, but the government protests and claims will never, ever end.

9 ( +13 / -4 )

I concur with the above

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

What's next? A few military outposts on islands north of Hokkaido?

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

However, Japain should always protest, otherwise it will acquiesce with the status quo.

That's specified under International Law.

Not having protested for almost a century is one of the reasons China will lose in the Senkakus case, should they go to Court.

Obviously, JT "experts" do not know the rules, they only can moan that "Japain is protesting again!"

-5 ( +14 / -19 )

Russia has those islands, Korea has the others.

With both Russia and China pushing things in the area Japan would not be in a good place if those two decided to get together and make a push outwards...

Japan probably needs to get some people on those other rocks down south if they want to stay in this silly game.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

So what? They are Russian islands now. Get used to it and " stop living in the past and move on ". Isn't that what the resident right wing here always says when it comes to WW2 issues. Oh I forgot, that applies only to the "other" countries gripes.

14 ( +23 / -9 )

How about moving all the US troops out of Okinawa and up into Northern Hokkaido?

Then we would be free of the burden at last and the US military would be able to fly around the Russian military installations and make even more enemies!

-7 ( +5 / -12 )

@Peeping_Tom,

Obviously, JT "experts" do not know the rules, they only can moan that "Japain is protesting again!"

Actually, many of us do know the rules. I know the rules. And I have made the point previously that Japan engages in diplomatic protests to keep its claim alive. However, apart from keeping its claims alive, the protests will have no practical impact on the outcome. Russia has physical possession and this announcement reinforces its intent to keep the islands in perpetuity. So, again, that is check and mate, regardless of the diplomatic posturing by Japan.

5 ( +10 / -5 )

I guess this is the type of respect Abe wants shown to him.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

It's like watching a toothless dog barking-uninspiring.....

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Good. They are Russian now. Japan could have had 2 back, and refused the offer. Time to accept facts

5 ( +11 / -6 )

I'm not a fan of Russia but Japan simply has no viable claim. Unlike today, it wasn't a violation of international law to annex enemy territory during war at the time.

Japan's claim also rests on a ridiculous technicality. They don't dispute the fact that the Soviet Union did inform Japan that the neutrality pact was being scrap prior to actually declaring war on Japan. The heart of Japan's claim seems to be that the Soviet parliament didn't actually go through with the proper internal legislative procedures to renounce the pact (as if that matters). Such a petty and bizarre claim has never been successful in international law as far as I'm aware.

2 ( +10 / -8 )

And US controls Okinawa. Price of losing the war

1 ( +7 / -6 )

Considering that hell is breaking out all over the world it's no suprise! the ruskies just take what they want & the world says nothing. the chinese as well are in take what we want mode as well.it's not news given the lack of leadership in the west.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

US military would be able to fly around the Russian military installations and make even more enemies!

It is the responsibility of Japanese pilots to scramble their jets in defense of its airspace, not the US.

Besides Russia wouldn' violate Japan's airspace. And we all know the Japanese would not be as stupid as the Turks, shooting down russian bombers.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

M3M3M3

They don't dispute the fact that the Soviet Union did inform Japan that the neutrality pact was being scrap prior to actually declaring war on Japan. The heart of Japan's claim seems to be that the Soviet parliament didn't actually go through with the proper internal legislative procedures to renounce the pact (as if that matters). Such a petty and bizarre claim has never been successful in international law as far as I'm aware.

Absurd. Is unilateral abrogation petty and bizare? What are treaties closed for then? Wasn't Russia in the position to respect the treaty until the date of it's original maturity which was 1946 April, even if it decided not to renew the pact?

0 ( +6 / -6 )

This is just further proof that the dictator in the Kremlin has no intention of returning any of the islands back to Japan. So Putin can kiss Japanese investment in the islands and the lifting of Japanese sanctions on Russia goodbye

0 ( +4 / -4 )

It's a shame Japan squandered a good chance to get two islands back in favor of nationalism and demands for them all. Now they will get none, and rightly so. They are Russian. Period.

4 ( +10 / -6 )

Tokyo must acknowledge “the postwar historical realities.” Love it. Maybe wanna start with the pre war historical realities. Actually, lets just try giving reality a go. Check mate indeed.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

Yup, Japan could have gotten two of the four back. But now that's off the table, likely forever, particularly with Putin in a decidedly . . . err . . . confident mood of late.

Of course, it would be really easy to lay this all at the feet of Putin, but to be fair, Russia has been in no mood to give the islands back since the day they took them. So, it's not all Putin.

(But he's certainly doing his part to make sure Japan is under no misconception that those islands are ever coming back...)

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Japan started the war in the Pacific. The loss of the islands was the just punishment for being the aggressor. Germany lost big chunks of land to Poland, and nobody argues that those lands should be returned to Germany. Can you imagine the outrage in Europe and America if that were to happen? Yet Japan refuses to let go of history while telling other countries to do what they fail to do themselves. So absolutely hypocritical. Japan grabbed islands and lands when they were in the strong position. Yet they can't accept the fact that Russia did the exact same thing that Japan did. Japan has being crying victim for decades. Hilarious. Russia, keep the islands. They are your islands. Develop them and who cares if Japan cries. What are they going to do? Go to international courts?

7 ( +16 / -9 )

"So Putin can kiss Japanese investment in the islands and the lifting of Japanese sanctions on Russia goodbye"

LOL, you say that as if you believe Putin gives a hoot about J-investment on Kuriles? Its pretty obvious he doesnt give a toss asn you can be assured Russia,s sanctions will be lifted regardless.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

I was waiting for one of the usual commenters to bring Okinawa up in this story somehow and how the bases on Okinawa somehow make them a target to the Chinese and Russian.

Don't see how they would be making more enemies when this dispute is solely between the Russians and the Japanese, something that has been argued over for 70 years.

As always they try to pull in Okinawa to their sob story, and never once speak on the Japanese bases in Africa or the new bases being constructed in and around Miyakojima.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Hi DieRealityCheck. You need to ask yourself a number of questions.

Were Japan and Germany allies during the war? When did the Soviet Union sign the neutrality pact? When did Germany declare war on the Soviet Union? Was this before or after the pact had been signed? What was the sole reason that both countries entered into the pact in the first place?

What you'll find is that Germany declared war on the Soviet Union a few weeks after the pact with Japan had been signed. Even though Japan did not declare war, the entire purpose of entering into the pact (to preserve neutrality) had become meaningless since Japan was already allied with a country which had just declared war on the Soviet Union. The whole substratum of the agreement failed before the ink was even dry.

If the Soviets had observed the pact, you might have ended up with a perverse situation where Japan could have been providing weapons and equipment to a pre-existing ally (Germany) while the Soviet Union would have been fighting with one hand tied behind its back. At most, you might be able to accuse the Soviet Union of entering into a poorly drafted agreement but no-one seriously believes that international law prevented them from defending themselves by declaring war on Japan. International law doesn't rest entirely on technicalities (as I would suggest you are doing), it focuses on the bigger picture.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

LOL, you say that as if you believe Putin gives a hoot about J-investment on Kuriles? Its pretty obvious he doesnt give a toss asn you can be assured Russia,s sanctions will be lifted regardless.

Russia has been currying South Korean investments in these islands. South Korea has been opened to that ideal, and I think if they did go ahead, that's going to make Japan even more angrier at Sk, than they are now. I think SK can really stick a fork on Japan, as real time revenge (instead of just complaining about Japan's history revisionism).

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

So Russia builds military establishments on disputed islands while Japan only builds them near disputes islands....

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@shonanbb

So if Japan attacked Russia and "reconquered" the islands, that'd be okay? And how about if the Palestinians "conquered" Israel? No problem?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

it's no suprise! the ruskies just take what they want & the world says nothing. the chinese as well are in take what we want mode as well.

No

0 ( +4 / -4 )

So if Japan attacked Russia and "reconquered" the islands, that'd be okay? And how about if the Palestinians "conquered" Israel? No problem?

You are forgetting one pretty important piece of information. Japan and Russia were at war, beginning 1905. Japan beat Russia in the Russo-Japan war, and kept all their territories, including Korea. Throughout the next 20 years, Japan attacked and conquered Manchuria then often skirmished with the Russians, jockying for territorial positions over all of Asia.

So don't give us this cry me river Japan as a victim of aggression. Japan was one of the biggest aggressors during and pre-World War II, Japan's didn't lose their territories because they were just innocent victims. They lost them because they were greedy territorially and they were racist nationalists who killed, tortured, and murdered their ways across Asia.

In other words, Japan deserved what they got. It was one of the rare punishments meted out to Japan for their actions. The US protected the Emperor, protected much of the Japanese government officials from war crimes, as well as gave fat jobs to biological warfare units of Japanese medical experimentors who should have been tried for war crimes. Only the very few were singled out, when the war crimes against Asians went totally unpunished, while war crimes against European and US POW's were punished with token hangings. Half of the executed where the lowly Korean POW guards, while most of the Japanese who were commanding the camps were let off with leniency.

So excuse the people if they don't feel too much sorrow for Japan. It could have, and should have been much worse than losing a few worthless islands.

7 ( +12 / -5 )

Vlad at work again puffing up his feathers. For a country with just 142 million in population, unbelievable corruption, extremely cold winters, a weak currency, and very dim prospects of an increase in the price of oil and gas, money it so badly needs, they are spreading themselves extremely thin. You watch, just like in the 80's, if we can push solar energy and keep the price of energy cheap, Russia, within 5 to 10 years, will be downsizing everything just to stay afloat.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

M3M3M3

Hi. I must say, your suggested questions and IF clauses are all meaningless and you should ask yourself when Soviet declared war against Imperial Japan? Was it before German surrendered or after? Not just that, Soviet turned a deaf ear to Japan's peacemove and it's request to stand inbetween Allies.

I suggest you to reread the pact Art.2 to answer to your own questions.

Article two: 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.

International law doesn't rest entirely on technicalities (as I would suggest you are doing), it focuses on the bigger picture.

Poor excuse to justify Russian's move. Stop cherrypicking on Int'l Law.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

@Papi

You've got me wrong. I was trying to suggest that Japan has no right to the islands any more.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Stop cherrypicking on Int'l Law

The only international law Japan respects and falls to are the ones that they think favors Japan. When did Japan care about international laws? They don't even respect international laws regarding refugees (the same law Japan had signed into), or what about Japan's blatant rejection of illegal whale hunts? Was it internationally legal when Japan grabbed those Chinese islands which the Chinese are disputing? What did Japan tell China? They said to "get over it already". Well Japan need to get over it too.

2 ( +11 / -9 )

I think we react less to Russia, if China did that on the southern islands we will jump at them.... Dont know why?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

M3M3M3

A bit more.

According to Crassified Soviet Diplomatic documents disclosed, on 1945 April 5, Soviet Foreign Minister V.Molotov, when he notified Japanese ambassador Sato of it's scrapping the pact, Motolov admit and confirmed that the Pact was still effective for another year until it expires in 1946 April, By Russian Historian, Бори́с Никола́евич Слави́нский

See the article 3 of the pact just in case

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 ( +4 / -4 )

Russia building new military bases on islands claimed by Japan

Wow, how quickly the table turn. I got almost 20 "thumbs-down" yesterday on a post congratulating Turkey for refusing to apologize to Russia for downing their plane, including the nonsensical post below:

yamashiDec. 01, 2015 - 11:34AM JST

@jerseyboy"it's nice to actually see a national leader draw a line and stick to it".

Some westerners always praise any anti Russian actions even in case if the mentioned actions are done by terror group or terror sympathizers . We can see it all the time, here and there.

Care to lecture me now yamashi about Russia? Is this a "terror group or terror sympathisers" installing military bases on islands Japan claims? LOL.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

@DieRealityCheck

you should ask yourself when Soviet declared war against Imperial Japan? Was it before German surrendered or after?

You're right that the Soviet Union declared war on Japan after Germany had already been defeated but if the neutrality pact had lost its purpose in 1941 (something the Soviets explicitly told Japan) it's unreasonable to say that it should be resurected in 1945. Either the pact ceased to exist in 1941 or it didn't.

In any event, there's no evidence showing that these old-fashioned neutrality pacts are even enforceable. International law is just an incredibly malleable set of principles. Under current international law, neutrality means that a state isn't participating in any armed conflict. Who's to say that this definition did not exist in 1941-45 and that Japan was not in fact a neutral state?

Of course, if Japan feels that they have a solid case, they could take it to the ICJ. So far they've decided not to.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Papi2013

So It's all revenge Japan deserves. Great.

They don't even respect international laws regarding refugees (the same law Japan had signed into), or what about Japan's blatant rejection of illegal whale hunts?

What on earth are you talking about? It's way too off to even respond.

Was it internationally legal when Japan grabbed those Chinese islands which the Chinese are disputing?

It was Terra nullius and Japan spent 10years beofre it took proper process domestically. Disputed? It was not even disputed those days, How come China didnot even make official claim loudly for those 10years (If they knew what Japan was doing ) and not even at the Shimonoseki?

Papi2013 You just sound Russia's taking hostility action were justified and correct, even if it led to, as results, the Pannisula were completly split up since then. You are happy aren't you.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

"...... that Tokyo must acknowledge “the postwar historical realities.”

So, get over it, once and for all.

Those islands are Russian! Even Mr. Abe will not be able to change this by firing a couple more of his famous arrows.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

I believe in the spoils of war. You play, you pay. I think this is worded better than my first attempt.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

@DieRealityCheck

Motolov admit and confirmed that the Pact was still effective for another year until it expires in 1946 April

Even assuming that this is true, one diplomat's opinion on the enforceablity of an agreement (which he himself negotiated?) doesn't settle the legal question. The Soviet Union clearly didn't take his advice at the time and neither have subsequent Russian governments. The opinion of the ICJ is the only one that matters.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

M3M3M3

You are WRONG. the pact never lost the purpose in 1941, that's why Soviet could concentrating on fight against Germans with almost full force moving their soldiers from fareast. You sound as much as Japan should have attacked Soviet from his back in 1941 and it's just mistake, Guess what. There was no single case in those 4years where Soviet officially claimed that Japan violated the pact, None. What is this? Soviet cherrypicked the pact from 1941 till 1945?

Read article 2& 3 and read what Motolov confirmed in 1945 April and forget current International Law and how to read it.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

After getting mauled at Khalkin Gol the Japanese left the Soviets alone, but one wonders what may have happened had the Japanese targeted Russia in 1941 after Barbarossa had started and had not attacked the US.

In any case, Russia can't return the islands to Japan as China would take it as a sign of weakness and would make territorial demands on the Russian Far East.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

DieRealityCheck: They are Russian islands. Live with it. Russia lives on and administers the islands and has for 70 years -- same as Japan has administered (but not lived on) the Senkakus, and have the better case for it as a result. Don't say it's "different" when the shoe is on the other foot. The only difference is in this case it's Russia saying "there is no dispute", and they are right.

As I said before, Japan had more than one chance to engage in serious discussion and possibly get two islands of the four back, but nationalists in Japan wouldn't have it. In fact, when another nationalist joked, "Maybe we can settle for 3.5 of the four islands back" he basically had to resign.

So, Russia is sticking it to them, and rightly so. Japan has no case. Period.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

M3M3M3 Motolov was the one who signed the pact with Starin in 1941 and the one who offcially made notice of Soviet to scrap the pact in 1945 April Classified Document disclosed his consensus on the pact effective until 1946 April even void thereafter. What makes it so diffult for youto understand?. It was BILATERAL TREATY which bound parties even more strongly than so-called international law.

Smith Sure it is so DIFFERENT and it is a bit difficult to take wanton logic like that. But I recognized that you are of opinion that Senkaku belongs to Japan, I take note only for that.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Lostrune2,

And US controls Okinawa.

Actually, the US controls Japan too, through Japan's more malleable politicians.

Price of losing the war

I see your point. But it was rather a long time ago - even before my time!

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Poor excuse to justify Russian's move. Stop cherrypicking on Int'l Law.

Read article 2& 3 and read what Motolov confirmed in 1945 April and forget current International Law and how to read it.

It was BILATERAL TREATY which bound parties even more strongly than so-called international law.

How do you propose to resolve this dispute without resorting to international law? There's nothing in the neutrality pact that specifies the consequences of a breach or where one country should go in the event of a dispute. If you don't want international law to fill in the gaps, all you have is an unenforceable agreement. What court can Japan go to if not the ICJ? Or are you just suggesting that Japan should invade the islands to take back what is rightfully theirs by force?

Motolov was the one who signed the pact with Starin in 1941 and the one who offcially made notice of Soviet to scrap the pact in 1945 April Classified Document disclosed his consensus on the pact effective until 1946 April even void thereafter. What makes it so diffult for youto understand?

He signed on behalf of and with the consent of the Soviet Union. He may have had his own personal opinion on whether the Soviet Union was breaching the pact but the Soviet Union obviously disagreed with him. As diplomats, you and I can negotiate an agreement on behalf of our governments but its not up to us to have the final say on whether a breach has occured. That's a matter of interpretation for politicians, legal experts and eventually judges.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

DieRealityCheck: "but I recognized that you are of opinion that Senkaku belongs to Japan, I take note only for that."

Of course you only take note of that -- it's like other posters have pointed out; Japan only recognizes things when it benefits from them, then whines and complains when it feels it is the victim. I DO think Japan has the better case for the Senkakus, and the main reason is that it has been administering them for the last 70 years, more or less. For the same reasons, plus the fact that they are lived on by the countries that own them, Japan has NO case for the Kuriles or for Dokdo.

If you can't "take note of that", it's only because you choose not to, since it is pretty cut and dry.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

@jerseyboy "Is there a "terror group or terror sympathisers" installing military bases"

Apples to oranges. It seems you have no any idea of geopolitics at all. Calling Russians a "terror group", could you provide information where Russians behead western or Japanese hostages "in the name of Allah" or something? I can understand your primitive desire to accuse Russians in all possible sins but this one example with Kuriles is utterly ridiculous.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

As long as Obama remains, the US is powerless and yellow to take on either the Russians or Chinese. Hell both countries are not doing anything I wouldn't as a leader either, what is Japan going to do about it, absolutely nothing except wah wah wah....what they need to do is pretty much the same thing and force the damn coalition alliance of the paper US to back up what it is paid to do.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

YAMASHITA: you clearly missed the point, and the meaning.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

smith

What else could Japan do except whine and complains? Suisidal bomb into Klemlin? If Japan were to take much harder stances toward Russia, it would have taken back abducted victims from North Korea long time ago. Japan got plucked out completely of it's hands and feet and that's the price it paid for, Right?

Japan only recognizes things when it benefits from them, then whines and complains when it feels it is the victim

Just present which cases Japan behaved so rather than keep repeating vacant criticism。 Im always here.

Last , effective control for long time is NOT absolute sole factor. Kuriles WERE NOT Terra nullius. People lived there, they had their lives!! You got That!

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Apples to oranges. It seems you have no any idea of geopolitics at all.

yamashi -- garbage. It is only "apples to oranges" because you want to believe it is so. And I did not call Russia a "terror group". That was the whole point. The person who has "no idea of geoploitics at all" is the one who thinks Putin has anything but self-serving motives to increase Russia's role in the world and is willing to do anything to achieve that -- whether it be through direct military intervention, like in Syria, or by using terrorist groups to obtain his goals, like in Ukraine, or by supporting Hezbollah via Iran. But nice try with semantics, since you can't address the real issue. The Russia you are so quick to defend, is pissing all over your own country and putting military bases on islands Japan lays claim to. No "apples to oranges" at all. Same strategy, just a different tactic. You do know the diffrence, right?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

"Pooty man," as he was called by G W Bush, is wildly popular. So was G W Bush. So were other infamous government officals with a clearance.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Russia complains about Japan complaining when Russia politicians visit the islands then they bitch above Japan sanctions for Russian aggression in Ukraine. They then have the nerve to say/hint that talks regarding the islands would continue if the sanctions are lifted; which is it Moscow? Are they Russian lands or not? And how can the dictator Putin say two islands are still on offer when they pull crap like this

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

And US controls Okinawa.

Patently false. If the U.S. "controlled" Okinawa, Futenma would already have been closed and cleaned-up and the forces there already transferred and established at Camp Schwab.

The Soviet Union captured those islands as part of its push towards Japan. There is credible evidence that the speed of the Soviet Union's advance towards the main Japanese islands did more to force the surrender than the dropping of the atomic bombs did. With all the Japanese defenses concentrating on beating back the U.S. to the south, Hokkaido was virtually naked to a Soviet assault. The Soviet Union earned those islands by helping to shorten a war Japan already knew it had lost, but couldn't seem to figure out how to end until the enemy was literally knocking on the door to Hokkaido. Now, the Soviet Union is no more but the islands continue to belong to the Soviet Union's successor. They can do whatever they want with them and all the protests by Japan are moot.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

the ruskies just take what they want & the world says nothing

But the world is saying something. Surely the criticism and sanctions against Russia is saying just that something.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

klausdorth:

"...... that Tokyo must acknowledge “the postwar historical realities.”

-- So, get over it, once and for all. Those islands are Russian! Even Mr. Abe will not be able to change this by firing a couple more of his famous arrows. *

I'm sure I'm not the only one predicting future historians will consider the Abe administration to have been an unmitigated disaster for Japan.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I think this also reveals how Japan thinks of the rest of the world. All, or everything(make your choice) for them, but nothing for you. 2 islands was a very generous offer, if it was coming from Russia.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Beat down

0 ( +1 / -1 )

While we all have an opinion on whether these islands should be returned to Japan, the only opinion that counts is the one that Vladimir Putin holds. He has no doubt weighed the political, economic and military components of this issue and came to a conclusion – and it’s fairly easy to see his assessment.

Political. Putin, as we have seen in Georgia, Ukraine and Syria, is attempting to reassert Russian influence throughout the world – he desires for Russia to be seen and respected on the world stage as it was during the period of the Soviet Union. Politically, any sign of weakness or compromise is counter to this effort. Additionally, as has been pointed out, Russia has territorial disputes with many other countries, to include China – who they fear most. They do not want to establish a precedent of compromising that other countries can then leverage in their disputes.

Economic. Holding on to territory always results in economic advantages, though in this case there could be a good argument that the economic benefits (in natural resources, etc.) is likely less than those that would result from a better and stronger relationship with Japan. Putin’s calculus seems to be that keeping the islands is better from an economic standpoint.

Military. This may be the strongest reason. As we are seeing now, these islands are militarily strategically important. They allow Russia to assert control in the entire Kuril island chain, which gives freedom of movement for all Russian ships and submarines from ports in the Sea of Okhotsk. Additionally, once bases are built, Russian military aircraft can range both Japanese and US bases in Japan without air-to-air refueling. Whether Russia ever intends to actually employ those aircraft is unknown, but the fact that they are there sends a clear strategic message.

For anyone who hasn’t viewed a map of these islands I would encourage you to do so as it gives an interesting perspective – Kunashir, one of the larger islands is only 17 kilometers off the coast of Hokkaido. Habomai is equally close.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

When has Russia ever compromised on any territorial disputes? They solved the one with China so why not solve the one with Japan? And if Russia what's respect, it has to EARN IT

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Those Islands are important to Russia as they give them access to the north sea, do at the most the 2 southern Islands will get returned to Japan.

Which Russia is willing and offered before. Japan should take that deal.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

gaijin:I think this also reveals how Japan thinks of the rest of the world. All, or everything(make your choice) for them, but nothing for you. 2 islands was a very generous offer, if it was coming from Russia.

"Generous"; Comming from Russia? I'm sorry but Russia has NEVER been generous towards Japan. And do you really think Russia would have honoured their broken promise to return just 7 percent of the islands back to Japan?"

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Russian reactions to japan's attempt to form her own marines.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

elephant200: Russian reactions to japan's attempt to form her own marines.

Remind me to sell you the Golden Gate Bridge.....

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

DieRealityCheck: "Last , effective control for long time is NOT absolute sole factor."

So, why not go to the ICJ over the Senkakus then, which they say is 'not a dispute' because they have administered the islands for 70 years as one of the key elements?

"Kuriles WERE NOT Terra nullius. People lived there, they had their lives!! You got That!"

The people there before THEM did too, when Japan took them during the war with Russia. Oops!

Stop whining, please. Japan should not have gone to war if they did not want to lose anything. The war was still on when Russia took them, despite you guys wanting to believe it was over, and so, spoils of war.

Jay Wilson: "They solved the one with China so why not solve the one with Japan?"

They tried, numerous times. Japan was offered two of the four islands back, but when it was considered nutjob wingers here went ballistic and Japan became bombastic, and now you see how well that served them.

"And if Russia what's respect, it has to EARN IT"

I sure hope you're not suggesting Japan has earned it... at least I hope you're not doing so with a serious face.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

smith

So, why not go to the ICJ over the Senkakus then, which they say is 'not a dispute' because they have administered the islands for 70 years as one of the key elements?

Senkaku? Why? It was Terra nullius and proper annexation process taken, history of actual residence and lives plus effective control. Do you mind sorting our what Japan claims in your brain once for all please?

The people there before THEM did too, when Japan took them during the war with Russia. Oops!

Boy, you seem not know so much about those histories, go back as far as early 19century, at least, as for the miscellaneous treaties with Russia, and even further back 18C for the histories how Japan had managed islands. Warning to you . Do not bring up Ainu unless you believe Russia should return them to Ainu.

The war was still on when Russia took them, despite you guys wanting to believe it was over, and so, spoils of war.

BS. Do you know when Soviet completed occupation of those islands? Sep 5 1945.

Stop whining, please. Japan should not have gone to war if they did not want to lose anything.

Whining? That's all Japan could do. You guys made us so and keep laughing at us unable anymmore than whining like neutered dog. Whining? Huh? You are in no way the position to blame Japanese right wingers and their rising voices. Just keep on laughing.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

smithinjapan: They tried, numerous times

If by "they tried" you really mean "take it or leave it". If they negotiated in good faith with China, why not with Japan?. Moscow did not say to Beijing "take it or leave it" so why take that attitude with Japan. And Japan has done more to earn respect than Russia

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Russia has to offer something for peace. Nothing will just not work and perhaps a treaty will never be signed. Perhaps the 56 agreement could still be made to work. Get 2 islands back and kicking the Americans out of Japan. There is no need for US bases in Japan and what does Japan owe South Korea? Abe needs to stop carrying water for the Americans and do his job as the leader of Japan.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

YuriOtani:Russia has to offer something for peace. Nothing will just not work and perhaps a treaty will never be signed. Perhaps the 56 agreement could still be made to work. Get 2 islands back and kicking the Americans out of Japan. There is no need for US bases in Japan and what does Japan owe South Korea? Abe needs to stop carrying water for the Americans and do his job as the leader of Japan.

Do you really think Russia will offer Japan anything and keep its promise? It broke the 56 deal when the defence treaty with the US was signed. Russia can not be trusted

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Jay, Japan can never sign the agreement or try something new. We have a better navy than Russia and a better air force as well. The Americans want bases in Japan to extend their hegemony. Bases paid for by the Japanese tax payer and I remember 311 well when it was "illegal" for Americans to give hungry Japanese food from the bases. Looking after number one as always. I remember the signs on base, remember my guy having a retired military ID can shop on base. I can shop too but was told not to give food even to family.

Peace between Japan and Russia would be a good thing but Russia has to do something. I can see peace possible with Russia before China or even South Korea. Japan has to give something as well like dropping sanctions. Abe has to stop following the orders of Washington and their self interests vs the self interests of Japan.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@smithinjapan"you clearly missed the point and the meaning"

Dear Smith, I need not any Korean translator to understand "the point and the meaning" in English sentences.

@jerseyboy"by using terrorists groups to obtain his goals, like in Ukraine"

Once again, even your words about Ukraine show that you have zero knowledges about current political events in the world. Putin defends people of Eastern regions of Ukraine while current Ukrainian authorities send terrorist groups to Donetsk and Lughansk. Locals fight them, kill or disarm. You can see video footage about operations of locals against terror brigades on YouTube.

"and putting military bases on islands"

Like many western people here, you're trying to depict Russians much worse than Americans. Well, Russians are building military bases on Kurils, so what ? Soviets had also built military bases in Eastern Europe but later they left Europe and redeployed their troops on soviet territory. And now Europeans are unable to use those former Soviet bases and installations. When you try to paint Russians in black colour, please tell us, how many locals were abused and raped by Soviets/Russians ? And where and when Russians showed the same boorish attitude to Japanese as Americans always did, say on Okinawa ?

@Jay Wilson "The solved the one with China so why not solve the one with Japan?"

The answer is simple. China is an independent country while de facto Japan is an American military colony. Giving a piece of territory to China, Russia is not in risky situation to get U.S. base there. Giving Kuril islands to Japan, Russian can easily get U.S. listening post, naval harbor or air field right on this disputed land. In short, being a military and political servant of the USA, Japan has zero chances to return the disputed territories.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

yamashi: The answer is simple. China is an independent country while de facto Japan is an American military colony. Giving a piece of territory to China, Russia is not in risky situation to get U.S. base there. Giving Kuril islands to Japan, Russian can easily get U.S. listening post, naval harbor or air field right on this disputed land. In short, being a military and political servant of the USA, Japan has zero chances to return the disputed territories.

Do you really believe that Moscow would have returned any of the islands to Japan if there had been no Us presence to defend Japan or do you think the soviet a would have bullied Japan? The USSR could not be trusted and neither can Russia; just look at their actions in Ukraine. And if they are so scared of American military being put on the islands, why not include that as a clause for returning them? But then again, Russia just takes and takes, it gives nothing back except to those who tow the Russian line, like China

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I will leave the Northern territories to my northern cousins the Japanese. It does not affect Okinawa and think a peace treaty would be a great ideal. Less need for American bases on Okinawa. Less tension in the world which has to be a great thing. As for Russia not being trusted, Americans have promised to return Camp Lester when the new hospital was finished. Now it is another ten years from now. So Jay it is the American that is lying!

Once there is peace with Russia a peace treaty with China might be possible. The man made islands are not Japans problem. As long as there is freedom of the seas and skies.

Lets give peace a chance, the old way has not worked. Time for a fresh approach.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

yamashi

And where and when Russians showed the same boorish attitude to Japanese as Americans always did, say on Okinawa ?

From day one Soviet Union declared War against Imperial-Japan on August9 1945, in the land of Manchulia and Northern Korean Penninsula, their brutalities were no less than any others. Read William F. Nimmo for example.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@DieRealityCheck"their brutalities were no less than any others".

They fought IJA, not Japanese civilian population. Soviets neither bombed Japan nor occupied Okinawa. So which exactly "brutalities" you are talking about ?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

yamashi

Are you serious? Please. Google whatever terms you like to find out.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Russia's just trying to rattle your cage.

Who'd want to transfer out there?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Russia can not be trusted

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

If there is any remorse or any kind of true regret on Japan's part for it's past deeds, then all that should not be seen as troublesome neither considered as a threat. We got to be very careful about our actions because we are here to make or to break good or bad history.

Long live Humanity!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

ruh roh...

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Yuzhno Sakhalinsk is just a quick flight from Hokkaido and there u can enjoy the warmth of the Russian hospitality. Trust me.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Steve Crichton:Yuzhno Sakhalinsk is just a quick flight from Hokkaido and there u can enjoy the warmth of the Russian hospitality. Trust me.

"Russian hospitality" is a myth, just like Russia's promise to return two if the islands back to Japan

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is all a pretty meaningless distraction, really. If Russia is hell-bent on ruining relations with its neighbors all over a few worthless rocks, and if they can't see that they obviously have more value to a resource poor country than a resource rich country, then God Bless Em. They should keep that going because, you know, it has worked out so well for them.

Right after WWII, the USSR GNP was second highest in the world. Japan was barely surviving.

Does anyone get the feeling that Russia has played its cards pretty poorly these last 70 years? Keep it up Russia, I am sure good times are just around the corner. Just keep doing what you are doing. Rattle those sabers. Protect more frontiers as you make more enemies. Lather, rinse, repeat.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

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

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites