politics

Russia's PM dismisses Japan's anger at his Kuril trip

116 Comments

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

© 2012 AFP

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

116 Comments
Login to comment

Like I stated before, Russia couldn't care less of what Japan thinks. Islands ain't up for discussions. End of story.

11 ( +13 / -2 )

If the issue is ever going to be resolved, is it not vital that Russian politicians see the situation first hand? Japanese anger is childish and counterproductive.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

Opinionhated Jul. 06, 2012 - 07:15AM JST Japanese anger is childish and counterproductive.

Russia should understand the Japanese, who still consider that the Russians betrayed them during World War II. They honestly did not attack Russia when Hitler's troops were near Moscow, allowing Stalin to redeploy fresh troops from the Far East. And they did not attack Russia in 1942, when Nazi troops were near the Volga and the Caucasus. Nonetheless, Russia attacked Japan in August 1945 and captured their islands. Russia is unwilling to return land which is not theirs. So what kind of allies can Russia look like after all that?

-5 ( +7 / -12 )

"Why? Because why would we discuss the presence of the head of the Russian government on Russian territory," Medvedev demanded.

Exactly.

What's to discuss?

If this kind of thing is going to send "Noddy" Noda into a hissy fit, he's not going to last much longer as a PM.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

Johnninnaha...Why did Russians sign the neutrality treaty with Japan in 1941 if they cannot honor it? The treaty called for the two nations to observe neutrality when any one of the two signing nations was invaded by a third nation. If Russia is so right, why did Russia agreed to return to Japan two of four Kurile Islands in 1956 Declarations? So what kind of allies can Russia look like after all that? Any treaty with Russia is no good.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

I can't wait to see the Japanese reaction to these statements! At least Medvedev has a set of balls to speak his mind!

8 ( +12 / -4 )

This is why 1941 treaty with Japan has a problem. One of the biggest challenges that so many non Russians have to deal with is the 'T' word. Trust. Or more accurately the lack of it. Russians do not trust one another in general terms Neighbours, colleagues, strangers or foreigners are all mistrusted. And this has a profound effect on the way people interact with one another in Russia. it continues today, and if you want to have improve business and political ties with Russia, they is the major problem. Russia is still in 19th century mentality.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

Medvedev sure is a straight shooter. Direct and to the point and concise on this one - go ahead J government jump up and down but " I do not care". Awaiting an entertaing response by grandpa Ishihara.....

6 ( +9 / -3 )

@sfjp330Jul.

Stop trying to play Japan the victim card. Japan played big boys' game from 1895 - 1945, Japan lost and Japan had to pay the price, get over it.

And please don't talk about japan and trust in the same sentence. The Russian attack on Japan in 1945 was payback for the sneak Japanese attack on the Russians at Port Arthur in 1905, which was pre-runner of the sneak attack by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor in 1941.

Japan is such a childish nation. They should try and follow Germany's example. You don't hear Germans bitching about the return of the Sudetenland or Silesia.

8 ( +14 / -6 )

I LOVE IT!!! EPIC WIN!!!

Incredible confidence. No need to use a baseball bat to swat at a fly.

Absolutely brilliant!!!!

ROFLMAO Does this guy have a Facebook page? I'm totally going to "Like" this guy.

Can't wait to see if a Japanese politician tries to go over there. Go ahead and try to emulate him.

Thank You JT once again for another fine thread to comment on. Isn't this fun?

5 ( +11 / -6 )

Mr Medvedev's came to the kurils was backed by 26 russian naval vessel lead by a heavy crusier passing through the Soya strait! And the US has FAILED to protect her ally Japan besides just empty promise of recognizing Japan has a sovrenignity there!

-9 ( +3 / -12 )

Mr Medvedev's came to the kurils was backed by 26 russian naval vessel lead by a heavy crusier passing through the Soya strait!

Looks like it was a "show of force".

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

just-a-bigguyJul. 06, 2012 - 08:25AM JST

And the US has FAILED to protect her ally Japan besides just empty promise of recognizing Japan has a sovrenignity there!

According to the Japanese, they have sovereignty over everywhere - Southern Kuriles, Nishitori, Dokdo, Senkakus.

Sure glad Japan isn't a neighbour of my home country.

6 ( +10 / -4 )

Russia in February 2011 announced plans to boost military defenses on the Kurils........

The Japanese diplomacy motivated by a passion of nationalism from the DPJ has lead Japan to an extremely dangerous situation, how unresponsible were those fanatics lacking the understanding of russia but blind guessing!

0 ( +3 / -3 )

just-a-bigguy

You need to put a sock in it. Yes, Japan would be protected and assisted by the U.S IF.....read it and weep...." IF ATTACKED".

America's is NOT Japan's pitbull. America's 7th Fleet has often been dubbed "The Tip of the Sword". It's not just any sword though. It's Excalibur and it can only be wielded by the Honorable and Just. Not by *Q,Q,Q,Qing fanatical politician with anger management issues.

America's does not worry about a Russian PM traveling in his own land. If it were Japanese soil then your local authorities have to deal with it first.....oh wait.....there are no local authorities BECAUSE...it's not Japanese soil.

Nothing is going to get started anyway. As soon as a single Japanese fighter is scrambled it will be war. The list of enemies is too long. Russia, North Korea, and China. Call me maybe......maybe Flyjin.

2 ( +10 / -8 )

You can't say it any straighter than that....

5 ( +6 / -1 )

“Why? Because why would we discuss the presence of the head of the Russian government on Russian territory,”

I like his candor. And he's absolutely correct.

johninnaha: "This is going to send Noda into a hissy fit"

I doubt that very much, but it COULD prove an opportunity to win some points from ultra-rightists if he handles it well. Otherwise I see him and everyone else just muttering "regrettable" and ignoring it -- I mean, they really don't want what Medvedev said to be played up very much because they have nothing to fight it with and they need to save face.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

justabigguy: "Mr Medvedev's came to the kurils was backed by 26 russian naval vessel lead by a heavy crusier passing through the Soya strait! And the US has FAILED to protect her ally Japan besides just empty promise of recognizing Japan has a sovrenignity there!"

YES, the KURILES -- ie. Russian territory. As for the navy presence so what? If nothing else it was just sabre rattling and showing off; the US isn't going to go START a war for the sake of a Russian president visiting his own land.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

@sfjp330

Don't want to sound like a stickler but questions of history often depend on how far back you want to go. Aren't you forgetting one war: the Russo-Japan War? In 1904, the Japanese Navy attacked the Russian eastern fleet at Port Arthur.

Anyway, whoever has it now (in this case Russia) is probably going to keep it. Russia is too strong for Japan. I'm not saying that this is right but just a consequence of pwoer . Just like the occupied terrorities of Palestine. Israel should give them back but won't until someone more powerful forces them to.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Sorry "pwoer" should have been "power"

0 ( +1 / -1 )

In 1997, the Russians actually admitted there was a dispute and offered a concrete means that could potentially solve the problem. Any attempts at compromise with the Japanese government in previous efforts have failed due to the nationalist nature of the Russian people and political groups within the government. Russian-Japanese relations are of the utmost importance for very clear reasons. There is no guarantee that the relations with the U.S.and Europe will continue indefinitely. In such times Russia’s relations with Asian countries, including Japan, play a crucial role as a counterbalance and insurance policy with respect to the U.S. and Europe. Maintaining good relations with Japan will be essential for Russia in the context of China’s rise in the twenty-first century. So long as Russia is incapable of developing Siberia and the Russian Far East by herself, sooner or later she will need assistance from Japan. Closer ties with Japan in the future will be one of the most vital national interests for the Russia. It is necessary to solve the Kuril Islands dispute, the greatest impediment to Russo-Japanese relations, in order to ensure that a closer political and economic relationship will develop between the Russian Federation and Japan. Putin fully recognizes that closer ties with Japan will prove to be of strategic importance in the long term.

T

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Zen Student.....Sure, Russians are still pissed off at the settlement after the war. Following a month of negotiations, a peace treaty was signed September 1905. The treaty stated that Russia and Japan agreed to evacuate Manchuria. Russia gave Japan the southern half of Sakhalin Island, which lies between the two countries. However, the islands were returned to Russia after World War II. Kurile island was never returned to Japan.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

You all don't forget that it take political balls backed up by military might to keep what is yours or what you took from others. Just look at us in Texas, it was longhorn balls and military savvy that took Tejas away from Mexico.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

sfjp330Jul. 06, 2012 - 08:57AM JST

In 1997, the Russians actually admitted there was a dispute and offered a concrete means that could potentially solve the problem. Any attempts at compromise with the Japanese government in previous efforts have failed due to the nationalist nature of the Russian people

100% wrong. The efforts of finding a resolution failed because, first japan agreed that any future resolution would be based on the 1956 accord, when Russia was prepared to give 2 of the southern Kurile Islands to Japan, and then Japan renaged on that understanding and continued to demand that Russia give them ALL four of disputed Kurile Islands.

In 1997, Russia was in a precarious economic state, now Russia is in a very strong economic position, with all its oil and gas. Japan needs Russia and its resources. Russia doesn't need japan, she can get all her second hand cars from Korea.

Japanese childishness and stubborness wrecked the 1997 efforts to resolve the disputed islands, and now Japan is a much weaker state and any islands that Russia might give to Japan will be more due to Russian charity than anything else.

3 ( +9 / -6 )

Medvedev visited one of the Northern islands again because Putin would start to talk with Japan about disputed islands. He might be a little worried about it. He would visit more times again.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Need to look at the bigger picture here. Why would he bother to go through all this if he didn't really care. And what is it that he actually cares about? As other leaders in Japan's neighboring countries have done in the past this is a mere effort to maintain approval ratings steering attention away from domestic issues using Japan as a scapegoat target. Obviously the Russian everyday people (as with some of the posters here) through his tough line of words would have something to cheer and feel proud about, being reminded of their last minute war prize of 7 decades ago.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

As for our Japanese partners’ reaction—I do not care,

Direct and to the point.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Dog.....In 1997, then FM Primakov's admission of Japan’s sovereign rights an ‘unwarranted concession’. Clearly, nationalist sentiments are still very active in the Russia, especially with regards to territorial issues. An overwhelming majority of Russians expressly voted that they did not support giving full control over the Kuril Islands back to Japan. The Russian government will never be able to completely disregard its nationalist leanings, especially considering nationalist attitudes tend to play a large role in the politics. Therefore, giving sovereignty over all four of the disputed islands back to Japan is a very difficult to conceive for many Russian politicians and nationalist groups. On the other hand, Russia’s future economic and strategic interests in the Asian region rely upon a closer relationship with Japan.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

sfjp330

An overwhelming majority of Russians expressly voted that they did not support giving full control over the Kuril Islands back to Japan.

What is your problem with comprehension?

The 1997 negotiaitions were never meant to be based on giving full control of the southern Kuriles to Japan, it was meant to be based on the 1956 accord, where Japan would receive 2 of the southern Kuriles and Russia would keep 2.

Only later did japan change the goalposts and returned to its 'giving full control over the Kuril Islands back to Japan' position. It was Japanese intransigance and sneakiness that wrecked the 1997 negotiations.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

Dog Jul. 06, 2012 - 09:52AM JSTIt was Japanese intransigance and sneakiness that wrecked the 1997 negotiations.

Who is really sneaky? Have you read the 1941 treaty? What your saying is stealing is ok. Russia does not honor treaty and steal.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

Russia’s future economic and strategic interests in the Asian region rely upon a closer relationship with Japan.

Japan is an economic non-issue for the Russians and strategicly Japan is and will remain America's biggest aircraft carrier in the Pacific.

10 years ago Wakkanai was a booming example of Russo-Japanese trade. Today it's a ghost town of what it was. The Russian traders have all gone to South Korea and China.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

DogJul. 06, 2012 - 09:52AM JST. The 1997 negotiaitions were never meant to be based on giving full control of the southern Kuriles to Japan, it was meant to be based on the 1956 accord, where Japan would receive 2 of the southern Kuriles and Russia would keep 2.

No. If you could comprehend, this was Russian proposal. Japan has always maintained that they want 4 islands back.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

sfjp330Jul. 06, 2012 - 10:00AM JST

No. If you could comprehend, this was Russian proposal. Japan has always maintained that they want 4 islands back.

Russia was never going to negotiate from that original premise and it never will. Japan can write its national narrative in any silly terms it wishes, but once the narrative leaves Nemuro, Japan has no monopoly on the narrative.

This is and remains Japan's problem on the international stage - from whaling, to Senkakus, to Dokdo, to history . It expects the rest of the world to accpet japan's narrative as the gospel.

It just isn't going to happen.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

sfjp330Jul. 06, 2012 - 09:58AM JST

Who is really sneaky?

You should do some historical research. The Japanese win hands down in the sneaky stakes with their sly attacks at Port Arthur in 1905 and the mirror image attack at Pearl Harbour in 1941.

Russia had relayed to japan, 6 months before their attack in 1945, that they had no interest in renewing the non-aggression pact with japan and if I remember correctly 6 months was written into the original agreement as the time limit for the non-aggression pact to become invalid.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Dog Jul. 06, 2012 - 09:59AM JST. Japan is an economic non-issue for the Russians and strategicly Japan is and will remain America's biggest aircraft carrier in the Pacific.

Non issue? Where have you been? Do you know anything about Japan's natural gas deals with Russia? Russian firm Gazprom, is planning to build a gas pipeline to Japan and projects expected to cost $7 billion funded mostly Japan. The gas pipeline to Japan may be built after it has constructed its planned 10 million metric tonnes per year LNG plant near Vladivostok.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Dog: Just for the record Japan has never at any formal level stated its willingness to give up its rights to the other 2 islands during any negotiations in the past. What you may have misunderstood is the domestic divide which existed within the cabinet and the foreign ministry at the time of whether Japan should focus on bringing the 2 islands back first or whether such a course of action would make it difficult to bring the other 2 islands back and that they should thus continue to focus on getting back all 4 at the same time. This was all openly reported and documented at the time, nothing really sneaky about it as you suggest.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Dog: Just for the record Japan has never at any formal level stated its willingness to give up its rights to the other 2 islands during any negotiations in the past. What you may have misunderstood is the domestic divide which existed within the cabinet and the foreign ministry at the time of whether Japan should focus on bringing the 2 islands back first or whether such a course of action would make it difficult to bring the other 2 islands back and that they should thus continue to focus on getting back all 4 at the same time. This was all openly reported and documented at the time, nothing really sneaky about it as you suggest.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

DogJul. 06, 2012 - 10:12AM JST. You should do some historical research. The Japanese win hands down in the sneaky stakes with their sly attacks at Port Arthur in 1905 and the mirror image attack at Pearl Harbour in 1941.

Why don't you do some research. Didn't Japan returned the southern half of Sakhalin Island to Russia after WWII, which lies between the two countries? Kurile island was never returned to Japan, actually was stolen. Russia does not honor treaties.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

sfjp330Jul. 06, 2012 - 10:12AM JST

.Non issue? Where have you been? Do you know anything about Japan's natural gas deals with Russia? Russian firm Gazprom, is planning to build a gas pipeline to Japan and projects expected to cost $7 billion funded mostly Japan

Get real. japan needs Russia's gas and oil. 7 billion is a drop in the ocean in the resource industry. If Japan didn't build the pipeline, there's plenty who would be glad to build a pipeline from their country to Russia.

Japan needs Russia, Russia doen't need Japan. Russia is glad to get along with Japan, if Japan plays by Russia''s rules, but Russia could ditch Japan in a minute and find another country to replace Japan by the next day.

Japan doesn't have that luxury.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Dog Jul. 06, 2012 - 10:20AM JST. there's plenty who would be glad to build a pipeline from their country to Russia.

Like who? If that is so easy, why Russia did not offer China the same opportunity? Because they don't trust each other. What Russians are saying is that Japan keeps promises. You can see on the business deals.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

sfjp330Jul. 06, 2012 - 10:15AM JST

Kurile island was never returned to Japan, actually was stolen. Russia does not honor treaties.

I'm sorry this is going round in circles because you haven't the background knowledge. By the Treaty Of San Francisco 1952, which was the peace treaty japan signed with all of the victorious allies, except Russia, Japan ceded all claims to the Kurile islands.

Please go and read a basic copy of the treaty it states quite clearly, in black and white, that Japan surrenders all claims to the Kurile Islands.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

sfjp330Jul. 06, 2012 - 10:23AM JST

Like who? If that is so easy, why Russia did not offer China the same opportunity?

It has and it does http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12103865

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Japan expressed “extreme regret” on Tuesday over Medvedev’s decision to tour the biggest of the four islands that were seized by Soviet troops at the end of World War II.

I haven't a clue what this even means. Probably means even less in Russian

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Medvedev warned during his latest visit that ceding territory to Tokyo would lead to the disintegration of the Russian state

Really?!?! They managed to cede the Baltic states without disintegrating. Too much melodrama here on both sides.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

JGOV does exactly the same thing to complaints/pleas from Korean comfort women/sex slaves.

Same slack ar*se, uncaring attitude, simply a different issue.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

I find it quite comical when pro Japan sympathizers, like sfjp330 in this instance, suggest that we know our history, when Japan herself turns a complete blind eye to history to suit her needs!! LOL

1 ( +5 / -4 )

The U.S. instigated the Soviets at the Yalta Conference to break the neutral treaty with Japan and go into war by offering the Kurile islands and south Sakhalin as lures. And on August 18, 1945 after Japan surrendered, Truman confirmed Stalin that the U.S. agreed to hand over the Kurile islands to the Far East commander in chief of the Soviets Army, which means that the U.S. allowed the Soviets to "continue invading" until they took the islands without clarifying whether or not the southernmost four islands are part of the Kuriles. After the war, Japan and the Soviets agreed on the return of the two smaller islands to Japan, but then J.F. Dulles hindered in it saying that the U.S. would not return Okinawa if Japan did not claim also for the other larger islands. Since then Japan's diplomacy with the Soviets (Russia) has been spellbound by the four islands return. America might decide in consultation with Russia whether the four islands or the spoils of war used as lures might not be part of "such minor islands as we (the organizers of the Cairo Declaration/ the Potsdam Declaration) determine." By the way, now is the time Japan should share her love between America and Russia to get a most favorable quotation on LNG.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

SeiharinokazeJul. 06, 2012 - 11:11AM JST

After the war, Japan and the Soviets agreed on the return of the two smaller islands to Japan, but then J.F. Dulles hindered in it saying that the U.S. would not return Okinawa if Japan did not claim also for the other larger

Half way there, but not quite.

The actual agreement of the return of 2 of the islands to Japan and Russia would keep the others, had nothing to do with the Americans. It was actually an agreement that Hatoyama snr had come to with the Russians independently of the USA in 1956.

Russia actually had a good relationship with the Japanese government after 1952. Russia paid for many of the vacination programs in Japan and donated a lot of medical know-how and supplies to the Japanese. The USA, with the emerging Cold War, was very unhappy with this relationship and Hatoyama's 1956 accord that Hatoyama made with Russia was the last straw.

Dulles came to Japan, told Hatoyama and Yoshida that the US might well consider permanently ceding Okinawa from Japan, if Japan kept on with its present policy of reproachment with the USSR.

And from that moment a new term entered the political vocabulary. The Northern Territories, to distinguish the 4 islands from the Kuril islands, which Japan had ceded any claims to in the San Francisco peace treaty.

And true to form, Yoshida Shigeru, who in 1953 had conceded that the Kuril islands had included the 4 islands, claimed that the 4 islands were seperate from the Kurile Islands. From this invention of a new narrative, Yoshida ensured that there could be new reproachment between Japan and the USSR, no matter how much aid Russia gave to the japanese public.

And he we are in 2012, still living with the after effects of the Cold War, Dulles' paranoia, and Japanese play on geographical semantics.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

Medvedev and Putin both are so arrogant the both speak this way because nobody has the minerals to stop them. I respect that they can speak so candidly but sometimes lately they have gone a bit too far.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Seiharinokaze: Agree with what you are saying, particularly on the discussions said to have taken place behind the scenes and the US intentions at the time. All in all, we can continue to debate the San Francisco Treaty with its vague definitions which Russia never signed etc.. but everything will continue to go round in circles given the countries have never really agreed on anything up unti now on this and do not formally share a common baseline for any argument. Having said that, my view remains that with Japan's continued persistence and the continued international support (primarily US) towards Japan's position and rights, the islands will (all or partially) be returned to Japan at some future point in time, but probably not within our lifetime (How long did it take for Hong Kong to be returned to China?). Most importantly, some more decades should be required for the education of the general public in Russia (with all due respect) to allow them to accept such a return to ever take place under some rational and mature thinking (as Solzhenitsyn has shown) leaving behind emotional assertions to their rights over what they currently consider as a well deserved "war prize". Hoping Japan gets at least 2 back under Putin's rule, but maybe not.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

get Russia OUT of Kuril NOW! that is occupied territory owned by Japan and should be given to its rightful owner. Russia needs to get a clue they have enough land, let the people who were forced from their homes inhabit their land once again!

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Matthew Simon: The other way of looking at it is that this may be after some calculated thinking that the Japanese everyday people should also not care less about whatever Medvedev says (which is probably true), because they already have a clue of what Russian leaders are like. Based on such calculation they may have decided to go ahead with this "not typical of a wise and thoughtful leader" kind of remark, focusing rather on getting their own people proud and excited (as if it were a worldcup soccer match). However based on what I hear the Russian people at their end seem to be less attracted by the "macho" style politics that Putin prefers to exhibit so the overall domestic effect may be limited.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

It really does not matter what Japan signed, they never signed a peace treaty with Russia. Now Russia says a peace treaty will yield Japan the right to "invest" in Russia. Get Japan hopelessly hooked on Russia oil/gas and when this happens Russia will increase the price 2 or 3 fold. Once the fields are developed Russia will steal the Japanese investments again. Am not at all impressed with Russia's threat to Japan. Their fleet is hopeless obsolete but as long as Russia does not attack there will be peace. As with China the question of war or peace is up to Russia.

Now Japan needs to match deployment to equal that of Russia. Japan has to be ready to meet Russian aggression! No islands means no peace treaty, it is ah so simple.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

Japan is such a childish nation. They should try and follow Germany's example. You don't hear Germans bitching about the return of the Sudetenland or Silesia.

That's because they were not German before the war. they were taken from Poland and from Czechoslovakia......

Still, the anger over these islands is ridiculous.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

Dog: Really hate to get into these kinds of unproductive arguments, but just for the record, please kindly provide some reference info on the fact that Yoshida had actually conceded to the inclusion of the "4 (and not 2)" islands within the Kurile definition at the time.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Getting the taste of their own medicine...

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Let's see, we don't like Russia but we get fuel from them. We like Iran, but the US said we can't buy fuel from them anymore. Guess it's time to fire up the nukes.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

alliswellinjapanJul. 06, 2012 - 12:13PM JST Dog: Really hate to get into these kinds of unproductive arguments, but just for the record, please kindly provide some reference info on the fact that Yoshida had actually conceded to the inclusion of the "4 (and not 2)" islands within the Kurile definition at the time.

Can't you do your own research, it isn't that hard to find sources?

However here you are, for one

‘In 1951, Japan’s parliament carried out an inquiry into which of the islands really are part of the Kurils. The official reply designated Kunashir, Iturup, Shikotan and Habomai as the South Kuril Islands. And when MPs protested, Prime Minister [Shigeru] Yoshida said Japan was in no position to raise the issue now that it had signed the Instrument of Surrender and ratified the Peace Treaty. By pledging to drop these claims, Japan actually deprived itself of the right to put the issue back on the agenda. The Japanese side showed it was willing to abandon its claims.’

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20110225/162758486.html

1 ( +6 / -5 )

WakarimasenJul. 06, 2012 - 12:12PM JST .

That's because they were not German before the war. they were taken from Poland and from Czechoslovakia......

The ignorance of basic history on this site is astounding. Before the Treaty of Versailles, they had been German and the populations were overwhelmingly German, until 1945.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

This is from a very interesting article by Gregory Clark, which sheds some important light on the negotiations of all concerned parties (even Australia, France and the UK) in the 1950s.

Japan-Russia Dispute Over Northern Territories Highlights Flawed Diplomacy

True, the U.S. was much more supportive in later 1956-57 statements, but by then it had every reason to want to be supportive. Needless to say, Tokyo today repeats constantly what the U.S. had to say in 1956-57, ignoring anything that happened beforehand. It also has to clutch at vague straws claiming Moscow has at various times since 1956 promised further talks on territory -- talks that from the Russian point of view could simply be intended to put an end to Japan's various claims.

The Foreign Ministry position in all this is understandable. For as the saying puts it, "diplomats are honest people sent out to lie for their country." What is alarming is the ease with which not just public but intellectual opinion in this country has been mobilized to provide full support for the shaky Foreign Ministry position.

The few who suggest a "two-island solution" -- that Japan should receive the Habomais and Shikotan and leave Etorofu and Kunashiri for the future -- are quickly silenced. Very occasionally, when the Nishimura Kumao statement is raised, we are told that it was "mistaken," or for "domestic consumption only," or "later retracted."

Washington's role in all this is even more "curious." Why in 1951, at the height of the Korean War and its anti-Soviet hysteria, did it force a reluctant Japan to renounce all claim to all the Kuril islands? Professor Miwa Kimitada of Sophia University suggests it was due to a secret 1947 Washington-Moscow deal to guarantee Soviet support in the United Nations for U.S. control over Micronesia.

My own research says it had something to do with pressure from a bitterly anti-Japan Canberra determined to see Japan stripped of all its prewar possessions. Others say it was a skillful Dulles plot to force Tokyo and Moscow into decades of confrontation, or to preserve the Yalta framework for the sake of Europe, especially for Austria, which was still partly under Soviet occupation.

Be all that as it may, the U.S., which in 1951 had forced Japan to renounce all claim to the Kurils, including Etorofu and Kunashiri, in 1956 was able to threaten to turn Okinawa into a U.S. colony if Japan did not maintain all claim to the Kurils, including Etorofu and Kunashiri. Machiavelli would have been proud of that.

Interestingly, the only Japanese who seem able to see the problem in perspective are at totally different ends of the ideological spectrum -- the Japanese Communist Party and the extreme right, including Tokyo Gov. Shintaro Ishihara. Both blame Washington for the current mess. Both say that Japan should stop fussing about Etorofu and Kunashiri and go on to claim all of the Kurils as its "traditional territory."

The Foreign Ministry could easily back them up by releasing still unclassified documents in which Japan in 1951 strongly protested U.S. pressure to renounce the Kurils, including Etorofu and Kunashiri, and by pointing out how Japan was still under U.S. occupation. But if it did that, its claim that Japan never renounced Etorofu and Kunashiri would automatically be undercut. The chickens would finally have come home to roost.

The whole article is here:

http://www.japanfocus.org/-Gregory-Clark/2018

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Dog: Thanks for the information. I know what I know, so just wanted to check what you knew. Confirmed that your source is the English site of a Russian media. Wherever Mr. Shakhbaz (speaker in your article) got his information from, the actual reply in parliament at the time provided by Mr. Nishimura of the Foreign Ministry (as per Yoshida's appointment) to the question regarding the government's definition of "Kuril(Chishima)" as set forth in the treaty was that it includes both the Northern and Southern Chishima islands (which include kunashir and eturup), while also remembering to clarify that Habomai and Shikotan are not included, adding it to be also under agreement with US foreign authorities.

Also important to remind you that Yoshida, in his speech upon signing the San Francisco Treaty a month prior to the parliament reply made above, speaks as follows:

"Both Sakhalin and the North and South Kuriles were taken unilaterally by Russia as of September 20, 1945, shortly after Japan's surrender. Even the islands of Habomai and Shikotan, constituting part of Hokkaido, one of Japan's four main islands, are still being occupied by Soviet forces simply because they happened to be garrisoned by Japanese troops at the time when the war ended."

Thus you will hopefully confirm and accept (despite what you claimed earlier) that at least 2 of the islands were never included in the definition of Kuril as according to Yoshida and his government at the time while also being reminded how the general perception on the part of Japan towards the last-minute act conducted by Russia has not really changed up until now.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

**It really does not matter what Japan signed, they never signed a peace treaty with Russia. Now Russia says a peace treaty will yield Japan the right to "invest" in Russia. Get Japan hopelessly hooked on Russia oil/gas and when this happens Russia will increase the price 2 or 3 fold. Once the fields are developed Russia will steal the Japanese investments again. Am not at all impressed with Russia's threat to Japan. Their fleet is hopeless obsolete but as long as Russia does not attack there will be peace. As with China the question of war or peace is up to Russia.

Now Japan needs to match deployment to equal that of Russia. Japan has to be ready to meet Russian aggression! No islands means no peace treaty, it is ah so simple.**

Yuri, for someone from Okinawa, you really have a warped sense of what Japan has a right to...

Doesn't matter what Japan signed? Okay, in that case, perhaps the same can be said for a lot of little papers many other countries have signed with Japan. You can't have it one way in one case and another in another.

Live by the sword, die by the sword. Japan is lucky is got treated so well after the war. Thing is, it made her into a crying, victim mentality nation.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

So much for diplomacy...

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Russia has a president AND a prime minister?

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

A clear sign of a developing nation. What can you expect?

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

This sure is going to get the right-wingers here all hot and bothered, will be comical to watch! Last week it was China, yesterday Taiwan - now their newest target of hate is Russia! Who next?!? Sweepstakes anyone?

Now Japan needs to match deployment to equal that of Russia. Japan has to be ready to meet Russian aggression!

Here is a fine example of the rabid militarists/chest-puffing nationalists! I reckon they should focus their anger and energy into the Million and one domestic problems here...

7 ( +8 / -1 )

The eagerness of the Russians to sign a peace treaty with Japan is clear. What also is clear is the meaning of Putin's words a few months ago:

If I become president, we would have the Russian Foreign Ministry sit on one side and the Japanese Foreign Ministry sit on the other and we would give out the order 'Hajime' (begin)," Putin, a judo black belt, said in using the term employed by referees to begin and resume judo matches.

Putin's words proposing new negotiations.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

BurakuminDes

This sure is going to get the right-wingers here all hot and bothered, will be comical to watch! Last week it was China, yesterday Taiwan - now their newest target of hate is Russia! Who next?!? Sweepstakes anyone?

Well they are doing a fair job of alienating the Latin American countries, US, NZ, and Oz over their whaling so l will put my money on one of them. Actually lm tipping we will have a major victim card play pulled by Japan very soon. They need to try and build some pity for themselves.

Here is a fine example of the rabid militarists/chest-puffing nationalists! I reckon they should focus their anger and energy into the Million and one domestic problems here...

And its one of the funniest comments of the day........

5 ( +8 / -3 )

Thumbs up if you like presto345 to be the girl in the avatar!

2 ( +6 / -4 )

the Russians betrayed them during World War II. They honestly did not attack Russia when Hitler's troops were near Moscow, allowing Stalin to redeploy fresh troops from the Far East. And they did not attack Russia in 1942, when Nazi troops were near the Volga and the Caucasus. Nonetheless, Russia attacked Japan ...................................

you may not be aware of the fact that the Imperial Japanese Army suffered a defeat in Mongolia, hence the " go south " strategy where the pickings were a lot easier. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol

6 ( +6 / -0 )

I wouldn't care about temper tantrums of a spoiled brat either. MacArthur was correct in his assesment.

Burakumindes, right-(s)wingers sure are comical to watch all the time.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

US should follow Russia's resolve, regarding bases that they have legal rights to. No excuses. Japan should be happy they even got the islands back. Remind them how it could've been worse; they could've done what Russia does.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Despite his straight shooting, Russia really don't have a decent claim to the southern Kurils other than an opportunistic raid as Japan began collapse at the end of WW2. Geographically, culturally and historically they are Japanese so I tend to share the Japanese view on this one. But it's something the Japanese might take into consideration when they meet opposition to their control over the Senkakus....

2 ( +4 / -2 )

@sfjp330 "Russians still in 19th century mentality", HAHAHA, thats the pot calling the kettle black!, thanks for that great laugh i needed that haha

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Let the UN decide which islands belong to which countries ASAP

These never ending disputes/claims are getting on everyone's nerves!

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

When are the Russians going to return what they stole?

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

Before Japan demands reversion of any of the Kuril Islands, the Japanese government should first truly recognize the rights of the native Ainu people.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Backing Assad in Syria, holding on to Japanese territories, what else is Russia good for? And there's plenty of Russian supporters in this forum name JapanToday, I wonder why? If you are so interested in Japan as to contribute to this forum, why such a stance? Afraid of the KGB?

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

@m6bob:

LMAO... Ummm I don't know exactly how attuned you are to current events, but the KGB hasn't been around for some time now. LOL

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Actually lm tipping we will have a major victim card play pulled by Japan very soon. They need to try and build some pity for themselves.

When is Japan NOT playing the victim card??

The only countries not fed up with Japan right now are those poor, developing nations that Japan keeps paying off to support them on things like whaling... You think the US is thrilled with them right now? Okinawa, TPP, Fukushima... Add in China, Russia, North Korea, South Korea... I'm wondering which other Asian country they're going to tick off next - and then yes, play the victim card. But which card will it be? 3/11? The war? Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Hmmmm... let's see... who created ALL of these situations....

1 ( +6 / -5 )

wtfjapan

@sfjp330 "Russians still in 19th century mentality", HAHAHA, thats the pot calling the kettle black!, thanks for that great laugh i needed that haha

Right on!

The U.S.A. seems to be operating on the same think.

"Shoot first and ask questions after!" (Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan)

3 ( +4 / -1 )

“I care so little about it that I do not even want to spend time answering your question,” Medvedev HA wow !my new best quote ever!! LOL he da man!! can i get dat on a t-shirt!! heheh..who needs the schwarzenegger terminator when u got da MEDVEDEV!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

prime minister Medvedev is very rude. I guess he had not a good childhood. because he is so direspectful to the Japanese people.

however does not surprise me.. Guess japan is loosing respect from countries around them.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

True, I was half way there. The U.S. actually clarified just after the war that Etorofu and Kunashiri were not part of the minor islands that they determined should belong to Japan. Yoshida accepted it and signed the peace treaty. That's why Hatoyama began negotiations of a peace treaty with the Soviets by which the other smaller islands were to be returned to Japan. Then U.S. suddenly meddled and said ("U.S. Position on Soviet-Japanese Peace Treaty negotiations" in the U.S. State Department Bulletin of September 24, 1956) that the San Francisco Peace Treaty "did not determine the sovereignty of the territories renounced by Japan," and that "Japan does not have the right to transfer sovereignty over such territories." Well, if so, the one who has the right might as well have decided much earlier the sovereignty of the two islands as let 60 years go by since the WW2 ended and 20 years since the cold war. It's more than time Japan concluded a peace treaty with Russia. That would contribute to the regional stability and prosperity greatly. I want to read Medvedev's visit to Kunashiri, not to Habomai and Shikotan, in such a context.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

prime minister Medvedev is very rude

Come on, he's just Russian.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

A lot of gloating going on here. We love to have the blunt, nationalistic rhetoric of Ishihara taken to task whenever he gets on his high horse but applaud Medvedev for the same vice. Regardless of your views on this particular issue - does anyone find Medvedev's choice of words appropriate?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Remind them how it could've been worse; they could've done what Russia does.

We are talking about entirely different attitude, intelligence. The Russians would just have created another gulag and gained nothing from it. As for the Americans, it was not a matter of what they could have done. They simple would never have done anything like the Russians seem to have been set on as they, the Americans, could see a little farther than the length of their noses. They knew that creating a new Japan would be beneficial to them, rebuild the nation to create a market for American trade.

It looks to me (personal opinion) the Japanese are not going to get what they want: all islands returned, but neither are the Russians with their boorish and provocative diplomacy: obtaining a peace treaty, closer cooperation in developing trade and technology.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Dog Jul. 06, 2012 - 10:25AM JST I'm sorry this is going round in circles because you haven't the background knowledge. By the Treaty Of San Francisco 1952, which was the peace treaty japan signed with all of the victorious allies, except Russia, Japan ceded all claims to the Kurile islands.

The Soviet delegation to the San Francisco Peace Conference in 1951 demanded inclusion of an article in the text of the peace treaty with Japan acknowledging the sovereignty of the USSR over southern Sakhalin and the Kurils. The Soviet government's demand went unheeded. The text of the San Francisco treaty says only that Japan "renounces its rights, privileges and claims to the Kurils and to that part of the island of Sakhalin and its adjoining islands over which Japan obtained sovereignty by the terms of the Treaty of Portsmouth," without ever stating to whom Japan transfer its rights. What is meant by the term "Kuril Islands" is also never defined in the document. As a result, the Soviet delegation refused to sign the San Francisco Peace Treaty, and this allowed the Japanese delegation even in the closing days of the San Francisco conference to raise the question of the return of the islands of Iturup, Kunashir, Shiko-tan and the Habomai group to Japan.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Kanade and tmarie, if does not matter what Japan signed and remind you it was at the point of a gun. Russia wants a new treaty a peace treaty. Japan has set the condition the northern territories be returned to Japan. Do my cousins deserve them? well perhaps not but appeasement and pacifistic mind set as a sure means of suicide. Look at what happened to Okinawa and how being defenseless against the Japan gave them the bitter fruit of losing their independence. I have worn the uniform of my nationality and understand that unless Japan is firm it will invite invasion from our foes. The real question is can a true and honest peace be achieved? Giving into the Russians and Chinese would be wetting their appetites for more. The people of Okinawa do not want to be part of China as the people of Hokkaido do not want to be part of Russia. Then again what is killing a few million people to them? The peoples Republic of China has killed more people than all of the wars of mankind. The Russians come in second to them. So again we need to understand what is at stake. Any peace treaty needs to be an honest one, so what is Russia offering for a peace treaty from Japan?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Putin does not intend to ruin any chances with Japan and is wary of Asia because of the rapidly changing balance of power there, because of the growth of China. Putin knows that Russia is likely to have to work hard to maintain a balance in this part of the world. It is therefore difficult to understand why Medvedev went to Kunashir. The situation has not improved since his previous visit couple years ago, so Medvedev can make similar statements on the results of his visit. Instead of indicating the region’s importance, his second visit merely highlights how little has been done there in the last two years. Russian-Japanese relations are heavily dependent on Kurile Island dispute. But if compromise is possible, the political situation in Russia and in the Pacific region, connects on changes in China. The balance of forces and influence in Russian-Chinese relations is not in Russia’s favor. If current trends persist, in a less than a decade, the Russia’s foreign policy, will have to take much more account of China’s opinion. In other words, Russia’s ability to make decisions which China could interpret as infringing on its interests will be limited. And China is unlikely to be pleased with a Russian-Japanese compromise on the territorial issue, which would create a precedent and also having cordial relations between two major regional powers.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

2 sfjp330Jul. 06, 2012 - 07:18AM JST

Russia should understand the Japanese, who still consider that the Russians betrayed them during World War II. They honestly did not attack Russia when Hitler's troops were near Moscow, allowing Stalin to redeploy fresh troops from the Far East. And they did not attack Russia in 1942, when Nazi troops were near the Volga and the Caucasus. Nonetheless, Russia attacked Japan in August 1945 and captured their islands. Russia is unwilling to return land which is not theirs. So what kind of allies can Russia look like after all that?

Attack of Russia in WW2 for Japan is more quickly suicide, like Perl-Harbor. Also please not forget about unit 731. In WW2 Japan Army some time cross border and have provocations to Russia. Also problem of encephalitis.

Problem of Kurils that is problem between Russia and USA that was start by Harry Truman. Who need Kurils for attack of Russia. And now motives of USA is not changed (Aegis, SM-3). Our motives is global stable and security.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@sfjp330Jul. 06, 2012 - 07:28AM JST

Johnninnaha...Why did Russians sign the neutrality treaty with Japan in 1941 if they cannot honor it? The treaty called > for the two nations to observe neutrality when any one of the two signing nations was invaded by a third nation. If Russia is so right, why did Russia agreed to return to Japan two of four Kurile Islands in 1956 Declarations? So what > kind of allies can Russia look like after all that? Any treaty with Russia is no good.

Japan had suicide by attack of Asia and attack of Perl-Harbor. Because Japan had not resources for war with Asia and USA too. As result of that in 1945 world power balance was changed. In 1945 USA can get ALL Japan. But we had time for cut little but very important piece from Japan for our security. Why USA had "return" Okinawa to Japan? Because USA have ALL Japan. All external position of Japan controlled by USA. Japan had second and now third economy in world. But Japan like province of USA. Japan buy Aegis, F-35 and some other toys from USA. Japan is creditor of USA but have last Noda tax.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

@Kanade. Thanks for the post.

On the "why now" point, I can say that this topic has cropped up fairly regularly since at least 1980 (when I first lived in Japan).

My own view is that the people who live and were brought up on the islands should get to decide. But somehow I doubt that will be accepted by either Russia or Japan.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The kurils clearly belong to japan as recognized by every treaty russia honored before ww2.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

My own view is that the people who live and were brought up on the islands should get to decide. But somehow I doubt that will be accepted by either Russia or Japan.

Russia expelled all the islands inhabitants back in the 50s. It then brought in people to replace them. The Islands current inhabitants, are all immigrants.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@alliswellinjapanJul. 06, 2012 - 09:32AM JST

being reminded of their last minute war prize of 7 decades ago.

That is not prize! Tokyo would be prize. Kurils is important islands for our security, but not prize.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@kaminarioyajiJul. 06, 2012 - 10:46AM JST

Really?!?! They managed to cede the Baltic states without disintegrating. Too much melodrama here on both sides.

Yes. Russia have two non-freezable way to world ocean: Murmansk and Vladivostok. Jurils are non-freezable gate to Pacific ocean. Okhotsk sea inside in Russia. That is very important part of our global security.

Baltic states is territory with idiots, stupid ballast like some republic in USSR and around Russia now.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

BessonovYan, those islands do nothing for the defense of Russia. Second they are not the only non frozen path to the Pacific ocean. I ask you why should Japan sign a peace treaty and receive nothing in return? The right to invest in Russia and buy oil/gas is not enough. I remember what Russia did to the Ukraine, cutting off the supply of natural gas. All Russia is doing is getting Japan really angry toward Russia.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@Molenir

"Russia expelled all the islands inhabitants back in the 50s."

Yes, but time moves on and where do you draw a line? (You could argue that Japan only took control of Hokkaido in 1869, and that it should be returned to whoever.) I know I'd be feel pretty strongly about having some say over the place where I lived and was brought up, even if my ancestors acquired it by dubious means. (Don't most of us live in such places?) Is there really anything to fear about allowing the residents to decide?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

From the point of view of the Russia, the future of the disputed islands had been determined in 1945 in Yalta and Potsdam and was not to be revised. It should be mentioned however that both Yalta and Potsdam provided some space for future adjustments of borders, keeping in mind that the statement: “Japanese sovereignty should be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine”, allowed to reconsider the status of such islands as those defined by Japan as Northern Territories.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@YuriOtaniJul. 07, 2012 - 07:07AM JST

BessonovYan, those islands do nothing for the defense of Russia.

non-fozen OWN gate to Pacific ocean Okhotsk sea inside in Russia, that is means what no one military ship can not stay around Vladivostok

We are friendly to Japan and do it. Also Japanese politics not have own opinion for external politics because they have command from USA.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

What Russians did wrong was the forcible deportation of 17,000 Japanese residents on the Southern Kurile Islands and the subsequent settlement of Soviet citizens, executed by the USSR between 1947 and 1949 violated another international regulation, namely to deport indigenous population in absence of military requirements and to form settlements on occupied territories.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@sfjp330Jul. 07, 2012 - 07:38AM JST

In ww2 was die some millions people. That 17 000 must be happy that they not die in Gulag, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, in Hitler camp. They live! Not they not understand own happy!

3 ( +4 / -1 )

BessonovYan, still what is in it for Japan to sign a peace treaty? Russia did not sign the peace treaty and it will cost them something for their mistake. Allowing Russia to keep all of the islands is a sign of weakness. There will be no treaty and if the spineless sign it , the Diet will never ratify it.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Doesn't matter Japan signed Yuri? Oh lord, in that case, let's ignore all treaties and start WWIII over land grabs. I can promise you Japan wouldn't fair so well this time around.

When will you finally get your quoting right?

I don't care if I do. It seems you have an issue with it, not my problem.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

"Medvedev... urged other ministers to regularly visit the remote region"

Cripes, it's only remote to the Russians, heck, from Hokkaido you could swim to the nearest island if the water was a bit warmer.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Why not arrange a picnic with both Russian and Japanese Prime Ministers on the island. it will be fun!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

tmarie, this is a new agreement with Russia and not based on old. The agreements with the other countries are effective until changed. If Russia wants a peace treaty it will cost them these islands. This trip tells me they do not want a peace treaty. Any more talk is just a waste of time. There is not going to be a peace treaty.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@YuriOtaniJul. 08, 2012 - 12:38AM JST

How you understanding peace treaty and problem of unit 731 (and many others problems)?

We are friendly to Japan without some peace treaty.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I am a little bit sympathy of Japanese on this issue. However, Japanese are as arrogant, if not more when it comes to Daoyu Islands. At the end of day, why should other people care about your feeling, if you don't care about other people's?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

It would be like the US giving up the Panama Canal zone.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

BessonovYan can bring up the Gulag and the Russian prisoner of war camps. 370,000 Japanese were killed in the Gulag. The last POW's were not released until 1956. Russia has trespassed upon Japan. All people see is the abuses of unit 731 and comfort women. Thus unit 731 which I point out were mostly Chinese victims is not a valid reason for Russia to retain these islands. What Russia did after the war is an international crime.

I see a smug man who values political support at home over good relations with Japan. Perhaps in the future Russia might see "short victorious war" as means to cement support from the Russian people.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

For many of you who is able to read in English, I strongly suggest you read: THE IMPERIAL CRUISE by James Bradley to give you another perspective on these issues which you argue.

To put it bluntly it is only 60 years since end of WWII. Only the younger generation lost as the Anime generation that do not see the significance of "any" action by Russia or China. ALL wars were fought over natural resources and natural resources mean accessibility to the same. The ocean and the islands in the oceans off China and Russia that are not frozen most part of the year are the only access to outside resources.

So BOTH China and in this case Russia are "testing" the waters while the USA which is supposed to protect Japan from their aggression is "lost" in election struggle with an extremely poor economy that is affecting their effectiveness as a military power

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Moscow is great! Mr Medvedev is great! yay for that man! yay for russia! / / / yaaaaaay! Fo shizzle!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

No Japan has changed but we will protect ourselves from the foe. No trade and no peace treaty is enough. So all Japan can do is wait. Russia will come to the peace treaty or not.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Lots of good historical banter going on which is cool... lots that i didnt know. But one thing that most are disregarding is the fact that Medvedev just isn't that influential in Russia. Even while president he was Putin's second fiddle. So what are Medvedev's motives if Putin seems keen to negotiate? (and at the moment what Putin wants is what happens). Perhaps to garner some support from Russian nationalists domestically... I think this all has more to do with Russian domestic politics and much less with Russia asserting herself internationally. Just my view.

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