Why would that mean global panic? The US has military basis in a 100 countries, cant Russia have its own footprint?

Uh... obviously. Like, you seem to be informed of his timeline to test WMD on Kuril Islands. ~70 years have passed but some time very soon?
Any special feature of the southern Kuril islands in dispute to make "Putin" test "weapons of mass destruction" there, as opposed to other
uninhabited Kuril islands... or you know, the vast stretches of land in the rest of their territory? 

Just what are you talking about? The Potsdam Agreement talks about Europe

Just got Ninja'd.

In any case, the Kuril Islands were a point in the San Francisco Peace treaty, in which it says that Japan has to renounce the islands + Sakhalin, etc. The issue arrives from the fact that Japan claims that the islands they claim aren't part of the Kuril Islands as stipulated in the Peace treaty.

Yeah, I mixed up the Agreement and Declaration.

OK, but the relevant fact is that Japan is the party that refused to implement that agreement (peace treaty).
I agree it is plausible model of future agreement, but Japan has not seriously tried to re-establish that never-signed agreement.
Japan has not stated it is willing to recognize Russian territory and establish full peace in exchange for Shikotan and Habomai group.
They periodically enter "negotiations" but even basic acknowledgement of previously agreed deals doesn't seem to happen. (publicly)
Essentially, Japan has sabotaged that kind of deal over and over. If Russia is still open to it, that is as generous as one can imagine.
And Russia doesn't seem desperate for this deal, like I wrote, they want solid peace treaty, not Japan still de facto military allied against it.

Really, this thead has been taken over by off-topic troll, and the wall of text with links I bothered to dig up are ignored. Lovely.

EDIT: Mostly I just don't understand why anybody choosing to be interested in this topic would NOT want to engage with detailed facts like I linked. If somebody isn't really interested in the topic at all, obviously that is their personal choice. But if you are interested, what are you doing if not engaging with historic details? I guess we some people who seem to push emotional tangent based on propaganda they buy into, but that was really just one poster.

They aren't ignored by some. People just can't argue against facts, so they skip the information they deem detrimental to their cause and narrative.

OT: Japan did indeed refuse to sign the agreement that would bring two of the islands under their control (in 1956?), because they wanted 4 islands instead. But by now, the situation has changed, like I said before. The islands are effectively Russian, and under Russian administration.

It is more accurate to say the Japanese government NOW claims that, the Japanese government, PM and Foreign Ministry at the time clearly beleived the agreement to incude renunciation of the South Kurils now in "dispute", they testified to that in own parliament at time. Now Japanese 'conservatives' who hold positive views of fascist era dislike the SF agreement in general, but this doesn't mean Japanese government policy did not renounce these islands in treaty form. The link I posted is very detailed with related facts about this.  https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2005/03/24/opinion/northern-territories-dispute-highlights-flawed-diplomacy/

You are very welcome, I'm glad to contribute my feelings and stance on this.

I appreciate that you feel that spending a lot of time writing up on this or looking at the history of this situation is great towards education of yourself and others who feel they can contribute to this on platforms like here and Facebook, but realistically I rather invest my time online on studying things which I will use myself such as IT support / security videos which I make use of to earn money or reputation as knowing my trade.

I would find it very difficult to derail a conversation at work so far that I could discuss "the Kuril Islands dispute"

Yes, I know. They're re-interpreting history to fit their agenda. Politics in a nutshell.

To be clear, the claim for 4 islands was shift away from their previous negotiating position, as detailed in the article I linked. In fact it was result of US pressure which aimed at NO AGREEMENT between Japan and Soviets, so considering it true negotiation position seems dubious, it was knowingly designed to fail. The expanded claim, despite previos official recognition (which soon lapsed) of renunciation in SF perhaps catered to right wing opinion, but that was not driver of policy. Although it's worth mentioning current Japanese right wing includes view placing blame primarily on US for sabotaging issue for it's own interests, and preferring to conclude deal only recovering Shikotan and Habomai and recognizing larger islands as Russian along with larger peace treaty.