By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Where do you stand in the Kuril Islands dispute?

contestgamer said:
VGPolyglot said:

If necessary? Well taking the islands back isn't necessary, as I said Japan hasn't had control of them for over 70 years.

So what? If a squatter forcefully takes my home am I not allowed to take it back because it's 70 years later? It's still my home.

Japan agreed to the Potsdam Declaration which specified that only the 4 main islands were to remain part of Japan, with the smaller islands being at the discretion of the Allies. So Japan agreed to relinquish control.

Last edited by VGPolyglot - on 03 April 2018

Around the Network
VGPolyglot said:
CaptainExplosion said:

They're close enough that they should be part of Japan. Putin would obviously use them to test weapons of mass destruction, even if it means his own people getting caught in the crossfire because they didn't evacuate in time. I'm saying it again; Putin. Is. A. Terrorist.

You can say the exact same thing about Crimea though? "It's close enough that it should be part of Russia." And when has Putin/Russia ever used nukes on civilians? Never.

Well why wouldn't he? He's already having them poisoned to cover up his espionage, shot for not supporting him, rigging elections so he can stay in power, and covering up the MH17 incident which was clearly his fault.

The situation with the Crimea is different, as it was greedily snatched up by a heartless wannabe macho man who hates homosexuals.



CaptainExplosion said:
VGPolyglot said:

You can say the exact same thing about Crimea though? "It's close enough that it should be part of Russia." And when has Putin/Russia ever used nukes on civilians? Never.

Well why wouldn't he? He's already having them poisoned to cover up his espionage, shot for not supporting him, rigging elections so he can stay in power, and covering up the MH17 incident which was clearly his fault.

The situation with the Crimea is different, as it was greedily snatched up by a heartless wannabe macho man who hates homosexuals.

What are you taking about? Crimea belonged to Russia.



contestgamer said:
CaptainExplosion said:

Well why wouldn't he? He's already having them poisoned to cover up his espionage, shot for not supporting him, rigging elections so he can stay in power, and covering up the MH17 incident which was clearly his fault.

The situation with the Crimea is different, as it was greedily snatched up by a heartless wannabe macho man who hates homosexuals.

What are you taking about? Crimea belonged to Russia.

Not after the Soviet Union collapsed. Putin is clearly trying to rebuild the USSR, which of course would mean a global panic, all because he's overcompensating for something.



CaptainExplosion said:
contestgamer said:

What are you taking about? Crimea belonged to Russia.

Not after the Soviet Union collapsed. Putin is clearly trying to rebuild the USSR, which of course would mean a global panic, all because he's overcompensating for something.

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



Around the Network
CaptainExplosion said:

 

Putin would obviously use [the Kuril islands] to test weapons of mass destruction, even if it means his own people getting caught ...

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? 



VGPolyglot said:

Japan agreed to the Potsdam Declaration which specified that only the 4 main islands were to remain part of Japan, with the smaller islands being at the discretion of the Allies. So Japan agreed to relinquish control.

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.



Kaneman! said:
VGPolyglot said:

Japan agreed to the Potsdam Declaration which specified that only the 4 main islands were to remain part of Japan, with the smaller islands being at the discretion of the Allies. So Japan agreed to relinquish control.

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.



Farsala said:
Shikotan and Habomai should definitely be Japanese as agreed upon. Russia just uses it as a buffer for negotiations. 

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.

Last edited by mutantsushi - on 03 April 2018

mutantsushi said:

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.

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.