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?

Kaneman! said:

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.

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/



Around the Network
VGPolyglot said:
Ganoncrotch said:
I stand on the other side of the planet not caring about it because like 99.99999% of people on the planet, this doesn't impact me.

Thank you for your valuable insight into this topic.

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"



Why not check me out on youtube and help me on the way to 2k subs over at www.youtube.com/stormcloudlive

mutantsushi said:

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/

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



Kaneman! said:

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.

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.

Last edited by mutantsushi - on 03 April 2018

Kaneman! said:
mutantsushi said:

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"...

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

No doubt. A bit strange why non-Japanese mainstream media so casually ignores basic facts like that, but that goes into those media's loyalties, and the reasons why Japan was pressured to abandon the peace treaty & territorial deal in first place. Take away US pressure and I don't see why Japan wouldn't sign a deal tomorrow, so really it is not just bilateral Japan/Russia issue but re: Japan/US relationship as well.

EDIT: I guess I focus on this, because certainly one can take 'pragmatic' view of actual current (and past 70 year) control, but when "legalisms" are so often invoked in mainstream media, it seems bizarre to ignore actual legal details like this. Same can be said re: events in Ukraine/Crimea which was off-topic brought up here, although there one has Ukrainian law, Soviet law, and Russian Imperial history to consider. Of course media invoking legalisms hardly care about such details, it is simply buzzword to smear the side they oppose. 

Last edited by mutantsushi - on 03 April 2018

Around the Network

Relatedly, maybe a Russian could say why Russia keeps all Kuril islands (including non-formally disputed ones) in one province, when together they cover distance as long as Japan's entire main island (~750 mi/ 1300 km) and are mostly uninhabited except at far south and far north. Seems like north would be better off linked with Kamchatka which is shorter ferry or plane flight. Kamchatka already includes islands which are further away in Pacific. Simply a desire not to complicate negotiations with Japan? not that internal province borders per se matter for that. I assume all their Coast Guard stuff doesn't care about province borders.



Do a referendum with the residents of the islands.



Switch Friend Code : 3905-6122-2909 

contestgamer said:
CaptainExplosion said:

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?

Considering Russia's trigger happy attitude with nukes, no, they cannot. Much of the world has already said so, hence the Russian diplomats being kicked out.



CaptainExplosion said:
contestgamer said:

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

Considering Russia's trigger happy attitude with nukes, no, they cannot. Much of the world has already said so, hence the Russian diplomats being kicked out.

The US have proven to be much more trigger happy with nukes than Russia...



CaptainExplosion said:
contestgamer said:

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

Considering Russia's trigger happy attitude with nukes, no, they cannot. Much of the world has already said so, hence the Russian diplomats being kicked out.

Blatantly false.