Military Review

Russia and Japan: a long road to friendship


Should I be friends with neighbors?

Returning to the "old bayan" issue of the 4 islands of the Kuril ridge ... It is clear that one must defend one's territorial integrity and disprove another's integrity. So to say, "dig" under the neighbors. To create problems for them and self-doubt. It’s as if understandable. It seems to be logical. So many countries have done this almost always.

Why not? To unite their own citizens, to demonize a neighbor ... why not? It’s quite an intelligent and logical decision. So that, so to speak, the neighbor did not relax. Well, yes, after the 1945, the USSR did not demand anything from anyone and did not pretend to be anything. And something gave? Somehow it is not clear. But Japan, which openly presented territorial claims to it, for some reason “didn’t ban” and did not lose its authority. Somehow it's weird.

So are the islands Japanese? So why would it ... that is, that very militaristic Japan, defeated during WWII, began a new life after the 1945 year and even abandoned the armed forces, but not from claims to the "northern territories". And somehow you know it, it's rather strange. It was even customary for us to mock Japan’s “occupation and demilitarization” slightly, but for some reason all this damn time, the Japanese continued to pretend to be “northern territories”, don't you find this suspicious?

Soviet international journalists liked to emphasize with reproach in their voices the contradictory nature of the peaceful constitution of Japan and the presence of numerous American military bases ... But what the hell! All this time, Japan continued to pretend to Karafuto, ugh you, to the "northern territories". And this, by the way, completely depreciated the entire ostentatious "peacefulness" of the Japanese constitution. We love, you know, to give unreasonable advances to any and all.

Our continuous admiration for the “peacefulness” of post-war Japan in a strange way looked rather ambiguous in the light of its territorial claims ... That is, even Nazi Germany did not make such claims against us. Before the attack. Something like this. Even when Hitler was alive! Nazi Germany attacked the USSR without declaring war at all (she did it after start of hostilities). But in peace-loving, "fluffy", "pretty" and "anime" Japan, such claims had a place to be.

In the "peace" time. Sorry, but ignoring such claims is unprofessional enough, such things very often end badly. This article does not in any way pretend to be “historic” and is not an attempt to reconstruct history Russian-Japanese territorial relations. In no way. However, from the author’s point of view, it is the history of Russian-Japanese relations that is the endless history of the conflict.

Hot border

The border was constantly “corrected”, moved and disputed. Constantly around this were “graters”. To begin with, the first treaty (Simodsky Treaty) Russia signed in extremely a disadvantageous moment for themselves, which, in fact, the Japanese did not fail to take advantage of. 1855 year is an extremely unfortunate moment for the Russian side to sign any major agreements.

Bad start. Well, then it all went haphazardly. Russian-Japanese, Japanese intervention during the Civil War in Russia ... And even when the Japanese cultural tribes were knocked out of the mainland, with Sakhalin (its Soviet part) everything was far from so simple. 20-30-years - a very difficult period in Soviet-Japanese relations. Conflicts, confrontation and provocations (from the Japanese side) and attacks on Soviet ships. It was ... it was. There was a place to be. Hassan Lake and Khalkhin Gol are just small episodes of a great confrontation in the Far East.

Just in relation to the tragic events of the Great Patriotic War, this all fades into the background, but to be honest, the USSR and the Japanese Empire had practically no "peace" or "normal relations". There, in the Far East, a fairly tough confrontation constantly ensued, resulting in armed clashes. So it was before the signing of the Neutrality Pact of 13 on April 41, and so it was after its signing.

And the alarming expectation of a Japanese invasion in the summer and fall of the 41 year ... Accusing the USSR of "aggression" in the 1945 year, critics usually poke that "when the USSR is on the edge of the abyss, Japan keeps its word." Yes, no matter how! There has never actually been peace in the Far East (that is, normal relations). Neither in 20, nor in 30, nor during WWII. Constantly there were border provocations from the Japanese side and attacks on Soviet merchant ships.

That is, the Stalinist Soviet Union for objective reasons very was interested in at least normal relations with Japan. At least in normal. But these “normal” relations did not exist ... They were completely unattainable for the USSR. What is the "word" held by the Japanese? The attack on the USSR in the course of Operation Barbarossa was completely considered ... but this plan was postponed for objective reasons: from the point of view of the Japanese, the USSR was not defeated in the fall of the 1941, and there were too many Soviet troops left in the Far East.

And Hitler literally drove the Japanese into battle, and they referred - no, not to the Pact, not at all. They referred precisely to Soviet soldiers of the Far East. Something like this. That is, from 1904 to 1943, somehow it was all sad at the Far Eastern borders ... and quite ambiguous. And the defeat of the Kwantung Army is not a kind of “stab in the back” of the neutral. No, it was a rout of the old enemy. Yes, this enemy was in a difficult situation, so what does it change?

Once again, the historical “excursion” into Japanese-Russian relations requires much more text. But if so, glancing briefly at these very “relationships”, the question involuntarily arises: when were they good? And even after that “big war” somehow they (these same relationships) did not warm. Not at all warmed up. After the 1945 year, a lot has changed in the world, but not that. Not Russian-Japanese contradictions.

Neither after 1905, nor after 1945, any “normalization” arose. That is, we just tried to create the appearance of this very "normalization". Very high quality visibility. Simply we the issue of belonging to the 4 islands of the Kuril ridge was not considered at all (for the general public), which allowed a positive look at the future, but the Japanese did not appreciate this broad gesture. And they continued to insist on a "return."

That is, just the Brezhnev period is never a period of normalization of Russian-Japanese relations, no, it is a period of silence and ignoring. As we see, this did not lead to positive results. Rather, the opposite. The issue of “ownership” of the islands has not gone away and “suddenly” arose again already in the Gorbachev era. Suddenly for the inhabitants of the USSR, but not Japan.

And it seems a big mistake to consider the very “issue of ownership” as a kind of “minor trifle”. This is unfortunately not a trifle. If this is already 70 years interferes with the conclusion of a peace treaty, then this is not a trifle, it is something serious. This is precisely the question that has been allowing 70 for years to keep Russian-Japanese relations in a "suspended" state. And so here it is "easy" to solve it is unlikely to succeed.

Is our neighbor so “peaceful”?

And it was precisely this question that made it possible to have some kind of “dual” situation: the “peace-loving”, which refused the Japanese army, which has some territorial claims against the USSR. In essence, this is a unique situation in the period after the 1945 year. And who else there quite openly expressed their territorial claims? I don’t remember something like that. But just Japan (the former Axis country, if that!) Just expressed such claims! So when did the Second World War end for the USSR? In fact, the war ends with the signing of a peace treaty.

Of course, our American partners did everything so that this treaty was not signed, but, nevertheless, the fact remains. A special desire on the part of the Japanese to “wave the contractor” has somehow not been observed all these years.

They say that the current situation (70 years without a peace treaty) somehow looks abnormal. Here, in general, they agree, and even the Japanese. And they offer a “simple and elegant” solution: give them 4 islands. That's right, and nothing else. That is why even in the "saints 90" and even with Yeltsin they failed to sign anything? And the whole thing was precisely in the ultimatum of their requirements. But even in the 90-s, the position of Japan was not so strong, and the position of Russia was not so weak as to put forward ultimatums.

Here, gentlemen, the matter is not so much in patriotism and high morality as in the "balance of power." So, even in 90 it wasn’t so bad. And, damn it, Yeltsin was ready to give up two islands (a man very much dreamed of a “rapprochement”), but the Japanese were not ready for this. They were satisfied only option to "return" 4's islands. And just then an absolutely unbelievable offer arose to work under the 2 + 2 scheme, that is, “first” transfer the 2 islands, and then another 2 ... Are they holding us for fools?

"Unique" negotiations

Then, in the Japanese Foreign Ministry, the “grouping” was just crushed, which, based on the realities of life, suggested taking what they give (2 islands) and not bother with any unattainable nonsense. That is, it is just doubtful that the Japanese side is really striving for good relations. When they strive for the very good relations, then, as a rule, they do not put forward ultimatums. In general, ultimatums are put forward after the war is won. Here we are dealing not with negotiations, but with an ultimatum.

And this is a very big difference. All attempts by the Russian-Soviet side to agree on something just came up against the peremptory nature of Japanese demands. That is, our diplomats, being professionals, proceeded from the logical premise that the requirement of "return" is such a "beautiful entry" to the negotiating table, nothing more. Well, it’s reasonable, and then, at the negotiating table, you can already settle everything ...

So, in the future they were waiting for a "surprise": the Japanese really demanded a “return” of the 4 islands as a first step, which made all negotiations completely and completely meaningless. And here the question arises: how to build serious relations with a country for which Russia is reduced to the 4 islands? Does it make sense, is there any profit here? That is, if the Japanese were really interested primarily in good relations with Russia, then the question of the islands would somehow settle down. But they just want the islands exclusively. Do you feel the difference?

That is, our team of negotiators periodically changes and each new one proceeds from the principle of "garbage, we will destroy it." And after a while stumbles ... stumbles ... on the complete incompatibility of the opposite side. And our diplomats sincerely precipitate (apparently). That is, they (the Japanese) really want to get 4 islands at all costs. The difference between the Russian and Japanese approaches is, excuse me, the difference in the approach of a cynical businessman and fanatic.

Here you involuntarily ask yourself the very question: do they really want to be with us, no, not to be friends, well, just to maintain "normal" relations? Something is somehow unlike. It is categorically incomprehensible why we are so actively discussing the issue of precisely and specifically the islands and their affiliation. We clearly do not see forests behind the trees (beyond the islands - the essence of Russian-Japanese relations).

Sorry, but we fall into that very trap: give the islands back - and everything will be fine ... So give it or not? The fact that “everything will be fine” is perceived as a given, why it is not clear. Logically, this does not substantiate in any way: for the last hundred and twenty years we have been enemies. No, there were even periods of rapprochement with the Germans, with the British and Americans ... but not with the Japanese.

Are the Japanese very good people? Well, perhaps, perhaps ... But neither the Chinese nor the Koreans will agree with you. That is, in relation to Russia, the samurai comrades discuss exclusively the issue of the islands, and as if in “otvetka” ours also begin to discuss the same ridiculous question. If you look at the situation a little wider, then the picture, frankly, is not pleasing to the eye.

Do the Japanese really need those very islands (when it’s cold enough for them in Hokkaido)? Or do they need a reason to "get to the bottom" of Russia? Agree that there is perhaps no better way to spark a conflict than to put forward an inadequate demand, and then insist on its full implementation.

Russia and Japan: a long road to friendship
Photos used:
Articles from this series:
Life is not a fairy tale. Give the islands, and we will think about the peace treaty!

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site:

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. tihonmarine
    tihonmarine 23 September 2019 15: 27
    The article touches on only some aspects of Russian-Japanese relations, in fact it is more and more difficult. In one small article it is impossible to describe it, it should be started with the moments of Japan's "opening" by the United States. The states understood perfectly well that Japan's friendship with Russia should not be allowed, because there would be no place for them there. At this time, there is another round of Russian-Japanese tension. The issue of returning the islands to Japan has been discussed for a long time. But besides Japan, Western countries and their masters are trying to present WWII in which the USSR is no longer a liberator, but an invader, some generals of the West are already "media" striking Kaliningrad. Everything is painted here, what to do to whom. The recognition of the USSR not as a liberator, but as an invader is only the first part of the plan. And if we imagine that Russia will transfer at least two islands to Japan, after a while Sakhalin and other islands. Appetite comes with eating, the West will demand the Kaliningrad region, and Nikel and Vyborg (with the adjacent territories.) And then it's even scary to imagine what will begin.
    1. igorbrsv
      igorbrsv 23 September 2019 16: 17
      And only to the states no one has complaints wassat (at the vassals).
      The Japanese and I have never been friends and never will be.
      But all the same, it’s clear that if the ears of the United States were not stuck here, the Japanese would not have thought about the islands and would have been extremely interested in a peace treaty.
      And the same can be said about Europe. It would be quieter than a mouse.
      One thing is certain. Sakhalin and Iturup are not visible to either the Japanese or the states. Otherwise, we will all see the last moments of life on earth. Although some may suffer wassat
      1. vlad106
        vlad106 23 September 2019 22: 59
        Quote: igorbrsv
        The Japanese and I have never been friends and never will be

        Friendship is necessary, at least for the sake of sight. only you can never believe them
      2. Kronos
        Kronos 24 September 2019 11: 37
        There was one during the time of the Empire when the Japanese sucked up to Russia
    2. Kuroneko
      Kuroneko 23 September 2019 18: 07
      Quote: tihonmarine
      it should start with the moments of the "autopsy" by Japan by the United States.

      No, this must begin precisely with the Shimodsk Treaty (and, in fact, earlier, since the Russian Cossacks came to the Kuril Islands and Sakhalin before the Japanese).
      In general, like is drawn to like. Both the Japanese and the Americans pursued the same policy of genocide against the indigenous population. So it is not surprising that Japan and America eventually "sang together":
      Under the Shimod Treaty of 1855, Sakhalin was in common Japanese-Russian use, and the Kuril Islands were divided as follows: Japan owned the ridge of Habomai, Kunashir and Iturup, and Russia owned the islands from Urup to Shumushu. And the Kuril Ainu were more attracted to the Russians than to the Japanese: many of them knew the Russian language and were Orthodox. The reason for this state of affairs was that the Russian colonial system, despite many abuses of yasak collectors and armed conflicts provoked by the Cossacks, was much milder than the Japanese. The Ainu did not break out of their traditional milieu, they were not forced to radically change their lifestyle, nor were they reduced to the position of slaves. They lived in the same place where they lived before the arrival of the Russians, and did the same things.
      In 1875, under the St. Petersburg Treaty, all of Sakhalin was assigned to Russia, and all the Kuril Islands were transferred to Japan.
      The North Kuril Ainu did not dare to part with their homeland. And then they suffered the most difficult fate: the Japanese transported all the North Kuril Ainu to the island of Shikotan, robbed them of all fishing gear and boats, forbade them to go to sea without permission; instead, the Ainu were involved in various jobs, for which they received rice, vegetables, some fish and sake, which absolutely did not correspond to the traditional diet of the North Kuril Ainu, which consisted of sea animal meat and fish. In addition, the Kuril Ainu found themselves on Shikotan under conditions of unnatural crowding, while the characteristic ethnoecological feature of the Kuril Ainu was the resettlement in small groups, and many islands remained generally uninhabited and were used by the Ainu as hunting grounds for the sparing regime. It should also be borne in mind that many Japanese lived on Shikotan.
      Many Ainu died in the first year. Destruction of the traditional way of the Kuril Ainu led to the fact that most residents of the reservation passed away. However, the terrible fate of the Kuril Ainu very soon became known to the Japanese and foreign public. The reservation was liquidated. The surviving handful - no more than 20 people, sick and impoverished - were taken to Hokkaido. In the 1970s, there were data on 17 Kuril Ainu, however, it is not clear how many of them came from Shikotan.
      On Sakhalin, at the time when it was in joint Japanese-Russian use, the Ainu were in bondage to the seasonal Japanese industrialists who came for the summer. The Japanese blocked the mouths of large spawning rivers, so the fish simply did not reach the upper reaches, and the Ainu had to go to the seashore to get at least some food. Here, they immediately became dependent on the Japanese. The Japanese gave the Ainu tackle and took all the best out of the catch. The Ainu were forbidden to have their own gear. With the departure of the Japanese, the Ainu remained without a sufficient supply of fish, and by the end of winter they almost always went hungry. The Russian administration dealt with the northern part of the island, surrendering the southern arbitrariness of Japanese industrialists, who, understanding that their stay on the island would be short-lived, sought to exploit its natural resources as intensively as possible. After Sakhalin came under the undivided possession of Russia under the Petersburg Treaty, the Ainu situation improved somewhat, however, it cannot be said that penal servitude on Sakhalin contributed to the development of the Ainu culture.
      After the Russo-Japanese War, when southern Sakhalin turned into the governorate of Karafuto, the old Japanese order returned again. The island was intensively populated by immigrants, and soon the newcomer population exceeded the Ainu population many times over. In 1914, all the Ainu of Karafuto were collected in 10 settlements. The movement of the inhabitants of these reservations around the island was limited. The Japanese in every possible way fought with traditional culture, the traditional beliefs of the Ainu, tried to make them live in Japanese. The conversion of all Ainu to Japanese subjects in 1933 also served as assimilation goals. Everyone was given Japanese surnames, and the younger generation later received Japanese names.
      After the defeat of Japan in World War II in 1945, it was how the Japanese Ainu subjects came under repatriation. Only about 200 people remained.
    3. Mikhail Drabkin
      Mikhail Drabkin 23 September 2019 23: 00
      You tihonmarine write
      The article only touches on some aspects of Russian-Japanese relations, in fact it’s all more complicated.,

      you can not give the island. Russia needs to be strong, and especially in the Far East. And do not look for complications with China by the way.

      -It must be remembered that the absence of a peace treaty after the cessation of hostilities === this means a state of ceasefire during the war.
      —- The war with Japan is not formally finished !!! And mutual embassies in the context of the state of war are just delegations for negotiations on the conditions for ending the war.
      —- The Japanese think of time as eras. For them, relations with Russia are a continuous era. Consequently, the state of war with Russia invariably, even taking into account the 74-year truce.
      -No agreement === there is a state of war. In solid draft: Russia will weaken and Japan may resume hostilities. And in terms of precedent and international law, Japan should not even declare war on Russia. And it will not be formally considered an aggressor !!!
      —- This is perfectly understood by the Russian Foreign Ministry, they just don’t talk about it out loud.
      Moreover, Russia has no complaints against Japan, and from the point of view of international law, Russia cannot start hostilities without violating it.
      —- We will take into account that Japan has the only experience in nuclear war. And Japan has international sympathy, including Russian !!! Therefore, it will be necessary to fight with Japan nuclear-free .... And this is without taking into account the role of America in the possible continuation / renewal of the war ...
      —- Such are the options due to the lack of a peace treaty with Japan while Russia is weakening.

      you can not give the island. Russia needs to be strong, and especially in the Far East. And do not look for complications with China by the way.
      1. lev1759
        lev1759 23 September 2019 23: 33
        China and Korea do not have a peace treaty with the Japanese, but this does not prevent them from developing normal good neighborly relations. (I do not mean the disputed islands). A peace treaty with the USSR was artificially inflated in order to prevent the development of our relations ...
  2. Svarog
    Svarog 23 September 2019 15: 30
    Are the Japanese very good people? Well maybe, maybe

    Good Japanese .. bad .. generally on the drum, you need to forget the theme of the islands. There should not be any revisions based on the results of the Second World War.
    1. igorbrsv
      igorbrsv 23 September 2019 16: 20
      It should not ... Like the precedent from Kosovo should not have been ... Late. There is a world chaos ... Redistribution wanted to say.
    2. Lexus
      Lexus 23 September 2019 17: 14
      A dubious pleasure is the acquisition of an imaginary "friend" in exchange for a kidney / lung. And around a strong and healthy creature, vultures do not clump together.
  3. vvvjak
    vvvjak 23 September 2019 15: 31
    As the "brothers" say, "For the sebe trohi I may, and hand out nyama." And let them not twist "japaopa".
  4. bar
    bar 23 September 2019 15: 35
    how to build a serious relationship with a country for which Russia is reduced to 4 islands? Does it make sense, is there any profit here?

    The meaning of building relationships "is in the very _process_ of building, which somewhat reduces tension. Neither side seriously believes in" serious relationships ".
    1. igorbrsv
      igorbrsv 23 September 2019 16: 22
      Usa believe it wassat
      And hope
    EDWARD 23 September 2019 15: 38
    Japan is like the proverb "in a quiet swamp. Devils are found"
    1. vvvjak
      vvvjak 23 September 2019 15: 39
      Quote: EDWARD
      Japan is like the proverb "in a quiet swamp. Devils are found"

      What the hell are the Americans or what?
  6. yehat
    yehat 23 September 2019 15: 41
    The author of the article makes a generally reasoned, but incomplete and therefore fundamentally incorrect analysis.
    1. The history of the islands does not begin with the Shimod Treaty (1855). Her story is a bunch older. The bottom line is that the settlements of Russian hunters in Hokkaido and the Kuril ridge were there before, Hokkaido became part of Japan only in 1869 after the completion of their operation to clean up the local population - both Ainu and Russian strongholds. The Simda treaty of 1855 strangely gave away territories that the Japanese did not control at that time and lived only in the south of Hokkaido (about where the habitable area ends now)
    And the history of the islands can be described as actually used by the Republic of Ingushetia and the Russian-American company until 1855. in 1811, the Golovnin expedition brought to St. Petersburg a detailed description of all the islands of the ridge and Hokkaido, and note that there is not a word about the Japanese, they are just neighbors. This is a question of primacy.
    2. With whom to negotiate, Japan has a very atypical system of diplomacy and this must be understood. Our Japanese diplomats did not find any surprises there, they simply do not listen to the leadership and set inadequate goals.
    To establish relations with Japan, a long preparatory work is needed.
    Japanese policy is not decided by diplomats, but by the consolidated position of the country's richest families (there are only 7 of them).
    And to convince them, it’s not enough to put Lavrov on a plane. We need a permanent mission with broad government support.
    3. Negotiability. Japan was able to negotiate even with China, despite the war and disputes over the territories.
    It is only necessary to find a normal position for negotiations. And of course, the Japanese are not blind. Looking at the degradation of the Far East territories, no one will agree on an equal footing with the Russian Federation - not even North Korea.
    1. Galleon
      Galleon 23 September 2019 15: 52
      You're wrong. Since the signing of the Shimodo Treaty, a Russian consulate existed in Hakodate (Hokkaido), for the ships of the Pacific Squadron went to winter there from Vladivostok. Agree that if there were no legal basis, the Russian consulate would not have been opened there. And the description of the Kuril Islands before Hokkaido, by the way, was carried out in the 1720s by the Kamchatka Cossack Ivan (Ignatius as a monk) Kozyrevsky. He received an order for this journey as a substitute for the death penalty. An interesting person, but this is no longer on the topic of the article.
    2. kuz363
      kuz363 23 September 2019 17: 29
      No need to delve into a 200-year history with Japan. Who knows who promised that to anyone. We must look at the results of World War 2 and that’s it.
  7. tracer
    tracer 23 September 2019 15: 55
    There has never been and never will be any friendship between Russia and Japan. The article well reveals the essence of the "absence of a peace treaty". The point (as the author rightly suggests) is not at all about the islands, or rather not quite about them. The point is in Japan itself, with its endless military aspirations. I see well in a country where everything is "changed" the attitude of people from this region to the Japanese. To put it mildly, they are not liked. More precisely ... I will not speak.
    On V.O. there has been a series of excellent articles on Japan and its culture. I advise everyone to read it. So, that "friendship" with sworn partners is impossible, only economic cooperation is possible, and even it is rejected at the level of the idea itself (joint economy on the islands)
    cunning (as they think) samurai. And for those who believe in their anime pikachu, I advise you to look at the materials on the topic "Unit 731".
    1. kuz363
      kuz363 23 September 2019 17: 33
      What kind of economic cooperation is there? Pure profanity. Development of optimization of traffic flows, participation in the environment, population monitoring in terms of health care, construction of fish processing plants ... Well, products are naturally in Japan - both closer and cheaper than feeding the European part of Russia
      1. tracer
        tracer 23 September 2019 19: 14
        "The Japanese will come to order now"? I don’t think ..
  8. Basarev
    Basarev 23 September 2019 16: 49
    The main trouble is not the inviolability of the Japanese position. And the fact that about the peace treaty, the paper of 56 years and the transfer of the islands spoke in the Kremlin, even the person personally. And they spoke precisely in the sense that they were going to transmit. But the Japanese will not stop on four islands. Then they will demand the Portsmouth border, and later on the initial demands of the end of the Russo-Japanese border — that is, all of Sakhalin and almost land on the continent.
    1. tracer
      tracer 23 September 2019 19: 16
      I think that most literate people understand that Japan will not stop at its demands and wet pink fantasies. Islands to buy them clearly will not work. The best option is "Agree to negotiate". So as not to hold on ..
      1. Basarev
        Basarev 23 September 2019 19: 36
        Or you can roll a counter claim. So remember that Russian explorers visited Hokkaido before the Japanese themselves, and therefore, by right of first discovery, our island.
      2. tracer
        tracer 25 September 2019 23: 24
        Who are you the lone minuser?
  9. Ross xnumx
    Ross xnumx 23 September 2019 16: 58
    The article affects ... Yes, nothing and no one affects this article. Especially she does not touch the Japanese authorities.
    We must understand that the system established by the Bretton Woods Agreement does not allow the dominance of more than one country in the world, which is supposedly given the right to print banknotes for all. All countries that, by hint, nod, body movement or a simple look, cast doubt on such rules of the world order are destroyed (if possible).
    Russia is one of those "bones" that are stuck in the throat of the voracious "world elite" - this club of "Bilderbergs", "Steins", "Burgs", etc. That is why the neighboring countries around us are told that Russia stole from you, it owes you, you have the right to compensation.
    If earlier, in Soviet times, there were no economic and moral levers of pressure on the state power of the country, today there are a lot of them - we have "stuck" into the international rules of the game, where we were even given a place and everyone is trying to squeeze out the country to the last ruble, pointing to sometime in the past received bonus chips.
    This fuss on the Far East is not without reason. HMS, EBN, GDP, ladies' concessions in territorial issues (I won’t enumerate - you see, the USSR lands became an exorbitant load for them, I’m not talking about the territories of the Republic of Ingushetia) they created a whole chain of sequences in which only the lazy does not require dividends from Russia.
    It is time for Russia to declare firmly and decisively in this matter, without giving any reason for reflection and without giving up hope:
    IF THE WHOLE HAND IS 100% WE ARE READY TO GIVE YOU HALF !!! (as the late Alexander Ivanovich said ... by the way, he was a good candidate for the post of Moscow Region)

  10. yehat
    yehat 23 September 2019 17: 12
    Quote: Galleon
    there was a Russian consulate in Hakodate (Hokkaido)

    this consulate is interesting in itself
    firstly, the Japanese at that time did NOT control most of Hokkaido
    secondly, it is very interesting with whom exactly the contract was, because the revolution of the Tokugawa heritage and the bureaucracy on the restoration of the emperor’s power was right on the nose.
    Thirdly, these are remote territories, to which, because of the complexity of navigation, the Japanese did not really swim themselves.
    Fourth, this whole Simodo treaty is a continuation of strange dances around the United States and a continuation of strange events like the sale of Alaska. The RI Embassy in Japan was not particularly needed.
  11. yehat
    yehat 23 September 2019 17: 42
    Quote: kuz363
    We must look at the results of World War 2 and that’s it.

    hiding behind pieces of paper is the biggest mistake.
    What happened after the Molotov-Ribentrop Pact, to remind you?
    And what happened after the signing of the Munich agreement?
    Was Japan not an ally of Russia when it attacked the Far East during the WWII?
    The results should not be watched, but defended and preferably by force.
    But power is not the artillery unit on the islands. Strength is the faith of opponents in your capabilities, and I am not talking only about the army or GDP data.
    But this faith does not exist and, by the way, is fair.
  12. Nikolai
    Nikolai 24 September 2019 16: 43
    And do not delve into the history. The islands are our land and point. A strong position is needed to resolve any issue. This is an aggressive support of the territorial claims of other countries to Japan in all forms, from geographical maps and school history books to recognition of disputed territories by other countries. The recognition of the genocide by the Japanese by the Chinese, Koreans, Malaysians, etc. Demonstrative missile launches (as North Koreans do), uncompromising struggle with Japanese poachers in our waters, struggle for democracy and defective rights in Japan. Environmental claims against Japanese nuclear energy (what about Fukushima and our damage?). Initiation of cases against the fish mafia of the Russian Federation and Japan, etc. We have a lot of complaints. Port Arthur and Tsushima will be answered.
  13. evgen1221
    evgen1221 26 September 2019 19: 18
    Well, the ridge islands are more likely to amers who have settled in Japan, they need as 4 unsinkable aircraft carriers with the aim of specifically locking the fleet. Well, the economic development of the islands by Japan is controversial, rather the military component is more valuable in the islands for them, as well as for us, however, we need it and more important.
  14. Shteffan
    Shteffan 27 September 2019 10: 03
    The author of the declaration of war by Germany was before the war.
    1. Olezhek
      29 September 2019 10: 10
      Can you justify?
      1. Shteffan
        Shteffan 30 September 2019 22: 13
        At 3 o'clock in the night they handed them over. Read the interrogations at Nuremberg of those who were hanged. And also listen to the recording of Molotov's appeal about the declaration of war. This Bolshevik myth about "... treacherously and without a declaration of war ..." has long been debunked ... but I watch many still in the tank.
        1. Olezhek
          10 October 2019 11: 01
          And in order to finally resolve the issue in favor of the fact that Germany attacked the Soviet Union without declaring war and that no one presented any lengthy “note of the German Foreign Ministry” to the Soviet side, we turn to genuine documents.

          Conversation of the People's Commissar of Foreign Affairs of the USSR


          22 June 1941 g.,

          at 5 hour 30 min in the morning


          Schulenburg, who had come to the reception accompanied by adviser Hilger, said that he should declare with the deepest regret that he didn’t know anything even at the reception of the Commissar of Comrade Molotov last night. Tonight, he says, several telegrams were received from Berlin. The German government instructed him to convey the following note to the Soviet government:

          1. Olezhek
            10 October 2019 11: 27
            War was declared:
            22 of June 1941 in 4: 00 The Imperial Minister of Foreign Affairs Ribbentrop handed the Soviet Ambassador in Berlin Dekanozov a note declaring war and three appendices to it: .......... In the early morning of 22 on June 1941 after artillery and aviation training German troops crossed the border of the USSR. After that, in 5: 30 in the morning, German Ambassador to the USSR V. Schulenburg appeared to the People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the USSR V.M. Molotov and made a statement, the content of which was that the Soviet government pursued a subversive policy in Germany and in occupied by it countries, pursued a foreign policy directed against Germany, and "concentrated on the German border all its troops in full combat readiness." The statement ended with the following words: “The Führer therefore ordered the German armed forces to counter this threat with all means at their disposal.” [22] Together with the note, he handed over a set of documents identical to those given by Ribbentrop to Dekanozov.
            (from the article "The Great Patriotic War")

            Do not forget that German troops began fighting in 3.30. Look, for example, the Chronicle of the Great Patriotic War / June 1941 of the year # 22 of June 1941 of the year. 1-th day of war or other sources. The declaration of war after the outbreak of war does not mean that a war has been declared. So the statement that the war was declared is not true.

            Explanation of the declaration of war is possible by
            look in the article Declaration of war. The III Convention on the Discovery of Hostilities (The Hague Convention) states that "... hostilities between them shall not begin without prior and explicit warning" (Article 1). In the event of the beginning of World War II, there was no preliminary declaration of war; statements by the German government in Berlin and Moscow were handed out after the outbreak of hostilities, which began in different places from 3.05 to 3.15 according to Central European time (4.05 - 4.15 according to Moscow time).

            Interesting information with links to sources is given in 22 of June 1941 of the year. The Barbarossa. About the time of the attack on the USSR without declaring war. An example of a declaration of war in accordance with the Hague Convention - on 8 of August 1945 of the year of the USSR, the Japanese ambassador announced his accession to the Potsdam Declaration and declared war on Japan. On August dawn of the USSR, 9 began military operations in Manchuria against Japan. The German attack on the USSR on 22 of June 1941 of the year without declaring war is the official legal formulation of the USSR.
          2. The comment was deleted.
  15. EvilLion
    EvilLion 8 December 2021 12: 05
    Actually, the war ends with the signing of a peace treaty.

    Not necessary. For example, Ivan IV did not sign anything with the Kazan Khanate in 1552. Russian officials simply arrived and occupied the offices that had survived the assault.

    In the case of Japan, the USSR fulfilled its tasks, while the allies clearly limited Japan's sovereignty, and neither the Kurils nor Sakhalin were included there. The war was terminated without prior notice, which was later confirmed by both sides in writing. That is, the war is officially over.

    In general, ultimatums are issued after a won war.

    Ultimatums are put forward before the war.

    As for the islands, the first ideas of exchanging islands for something were under Khrushchev. So the USSR threw in some kind of agreement of intent, which it later abandoned, and now Russian diplomats, who are obliged to know this piece of paper, are obliged to listen when they remember it. Thank you, dear Nikita Sergeevich, to shout.

    In general, Russia in 2014 took Crimea, and legally there is still a question, but whether it was legally transferred to the Ukrainian SSR at one time, and what is there with the separate city of Sevastopol. Ukrainians can now put forward territorial claims, but our Foreign Ministry will not even listen to them. This question will be resolved someday, but without ukrov. In fact, the position of the West on this issue does not leave any special alternatives to the liquidation of Ukraine, and the closure of all territorial issues due to the disappearance of one of the parties.