Military Review

How Russia will respond to Japanese claims for the Kuril Islands after the adoption of the amendments: reflections

67

On July 16, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, answering a question from a Japanese journalist, said at a briefing that Russia is negotiating with Japan to sign a document that goes beyond the peace agreement. It will touch upon various spheres of cooperation between the two countries, which will "take our relations to a qualitatively new level."


Zakharova also mentioned that negotiations on a peace treaty do not touch upon issues of border demarcation or delimitation:

In our dialogue with Tokyo, we have always proceeded from the inviolability of our borders and stressed the need for Japan to recognize the results of World War II in full, including the full ownership of the South Kuril Islands to the Russian Federation. There are no changes. Moreover, there can be no changes.

A week earlier, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov confirmed his commitment to all previous agreements, including the 1956 Joint Soviet-Japanese Declaration:

Russia reaffirmed its adherence to all the agreements that the Soviet Union once concluded. This also applies to the 1956 declaration, in accordance with which we are discussing with our Japanese colleagues the need to conclude a peace treaty.

At first glance, these words of Russian diplomats show a firm position of the state, which does not provide for the transfer of its territories to foreign powers. But there are also alarming moments that you will not immediately notice.

First, this is Lavrov's mention of commitment to the 1956 declaration. As I understand it, it provides for the transfer of the two South Kuril Islands to the Japanese immediately after the conclusion of a peace treaty. Then it is not clear how this statement is combined with the adopted amendment to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, where any alienation of territories is prohibited, with the exception of cases of demarcation and delimitation of borders. It turns out that Russia, as it were, agreed to give up the two islands, but perhaps it would not give up, since this is now prohibited by the Constitution?

The second alarming point is the question posed by the Japanese journalist at the briefing and the response form to Maria Zakharova. The Japanese asked if the exceptions to the delimitation and demarcation amendment to the Constitution applied to actions to implement the 1956 treaty. The official representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry confirmed that no islands of Tokyo can be seen in any case (see above), but she did not say whether the terms “demarcation” and “delimitation” are suitable for Japanese claims. Delimitation is the drawing of a border between two states on a map based on their mutual agreement.

Based on this, it can be assumed that the Japanese still have a false hope that they will someday be given at least two islands. In principle, they might think that this will happen immediately after the signing of a peace treaty with Russia.

And then does our country need this treaty if it can create problems for us? Are we fighting with Japan? We are not at war, and not only in fact, but also legally. The state of war between our countries has officially ended, which is recorded in the same 1956 declaration. Moreover, diplomatic relations, economic and cultural ties have long been established between our countries. And what, the only thing that we lack for complete harmony is the Russian-Japanese peace treaty?

By the way, Lavrov did not say that Russia was seeking to conclude it. He only noticed that, based on the 1956 Declaration, the parties were discussing the need for its conclusion. And these are "two big differences."

I have no doubt that the transfer of Russian territories to foreign countries is impossible as long as the current president remains in office. But how the successor will behave, no one knows. And if Russian-Japanese relations remain in limbo, he may be tempted to turn the unconstitutional “alienation” into an absolutely legitimate “delimitation of the border,” in which several islands are on its other side.

Of course, forecasting is a thankless task, but there is a hint in the words of Maria Zakharova about the strategy that Russia could choose in relation to Japan. The representative of the Foreign Ministry said that the two countries should draw up a document that goes beyond the framework of the peace treaty and includes many aspects of their relationship. If the parties decide to conclude such an agreement, then it should not be called a "peace treaty", but somehow in a different way. Then the reasons for territorial claims will disappear.

And we should understand that although Russia is a large country, we do not have territories to transfer to other states and, I hope, never will.
Photos used:
Russian Foreign Ministry
67 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. rocket757
    rocket757 18 July 2020 10: 37 New
    +4
    It is possible to argue that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is beyond the scope of the generally accepted political science ..... but this is more of the author’s personal imagination than the real state of affairs.
    Of course, to think that this is forever, the same assumption, at the moment it is logical to be guided by the adopted laws and decisions of the top leadership.
    In general, time will tell.
    You can arrange a dispute, make a bet ...
    1. parusnik
      parusnik 18 July 2020 11: 06 New
      +3
      You can arrange a dispute, make a bet ...
      ... Will they give it back or not? laughing
      1. Svarog
        Svarog 18 July 2020 11: 12 New
        11
        Quote: parusnik
        You can arrange a dispute, make a bet ...
        ... Will they give it back or not? laughing

        Will they sell or not?
        1. NIKN
          NIKN 18 July 2020 11: 30 New
          +7
          Quote: Svarog
          Will they sell or not?

          There are still enough "Yeltsins" with "Gorbachevs" (I would say most of the applicants for posts that allow them to create something), I mean those who "have their own (personal) shirt closer to the body", so that you need to be very gambling.
          1. depressant
            depressant 18 July 2020 12: 26 New
            21
            Colleagues, it seems to me that many simply do not realize the vile essence of the amendment of the deputy Klishas. Here is the amendment:

            “The Russian Federation ensures the protection of its sovereignty and territorial integrity. Actions (with the exception of delimitation, demarcation, redemarcation of the state border of the Russian Federation with neighboring states) aimed at alienating part of the territory of the Russian Federation, as well as calls for such actions, are not allowed. "

            In combination with federal law 114-FZ, which equates calls for the alienation of part of the territory from the Russian Federation with extremism, and therefore terrorism, the amendment looks solid and even encouraging. And in fact?
            The word "delimitation" means that the issue of alienation of a territory is now exclusively within the competence of the country's supreme power, and that alienation does not exclude at all.
            According to the Constitution of the USSR, the republics had the right to self-determination and, after holding a referendum, could withdraw from it. Now, according to the Klishas amendment, the territorial entities of the Russian Federation do not have such a right. If Chechnya wants to leave the Russian Federation, then all residents of Chechnya, without exception, who agree with this decision, will be recognized as terrorists and will be punished under Federal Law 114-RF. But if President Putin, as a result of negotiations with Georgia (the common border with the Russian Federation in Chechnya), wants to give Chechnya to the Georgians, and they agree to take it, then according to the Constitution so be it. The same situation is in the Kuril Islands. Because the amendment contains the word "delimitation". It simply means that the transfer of part of the territory of the Russian Federation to another country is decided not by a popular referendum, but through negotiations between the country's top leadership and the leadership of the other interested country. And the wishlist of the population has nothing to do with it. If our government wants to give the Kuril Islands to Japan, it will give it up and, in accordance with the Constitutional norm, will not ask us. And if we start to strain, we will be recognized as extremists ...
            In other words, the central government pulled over the solution of the issue of dividing the country into itself. Which, on the one hand, is good, because it will moderate the separatist fervor of some regions, and especially regional leaders. But will the USSR rule out the situation?
            Indeed, on the other hand, it is not known what color urine can hit someone's important head and what that head will advise the Chief. He now has the right to divide the country and it is solely.
            1. NIKN
              NIKN 18 July 2020 12: 55 New
              +1
              "Delimitation", the definition of borders through negotiations in general terms, on a map, without demarcation (which takes place later), that is, without drawing a specific line.
              Here, if we do not exclude these points (with the exception of delimitation, demarcation, redemarcation of the state border of the Russian Federation with neighboring states) note those with neighboring states, then it will not be possible to adjust something in mutual interests with immediate neighbors. Let's just say the adjacent borders of Chechnya are somehow not entirely correct to tie to the border of the Russian Federation. It’s not correct to talk about changing boundaries and self-determination in one bottle, these are different directions. The "delimitation" that you singled out only as an indication that this is what the leaders are doing in the negotiations is just taking it out of context. In the end, it will not do without demarcation, in which, in fact, it is not the people who take part but special structures.
              For some reason, your fears emphasize that everyone is against people, but the constitution without this amendment absolutely did not restrict the ability to trade territories without asking anyone. But at the request of the "Maidan" (color revolution), it will no longer be possible to tear off the territory, this is the essence of the amendment. I think it is not worth explaining to you what a "maidan" (color revolution) is, because it is the domination of a minority of people trained for a specific purpose over the absolute majority of the population.
              It turned out a little messy, I ask you to understand the meaning and not find fault with the details.
              Well, like that. hi
              1. depressant
                depressant 18 July 2020 13: 46 New
                12
                Colleague of NIKNN, I am not at all focused on the right of people to decide the issue of dividing the country into parts by the Maidan, since I am categorically against any outbursts of aggression of this kind. I am focused on the lack of rights of people in the issue of confronting the authorities, if she, the authorities, suddenly decides to alienate the territories. By the delimitation amendment, we are all simply excluded from the decision-making process. Nobody will ask our opinion. Zakharova's spells are designed for those who do not want to delve into. And Lavrov sadly made it clear how things really are. Having found his last statement on the Internet, which exactly repeated all last year's previous ones, I was terribly surprised: how could it be? We have just voted on the amendment on the integrity of the country, and he again carries a blizzard. I had to rummage around the Internet and find this very damn delimitation, and then everything fell into place. The issue of the country's integrity is now decided not by a referendum, not by the Maidan, not by the head of the alienated territory and not by its population, but by one person - the head of state, the only one who, according to delimitation, is endowed with such a right. It’s bad if we live up to the time when Putin’s talking head appears on TV, which is accessible to us and will very convincingly explain what kind of goodies we will get from Japan by handing over the Kuril Islands to it, and asks for understanding ...
                And there, by the way, through the straits between the islands - a convenient and unimpeded exit of our submarines to the Pacific Ocean.
                1. NIKN
                  NIKN 18 July 2020 14: 05 New
                  +1
                  Quote: depressant
                  I am focused on the lack of rights of people in the issue of confronting the authorities, if she, the authorities, suddenly decides to alienate the territories.

                  Dear Colleague! I apologized for the confusion in my presentation. However, I pointed out that without this amendment we were in the same position. Who when asked the people if the decision was made? A striking example is "Pension Reform". And yet, now this amendment gives a certain chance to protect oneself from outside actions (the same Maidans and targeted actions of the local authorities). And I still hope that this amendment is not aimed at opening up opportunities for the sale of our land or something like that. But it is from all sorts of insinuations such as declaring themselves independent in the localities with the transition under the jurisdiction of whoever is there is now protection.
                  Well, like that.
                  Yours! hi
                  1. depressant
                    depressant 18 July 2020 14: 36 New
                    +7
                    Yes, colleague of NIKNN, that's right. The same Chuvashia and Tatarstan will have to carefully re-read their constitutions, it hurts them with the smell of separatism. There, the main peoples are indigenous, and all the rest, as it were, had come before, if anything, the “newcomers” could, on occasion, at least theoretically, be asked to go out. Now, they will probably have to change their own constitutional provisions of this kind. All these impulses for national self-consciousness, and on its basis - for self-determination, which destroyed the USSR, and in fact - to legalize the power ambitions of the local kings, have already gotten pretty bad. Who is preventing you from being realized within your own national culture? All roads are open! But no, even the Mansi started talking about being oppressed. Who, forgive me, oppresses? Learn, develop, take worthy places in this life! Another thing is that for many people the road in life is now closed. But the national consciousness sees that it is closed only for his particular people, for the rest, for whom it is also closed, he does not care! I believe that in this regard, the law on the integrity of the country is extremely useful. Let all the peoples and nationalities of our country finally see each other and understand that we live together forever, and there is nowhere to go from this. Moreover, the practice of separation has shown its perverseness.
                    1. NIKN
                      NIKN 18 July 2020 14: 47 New
                      +2
                      I agree. Good luck and just happiness! smile love hi
      2. rocket757
        rocket757 18 July 2020 11: 51 New
        0
        The subject of the dispute can be chosen to taste.
        For example, I already have a stake for the Sultan. We will see the result by November. A short-distance dispute for a very "tasty" prize!
        This is how it will turn out with the descendants of the samurai .... The "game" can be endless, so the time frame of the dispute will have to be limited.
        A good time guide, before the presidential elections, for example .... but here the stakes will be very unequal! For a longer period ... doubtful. We do not have a bookmaker here, there is nowhere to keep a deposit .... they only hope for a fair word.
        1. depressant
          depressant 18 July 2020 16: 21 New
          +8
          Colleague rocket757, I would not be so optimistic about the opportunities open to Putin. Tsar, sultan ... But what's the difference! By taking on a role in the issue of dividing the country into parts and thereby designating its integrity while he is alive, Putin thereby took on a huge responsibility. No law on integrity will keep the country from disintegration, if in the near future the issue of organizing a system for implementing economic tasks is not resolved, or at least begins to be resolved. Simply put, the question of how the government works, each of the ministries, departments, agencies, inspections and so on. Even last year, I said that Putin's national projects are dying in the bowels of ministries and departments. Indeed, having distributed the task to his deputies, the minister can sleep peacefully, only occasionally asking the question "How are you guys?" and getting the answer from the guys "We are working!" And the fact that the whole project is now divided into many almost unrelated parts, some of which may be unfulfilled or, within the framework of "objective" circumstances, are unrealizable in principle, is not known to the minister. Going down the chain further, individual parts of the project increasingly lose their significance in the eyes of the performers as a part of a large and important whole, and non-performance or careless performance becomes an unpunished disaster. A project that has been loosened up in this way simply dies. Redundancy of bureaucracy can bury any good intentions. On a neighboring topic, I already mentioned that the country is in dire need of administrative reform. The number of bureaucrats in the country, thanks to the connivance of Mr. Medvedev and Putin himself, who is busy with international affairs, has doubled in 20 years. Such a mass of bureaucracy is hardly well managed. According to the Max Ringelman vertical effect, it is rather bad or even uncontrollable at all due to the redundancy of intermediate, parallel and even unnecessary links (the vertical of power!). That is why we often hear the notorious "There is no time to swing!" But any attempt to shake the huge state mechanism for a good cause, producing visible fluctuations only in the upper echelons of power, will not even reach the lower ones. If Putin does not resolve this issue, then it will be possible to say that the Tsar is naked. What, in fact, was all 20 years.
          And here the question arises: dear man, what have you been doing for so long and why did you suddenly care now?
          One of my colleagues gave an amazing answer to this question on one of the nearest forums (I will definitely find the author and write it down in my notebook).
          Gorbachev's perestroika happened when most of the Great Patriotic War participants retired. The Yeltsin coup took place when most of the leaders of all levels - members of the CPSU - retired. The adoption of the amendments to the Constitution happened when most of the Soviet citizens retired.
          1. rocket757
            rocket757 18 July 2020 18: 13 New
            +3
            Quote: depressant
            No integrity law will keep a country from collapsing if

            This is the IF is the most important thing in our reality! I will not guess, because the spectrum of this IF is very wide!

            Quote: depressant
            Simply put, the question of how the government works, each of the ministries, departments, agencies, inspections and so on.

            But this is EMPTY, since everything depends on what the SYSTEM has in mind at the moment, what it needs at that moment.
            Quote: depressant
            Such a mass of bureaucracy is hardly well managed.

            Such a mass of unnecessary, harmful gaskets, truncated at one, two, three ... truncated with us is simply SOMEONE. Those who are obliged to do this, in order to improve the work of the state mechanism, themselves gave rise to this swollen gasket.
            Quote: depressant
            If Putin does not decide

            Do you still think that he is straight, he decides everything in this country ???
            Quote: depressant
            Gorbachev's perestroika happened then, ............, when the majority of Soviet citizens retired.

            Very much like that! With each such departure, the country lost part of itself, part of common sense!
            PS I am not an optimist, I am simply stating, recording, the events taking place. Their logical following one after another.
            1. depressant
              depressant 18 July 2020 19: 22 New
              +5
              Colleague rocket757 ... In 2003, within the framework of an administrative reform that had been started, the absolutely useless grain inspection was abolished. And this abolition cost the reformers such labors and nerves that they spat, pounded, and the reform quietly faded under the weight of a huge layer of self-propagating bureaucracy - one that had long gone out of the control of anyone and was producing functions that no one needed and duties. And these are hundreds of thousands, or even millions of people who receive salaries and spread corruption as part of their activities that are often not only useless, but also frankly harmful to the state. The history of the NEP of the 20s is repeating itself. If the NEP with its monstrous bureaucracy and corruption had not been closed in time, the Country of Soviets would hardly have survived.
              The simplest example of the present. Fire inspection. They come, see that everything is not in order, take a bribe, write a report that everything is fine, the building burned down, everyone shouted "Where did the fire inspection look at?", Someone immediately gave a bribe, someone else took it, everything calmed down , no one is to blame, there are dozens of fresh graves in the cemetery. So why is this inspection needed? These are thousands of people all over the country receiving salaries. There is also an insurance office. Are you afraid of a fire, go to her. For nothing, an expert of such an office will not sign insurance if you have a problem with a fire hazard. If you want to burn, burn, but without insurance and get ready for lawsuits that will repeatedly block your current greed. Otherwise it turns out that there is an inspection, there is no readiness for a fire, there will be victims. And so in everything and throughout the country and from year to year the same fires. But you just need something - not to issue a permit for activity without fire insurance.
              1. rocket757
                rocket757 18 July 2020 20: 00 New
                +4
                Every concrete inspection is a special case, which are summarized into one large corruption system!
                There are many modern recipes on how to overcome this, but each of them proves that nothing more effective than truncating the tail of a corrupt official has been invented by all ears for all centuries! Yes, also the deportation of the whole family, that corrupt official, somewhere to the sunny lands, such as Magadan!
                Of course, we need a serious upper power consisting of ... I can not even imagine from whom.
                And what our power consists of, we already see, so sho request
    2. NordUral
      NordUral 21 July 2020 10: 57 New
      0
      I won't argue, but at least they will try. But we will not say anything - they will sell it.
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 21 July 2020 11: 06 New
        0
        Quote: NordUral
        I won't argue, but at least they will try. But we will not say anything - they will sell it.

        The key, as always, IF we are silent !!!
        1. NordUral
          NordUral 21 July 2020 11: 11 New
          -1
          Our opinions coincide. The question is what to do to make the people awake. And all of these people began to hang noodles on the ears.
          1. rocket757
            rocket757 21 July 2020 11: 36 New
            0
            As in the movies, when comatose people were "accidentally" woken up! Discharge, another discharge, add another 100 !!!
            1. NordUral
              NordUral 21 July 2020 11: 38 New
              -1
              Maybe it will. Our Three Bogatyrs fell asleep somehow.
  2. SanSanych Gusev
    SanSanych Gusev 18 July 2020 10: 49 New
    +1
    Dig potatoes soon
  3. From Tomsk
    From Tomsk 18 July 2020 10: 51 New
    14
    "And we should understand that although Russia is a large country, we do not have territories to transfer to other states and, I hope, never will."
    In 2005, 337 km ² of territories belonging to the people were given to China, namely the Bolshoi and Tarabarov islands and, in addition, half of the Bolshoi Ussuriysky island.
    In 2010, Russia donated Norway the waters in the Barents Sea. Giving her 175 thousand km².
    In 2011, the villages of Khrakh-Uba and Uryan-Uba were presented to Azerbaijan.
    In 2017, Putin gave Lake Sladkoe to Kazakhstan, and access to it for Russian citizens was immediately restricted.
    So I would not be so sure.
    1. parusnik
      parusnik 18 July 2020 11: 09 New
      +1
      Probably they gave away everything that was not needed ... The borders were leveled, it is now convenient to draw them on the map ... The Kuril Islands, I think they will not give up, it will be inconvenient to paint over ... smile
      1. Kisa
        Kisa 18 July 2020 15: 29 New
        +4
        the new amendments did not close the issue and raised the price tag. a week later they began to speculate. and if not during our lifetimes the Japanese voiced an acceptable price tag, then how the neutral status of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk is the withdrawal of the American military and, most importantly, the economic component, to invest in Far East finance in order to somehow revive a rapidly empty region ..... the topic will be periodically raised
        1. NordUral
          NordUral 21 July 2020 11: 41 New
          0
          This and many other topics will be covered by the economic and social development of this region, as well as the whole country.
          But with these it's impossible. The people have to decide whether to be or not!
      2. NordUral
        NordUral 21 July 2020 11: 01 New
        -1
        It is convenient to draw borders with a ruler, as in Africa. Only now the results are deplorable for the peoples of those countries. am
    2. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 18 July 2020 11: 32 New
      12
      Quote: From Tomsk
      So I would not be so sure.

      You are right, there is no certainty. How it went with Alexander II. The total land area sold was about 1 km², therefore, $ 519 000 cents were paid per square kilometer. The Soviet Union donated 4 thousand square kilometers of its territory in the Bering Sea to the United States. More precisely, it was not the USSR that gave it away, but specific officials - M.S. Gorbachev. (President of the USSR) and Shevardnadze. "Gorbachev's generosity was replaced by the generosity of Yeltsin, who handed over (completely free) to China more than 73 square kilometers of our, Russian, land, and under the current president we gave China a rather large part of the Khabarovsk Territory. Crimea was returned, islands on the Amur given away.
      1. Andrey Krasnoyarsky
        Andrey Krasnoyarsky 18 July 2020 13: 27 New
        -9
        A large part of the Khabarovsk Territory - how many percent - 40, 60, 80? I heard that several sections of the three islands on the Amur went to China, which even do not stretch to a small part of the vast edge. The total area of ​​the plots is 337 square kilometers. The territory of the Khabarovsk Territory is 787 633 square kilometers. Do you seriously think that 1 \ 2337 is a rather big part?
        1. tihonmarine
          tihonmarine 18 July 2020 14: 30 New
          +5
          Quote: Andrey Krasnoyarsky
          Do you seriously think that 1 \ 2337 is a rather big part?

          In the Atlantic Ocean there is a 570 square meter Rokkol rock, while it belongs to Britain, but Ireland and Denmark are still arguing for it. But having a diameter of about 30 meters, around it is a 200 mile economic zone, so use the formula S = πR² how much Britain has. It's the same with the Khabarovsk Territory. Sometimes the spool is small, but expensive.
          1. tagil
            tagil 18 July 2020 17: 09 New
            +1
            Cupid is not the Atlantic Ocean, we do not have a marine zone. AND
            The islands legally and in the international legal sense did not belong to anyone, and at the conclusion of the 1991 border agreement between the USSR and the PRC, the ownership of the three islands was also not determined.
            1. tihonmarine
              tihonmarine 18 July 2020 19: 36 New
              +3
              Quote: Tagil
              Cupid is not the Atlantic Ocean, we do not have a marine zone.

              But they are not less important than this “poke” in the ocean, but strategically it can be more. As Nikolai the First said, “Where the Russian flag was hoisted, there is forever the Russian land” I think you know what he said, and to whom the king. But then the descendants forgot these words.
              1. tagil
                tagil 18 July 2020 20: 59 New
                0
                Yes, I know, but Alaska was sold under Nicholas the Second and not because we wanted it, but because we would not have kept it, the Americans would have taken it from us anyway, only then Russia would have lost face. I do not justify the return of Russian lands, crafts and everything else, but sometimes as with these islands you have to take unpopular steps. I am very offended that the Russian lands (in the literal sense) in the so-called Ukraine are being sold out, but .......... I would go to fight for the return of the lands, all our lands, right away.
                1. Aviator_
                  Aviator_ 19 July 2020 10: 15 New
                  +2
                  Alaska was sold under Nicholas II

                  Alaska was sold under Alexander II
                  1. tagil
                    tagil 19 July 2020 10: 18 New
                    0
                    Yes, this is my mistake, but it cannot be corrected after publication.
                2. Herman 4223
                  Herman 4223 20 July 2020 08: 03 New
                  0
                  Alaska bordered and borders with Canada, in those years part of the British Empire. She was not taken during the Crimean War by the British. How Britain would react to an attempt at annexation by the United States in those years, because in the states the future maritime power was already a direct competitor to the mistress of the seas.
                  1. tagil
                    tagil 20 July 2020 10: 17 New
                    0
                    But they sold it to the Americans, the British for some reason remained silent.
                    1. Herman 4223
                      Herman 4223 20 July 2020 10: 30 New
                      0
                      And what could they say or do about this? Declare war on Russia if it sells or the United States if they buy?
                      1. tagil
                        tagil 20 July 2020 10: 34 New
                        0
                        It's me that
                        in the states, the future maritime power was already a direct competitor to the mistress of the seas.
                        We had no choice, as with California. Too far from the center, too expensive, too much.
        2. tagil
          tagil 18 July 2020 17: 07 New
          0
          I can add that these islands are swampy and not suitable for any activity. And now the Chinese do not use them in any way.
        3. Николаев
          Николаев 19 July 2020 02: 12 New
          +2
          In relations with China, even 10 square meters is a precedent. They understood the main thing - they give it away ... While they give it away in peace, then they will take it by assimilation, then - by war ... we observe the examples of the Eastern Slavs. It doesn't matter if it's Russians or Ukrainians. No idea, people are passive and amorphous. Against this background, all government statements are about nothing. Russia gave China, to someone else, Ukraine - gave the shelf to the Romanians, and will soon give up Bessarabia and Transcarpathia. And it will continue. You can argue a lot and cleverly, but this will not change the situation.
  4. parusnik
    parusnik 18 July 2020 10: 55 New
    +4
    A declaration in international law is a solemn act, formulating the general principles and goals agreed by the parties. The 1956 Declaration, Article 9, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Japan agreed to continue negotiations after the restoration of normal diplomatic relations between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Japan on concluding a Peace Treaty, while the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, meeting the wishes of Japan and taking into account the interests of the Japanese state, agrees to the transfer of the Habomai Islands and the Sikotan Islands to Japan, provided, however, that the actual transfer of these islands to Japan will be made after the conclusion of the Peace Treaty between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Japan.
    Russia reaffirmed its adherence to all the agreements that the Soviet Union once concluded. This also applies to the 1956 declaration, in accordance with which we are discussing with our Japanese colleagues the need to conclude a peace treaty.
    The USA, at one time, threatened that in the event that Japan withdraws its claims to the Kunashir and Iturup Islands, the Ryukyu archipelago with the Okinawa island, which, on the basis of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, was then controlled by the United States, would not be returned to Japan. In 1972, these territories came under Japanese control, but American military bases remained ... the Japanese are not going to withdraw territorial claims to the islands of Kunashir and Iturup.
  5. Valery Valery
    Valery Valery 18 July 2020 10: 55 New
    +1
    Japan is not a sovereign state and is governed (and this is not a figure of speech) from Washington. Negotiating with Russia, making territorial claims against it is for the Japanese an imitation of the country's independence, and is more like either a game or a long-term job. And our Foreign Ministry is going to meet the Japanese side - pretending that it perceives the country of the "rising sun" as an independent player, and probably achieves the goals necessary for Russia.
    Those. : let the Japanese go through the forest with their territorial claims.
  6. iouris
    iouris 18 July 2020 11: 25 New
    0
    And what have the amendments to do with it? Really ...?
    1. Svarog
      Svarog 18 July 2020 11: 34 New
      +5
      Quote: iouris
      And what have the amendments to do with it? Really ...?

      Corrections just for the sake of zeroing and cheating .. they have nothing to do with
      1. iouris
        iouris 18 July 2020 12: 29 New
        -2
        Quote: Svarog
        Corrections just for the sake of zeroing

        But I don’t believe that. This is a minor issue and can be resolved with a click.
  7. Vladimir Mashkov
    Vladimir Mashkov 18 July 2020 12: 26 New
    -2
    Someone does not sit quietly and the disturbing hurray-patriotic public, the Kuril theme is thrown over and over again. As well as the hype about the Malaysian Boeing.
    1. Antifreeze
      Antifreeze 18 July 2020 13: 32 New
      13
      For constant monitoring of public opinion.
  8. DED_peer_DED
    DED_peer_DED 18 July 2020 13: 32 New
    +1
    There are such creative people who simply cannot live in peace, so as not to come up with something creatively every day.
    Today one thing, tomorrow another, the day after tomorrow - the opposite ...
    But, creatively and permanently.
  9. Ros 56
    Ros 56 18 July 2020 14: 16 New
    -1
    The strange question is, how will Russia answer? And he will simply send the Japanese to a well-known address and all business. fellow stop laughing
  10. GTYCBJYTH2021
    GTYCBJYTH2021 18 July 2020 15: 57 New
    +5
    Muscovites and Russians from its environs - move to the east ..... Far ....... The homeland will give the Earth a FREE ... Moscow noise and gases ..... car jams and all sorts of things ........
  11. Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 18 July 2020 16: 20 New
    +3
    Two old hucksters are trying - one to sell air to another for a donut hole, the other is trying to buy a whole bagel for a donut hole, from the first.
    Considering that this useless maneuvering will not end in any way - I am trying to understand why WE indulge all this and actualize it? After all, it has long been clear that the Japanese have (nothing) in their hands, and this particular status of a "peace treaty" on our part without "meat" in the form of islands is perceived by them as "about nothing." The temptation to knock Japan out of the "NATO partners" is, of course, great, but we will not achieve this for a donut hole - and we still have the islands, and in return Japan has nothing to offer, from a word at all.
  12. evgen1221
    evgen1221 18 July 2020 17: 06 New
    +1
    As they answered, we will continue - forest, forest, and forest.
  13. evgen1221
    evgen1221 18 July 2020 17: 07 New
    -1
    As they answered, we will continue - forest, forest, and forest.
  14. BAI
    BAI 18 July 2020 18: 40 New
    +4
    Based on this, it can be assumed that the Japanese still have a false hope that they will someday be given at least two islands.

    Why false? Quite recently, there was an article on VO where Lavrov was quoted: "The talks have great prospects." This amendment to the Constitution is a bone of a plebs, and on a string. They threw it - everyone is happy, as soon as they need it - they will drag it back.
  15. businessv
    businessv 18 July 2020 22: 12 New
    0
    Then it is not clear how this statement is combined with the adopted amendment to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, where any alienation of territories is prohibited, except for cases of demarcation and delimitation of borders. It turns out that Russia, as it were, agrees to give up the two islands, but perhaps it won't, since the Constitution now prohibits it?
    Of course, Russia "kind of" agrees, but for this the Japanese will have to get rid of American bases and the striped presence in Japan as a whole. If you think that this is possible, then the transfer of the territories specified in the Declaration is also possible.
  16. 7,62h54
    7,62h54 18 July 2020 22: 36 New
    +2
    By itself, the Constitution will not protect the territory of a country. This can be done by people living in it, and managing it. And I have a distrust of the latter. Because the conducted foreign policy is liberal-toothless, and the domestic one is criminally incompetent.
    If it is purely hypothetical to imagine that the two islands will give up, then what explanation will the talking head give to this:
    1. These islands belonged to Japan all this time, we just controlled them before the signing of the peace treaty
    2. We are not aware of what happened, and we ourselves found out from the newspapers
    3. In return, we will get modern technologies.
  17. 1976AG
    1976AG 19 July 2020 06: 10 New
    +1
    Now the emphasis is on the fact that there is no peace treaty between Russia and Japan. Zakharova says that we can conclude an agreement outside of the peace treaty. What's the point? The very day after the conclusion of such an agreement, voices will begin to sound that there is no peace treaty between our countries. And everything will go on a new one.
  18. oleg ekb
    oleg ekb 19 July 2020 10: 24 New
    0
    the 90s were enough for me ...
  19. Bat039
    Bat039 19 July 2020 10: 29 New
    +3
    And here the most unpleasant thing comes up. Criticizing Lenin for putting a pig on the USSR by introducing the possibility of the Union republics to leave the USSR, Putin himself put a pig on the Russian Federation by introducing into the constitution the possibility of transferring the territories of the Russian Federation to foreign states under the pretext of demarcating the border. For this reason, in principle, I did not vote for adopting Putin’s constitution with such a clause. I will consider the transfer of the Kuril Islands, or parts of Japan, to be treason!
  20. vVvAD
    vVvAD 19 July 2020 18: 08 New
    -2
    I have no doubt that the transfer of Russian territories to foreign countries is impossible as long as the current president remains in office. But how the successor will behave, no one knows.

    That is why the amendments to the constitution contain clauses on the inalienability of territories, as well as expanded the functions of the State Council.
    Based on this, it can be assumed that the Japanese still have a false hope that they will someday be given at least two islands. In principle, they might think that this will happen immediately after the signing of a peace treaty with Russia.

    The islands are both the most important component of our doctrine of defense, and a guarantee of the inviolability of the current status of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk as internal to the Russian Federation. For these reasons, the transfer of islands is highly undesirable in principle.
    If we talk theoretically about the possible conditions for the transfer of the islands to Japan, then the level of trust between the countries should not be lower than with China, i.e. relations should become strategic at least in the military, diplomatic, economic and security fields. And this is impossible both in the presence of US military bases in Japan and the threat of their appearance on the transferred islands of the Kuril ridge, and in a broader sense, given the current position of Japan as a satellite running errands for the United States, which, by the way, hurts the national pride of the Japanese, and in a whole hostile and ultranationalist attitude in Japan.
    And Russia offered Japan an absolutely correct way to resolve the issue. Let's start with the economic, cultural, humanitarian and rapprochement in the field of security, and then, if Japan uses the historical chance offered to it to restore state sovereignty and its own national dignity, builds really good-neighborly relations with our country, it may well go about a win-win deal in the format joint use, development and development of the adjacent waters of the southern islands of the Kuril ridge.
    This is a real compromise option that will suit Russia.
  21. prior
    prior 19 July 2020 20: 31 New
    +3
    The mere expression of Kuril’s deep concern cannot be defended.
    And our Foreign Ministry seems incapable of anything more.
  22. nikvic46
    nikvic46 20 July 2020 06: 21 New
    +1
    Our society is already different, and those who came to power are different. It used to be for us that our borders were sacred and inviolable. But new laws are appearing that directly express distrust of our society. "Leaving a minor child in public places ..." is punished, etc. Well, right, when pedophiles and various scum have proliferated, this is all necessary. But such a law could not exist in Soviet society. Children's rooms with the police, the people themselves were helpful and the child and mother. And where are the borders with Japan? Everything in the world is connected. Even if there were no American bases in Japan, this country has no right to have the weapons that it does. This is spelled out in international laws.
  23. CBR600
    CBR600 20 July 2020 11: 34 New
    0
    We will not be asked.
  24. Roman123567
    Roman123567 20 July 2020 12: 41 New
    -1
    I just have one question .. where are the amendments ??
    Does their presence / absence somehow determine the answer ??
  25. The comment was deleted.
    1. rotkiv04
      rotkiv04 24 July 2020 13: 43 New
      0
      And the fact that narrow-film specially changed the fairway before that, dear, you did not say
  26. rotkiv04
    rotkiv04 24 July 2020 13: 41 New
    0
    This preoccupied companion is already similar to his predecessor Shevardnadze, who handed over our shelf. Now this one continues the same song, he is better at worrying
  27. The comment was deleted.
    1. kig
      kig 25 July 2020 02: 57 New
      0
      Quote: Wizard_57
      there may be a desire to "demarcate borders" in the Kuril Islands

      Everything will depend on how useful the peace treaty is. It is not for nothing that they say that the law is harsh, but it is not necessary to comply with it.