Military Review

Japan promised to resolve the issue of the Kuril Islands in negotiations with Russia

81
Japan promised to resolve the issue of the Kuril Islands in negotiations with Russia

Japan intends to resolve the issue of ownership of the Kuril Islands through dialogue, ultimately concluding a peace treaty with Russia. This is stated in the "blue book" of diplomacy.


The Japanese Foreign Ministry has published an annual report on diplomacy, called the "blue book", which outlines Tokyo's position on a peace treaty with Russia. According to the document, Japan's position remains unchanged, the "Northern Territories", by which the Japanese understand the four islands of the Kuril ridge, are the sovereign territory of Japan.

Based on this position, Tokyo plans to negotiate with Russia and eventually conclude a peace treaty. At the same time, it is emphasized that the position on Japanese sovereignty over the islands is basic and Tokyo does not intend to retreat from it. The question remains, how do they imagine this, and conclude an agreement and "squeeze" the islands, if Moscow has repeatedly stated that Russia does not consider the issue of transferring the Kuril Islands to Japan when concluding a peace treaty.

Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga said that the Japanese government plans to finally close the issue with Russia on the ownership of the Northern Territories (Kuril Islands), without leaving his decision to the future, and promised to adhere to the same course as his predecessor as Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

Earlier in Tokyo, they said that they still consider the islands of the South Kuril Islands as primordially Japanese territories, and insist that Japan's sovereignty should extend to all "northern territories."
81 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. NDR-791
    NDR-791 April 27 2021 11: 18
    +13
    and promised to follow the same course as his predecessor as Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.
    Before him and his designated course were established and you adhere, do not turn off anywhere.
    1. Vladimir_2U
      Vladimir_2U April 27 2021 11: 25
      +2
      So they have elections, the Japanese are fundamentally incomprehensible to the Japanese, but the territories are familiar, so they promise .. laughing laughing
      1. NDR-791
        NDR-791 April 27 2021 11: 29
        +5
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        to the Japanese, the May weekend is fundamentally incomprehensible, and the territories are familiar

        So what do they want to get from a country that they do not understand? And the territories are familiar in this form as they are. And so be it !!!
        1. NIKN
          NIKN April 27 2021 11: 32
          +9
          They are at the door, they are at the window ... My cat is just as stubborn ... And you can't do anything, but it makes me angry. laughing
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. Hagalaz
            Hagalaz April 27 2021 11: 47
            +12
            And this situation reminds me of one of the freaky Japanese shows I saw once. There, men, through some mechanism, receive blows between their legs (well, you know) and who will last longer. As for me, it's the same across the islands laughing .
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. Pereira
                Pereira April 27 2021 12: 06
                +2
                Stsu - Katyan. I would suggest that.
                1. NIKN
                  NIKN April 27 2021 12: 08
                  +2
                  Quote: Pereira
                  Stsu - Katyan. I would suggest that.

                  smile accepted. hi
                  1. Vladimir Mashkov
                    Vladimir Mashkov April 27 2021 20: 42
                    +1
                    It's not even funny anymore. How stupid Japanese politicians are! Strange, I met with their self-defense sailors, so they did not make such an impression.
            2. Nikolaevich I
              Nikolaevich I April 27 2021 12: 19
              +1
              Quote: Hagalaz
              men, through some mechanism, get blows between their legs ...

              What is this? belay Perversion or quitting? request No mechanism needed! There is such a "training method" in karate when, while checking the correctness of the "kiba-dachi" stance ("rider posture"), the coach kicks between the legs! If the stance is correct, then "everything is normal"! ... if not, then boo ... crying
              1. Hagalaz
                Hagalaz April 27 2021 13: 00
                +2
                Well, yes, sometimes doubts arise about the normality of people having fun in such ways. And as for the procedure of the show, then they seem to be aware of the correct stands, tk. the men were fixed in the X position upside down. What kind of karate is there? wassat So most likely bo-bo! sad
                1. Nikolaevich I
                  Nikolaevich I April 27 2021 14: 28
                  0
                  Quote: Hagalaz
                  sometimes there are doubts about the normality of people having fun in such ways.

                  By the way, now I remembered that minted shows are very popular in Japan! And there are all kinds of similar "entertainment"! For example. participants of a certain show are put on klystyrs ... the one who wins, who has the jet from the "fifth point", flies, further ... request
            3. Russobel
              Russobel April 27 2021 13: 18
              +2
              Here, I fully support it. Let them beat in the groin and forehead ...
              And in the end, ah did not half-wobble ...
              And hara-kiri ... At my father's grave.
      2. Idunavs
        Idunavs April 27 2021 11: 38
        +1
        As soon as they are not tired of listening to promises. 75 years old they are fed breakfast, but they still can't get enough.
        1. credo
          credo April 27 2021 12: 03
          +2
          Quote: Idunawa
          The question remains, how do they imagine this, and conclude an agreement and "squeeze out" the islands, if Moscow has repeatedly stated that Russia is not considering the issue of transferring the Kuril Islands to Japan when concluding a peace treaty.

          Since the solution of this issue does not look expensive for Japan, they have several options:
          - wait for the likeness of Khrushchev or Yeltsin to come to power in Russia,
          - wait until Russia collapses like the USSR,
          - to wait for the "civilized world" to arrange another mess against Russia.

          If Russia shows wisdom and restraint, then the option of implementing the eastern wisdom about waiting for the corpse of the enemy (Japan) to swim past its coast is also not devoid of meaning and saving the population of Russia from rash actions.

          Russia needs to pay less attention to the wishes and dreams of Japan and more to deal with issues of its internal economic and defense development, as well as improving the well-being of its population.
          1. Nikolaevich I
            Nikolaevich I April 27 2021 12: 23
            +2
            Quote: credo
            wait for the likeness of Khrushchev or Yeltsin to come to power in Russia,

            And what is there to guess about "similarity" when there is Yavlinsky! He just promised to give the Crimea to the land, the Kuril Islands to Japan! And everything can be expected from Navalny!
          2. Wedmak
            Wedmak April 27 2021 12: 26
            +1
            I think they are not considering a couple more options:
            - Japan will fall apart (well, why not?)
            - With the turmoil against Russia, Japan is among the first and loses some of the primordially Japanese territory.
            - An even more decisive one than Putin will come to power in the Russian Federation and will put the Japanese face to the wall, where "The territory of the Russian Federation is not alienated!"
            - The United States will arrange another catastrophe in Japan and there will really be no time for the islands in the north.
            1. Rusticolus
              Rusticolus April 27 2021 19: 58
              +2
              I guess they are not considering a couple more options.
              and another option. FSha declares war on China to the last Japanese.
        2. Alexander 3
          Alexander 3 April 27 2021 15: 23
          +2
          They love noodles.
      3. tihonmarine
        tihonmarine April 27 2021 11: 51
        +4
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        So they have elections, the Japanese are fundamentally incomprehensible to the Japanese, but the territories are familiar, so they promise ..

    2. Vend
      Vend April 27 2021 13: 25
      0
      The Japanese need to study and comprehend the latest amendments to the Constitution of Russia, maybe then they will change course
  2. Sauron80
    Sauron80 April 27 2021 11: 19
    +3
    On whose grave will this one swear? Another balabol.
    1. mojohed2012
      mojohed2012 April 27 2021 11: 28
      +1
      This is another declarer of determination and an invader charmer. For the sake of a place in the government and parliament, he and others like him will "finally decide" anything.
      Voidbreaker's.
  3. rocket757
    rocket757 April 27 2021 11: 20
    +2
    Japan promised to resolve the issue of the Kuril Islands in negotiations with Russia
    ... Again and again ... there is something stable / permanent in this world.
    1. Ren
      Ren April 27 2021 12: 35
      +3
      Quote: rocket757
      Japan promised to resolve the issue of the Kuril Islands in negotiations with Russia
      ... Again and again ... there is something stable / permanent in this world.

      You just did not look deep into the new way of solving the problem ...
      There are several simple and all satisfying solutions:
      Option 1 - Joining the entire territory of Japan into the Russian Federation, as part of the Sakhalin Region.
      Option 2 - Transfer of Hokkaido to the Russian Federation with the formation of a new Japanese region and transfer to the newly formed region of the Kuril Islands. The administrative center is Yuzhno-Kurilsk.
      The second option solves the problem of the decisions of the Potsdam Conference and the Cairo Declaration:
      Japan will be expelled from all territories that it has conquered by force and as a result of its greed

      https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/odynokiy/14027220/9507319/9507319_original.jpg
      Jezo Island (or Ezo / Ezo) is shown as part of the Russian Empire. This island is now known as Hokkaido. hi
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 April 27 2021 12: 39
        +2
        So, according to the results of the Second World War, the USSR was thrown to the allies, as always, however ...
  4. Overlock
    Overlock April 27 2021 11: 20
    +3
    To promise is not to marry. Can dream until blue in the face
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine April 27 2021 11: 40
      0
      Quote: Overlock
      To promise is not to marry.

      It is better to refuse a hundred times than one not to fulfill the promise.
  5. iouris
    iouris April 27 2021 11: 26
    -9
    "Russia" is who (with whom negotiations)?
    1. New Year day
      New Year day April 27 2021 11: 28
      -10%
      Quote: iouris
      "Russia" is who (with whom negotiations)?

      Who will be next
  6. aszzz888
    aszzz888 April 27 2021 11: 29
    +1
    Japan promised to resolve the issue of the Kuril Islands in negotiations with Russia
    Interestingly, the current Ipenes live in what time? laughing
    1. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine April 27 2021 11: 35
      +2
      Quote: aszzz888
      Interestingly, the current Ipenes live in what time?

      Well, some of the Japanese seem to still be living in 1905.
      1. aszzz888
        aszzz888 April 28 2021 02: 20
        +1

        tihonmarine (Vlad)
        Yesterday, 11: 35
        NEW

        +1
        Quote: aszzz888
        Interestingly, the current Ipenes live in what time?

        Well, some of the Japanese seem to still be living in 1905.
        So I imagine something like this. When their commanders ran with swords to attack.
  7. prior
    prior April 27 2021 11: 30
    +1
    It seems that there are too many Japanese if they do not have enough space on their own territory.
    what bully
    1. Egoza
      Egoza April 27 2021 12: 55
      +4
      Quote: prior
      It seems that there are too many Japanese if they do not have enough space on their own territory.

      That's just the point. And the territory is "not reliable" - then an earthquake, then volcanoes, then a nuclear power plant junk, "well, where should the peasant go?" And so the dream will warm you. But seriously. God forbid the cataclysm is VERY SEVERE, and people will rush to save themselves. Will they get to the Kuriles and where are they then? Push in the sea? Here Russia will give 100% shelter.
  8. tihonmarine
    tihonmarine April 27 2021 11: 33
    0
    The Japanese Foreign Ministry has published an annual report on diplomacy, called the "blue book", which outlines Tokyo's position on a peace treaty with Russia.

    Rather not a "blue book", but a training manual from the US State Department.
  9. BARKAS
    BARKAS April 27 2021 11: 33
    0
    Binoculars to lease them for the contemplation of the islands on this and finish negotiations once and for all.
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak April 27 2021 12: 28
      0
      They were offered visa-free travel to the islands. As well as joint farming. But ... "do not want it as you want"
  10. SERGE ANT
    SERGE ANT April 27 2021 11: 35
    +8
    Japan intends to resolve the issue of belonging to the Kuril Islands
    The issue was resolved at 45.
  11. Vladimir Vladimirovich Vorontsov
    Vladimir Vladimirovich Vorontsov April 27 2021 11: 37
    +5
    ***

    Salmon tail splashed on the wave

    The islands disappeared in the fog

    They will not return

    Deal with Nihon ...

    © V.V. Vorontsov Islands of the Rising Sun of Russia

    ***
  12. Prisoner
    Prisoner April 27 2021 11: 37
    +1
    They wait for the Japanese promise for three years, then another three years, then another, another, another and another ... winked How do they imagine it? They came and said "These islands are ours, however. We will come there tomorrow, however, vacate the premises," so what? With such manners, you can get it on the sopatka.
  13. Andobor
    Andobor April 27 2021 11: 40
    +2
    Japan is an occupied country, and it is completely impossible to decide anything in geopolitics. There is no point in discussing this topic with the Japanese.
  14. Flashpoint
    Flashpoint April 27 2021 11: 40
    +3
    Deal with Fukushima first !!!
    1. SERGE ANT
      SERGE ANT April 27 2021 11: 43
      +8
      Let them deal with Okinawa first, and then remember about independence and territorial integrity.
  15. Victor Tsenin
    Victor Tsenin April 27 2021 11: 42
    +2
    Talking to them is like talking to a deaf-blind-blind
  16. tihonmarine
    tihonmarine April 27 2021 11: 43
    +1
    Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga has pledged to follow the same course as his predecessor as Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.
    One has already promised, but what happened?
    If you said "I promise", then break into a cake, but keep your promise.
  17. Krasnoyarsk
    Krasnoyarsk April 27 2021 11: 45
    +1
    The Japanese decided to starve. Here are the stubborn ones.
  18. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 April 27 2021 11: 51
    0
    Promising doesn't mean deciding. Resign yourself and forget. Even the Americans will not help you in this matter. It is better to remove their bases and immediately so much territory will be freed that you yourself will be surprised.
  19. International Observer
    International Observer April 27 2021 11: 51
    0
    I suppose you need to be well versed in Japanese culture in order to understand where such constant claims about the Kuril Islands come from ...
    It should also be obvious that a peace treaty with Japan does not cost anything, absolutely Russia does not need it today, even for free, and its consideration and, God forbid, adoption, will entail so many consequences that the problems of water supply to Crimea will seem like just a warm-up. I really hope that those who are absolutely clear about this are taking care of the Kuril Islands.
  20. ABC-schütze
    ABC-schütze April 27 2021 11: 57
    +3
    The very posing of the question of a certain "necessity" of signing a "peace treaty" with Japan, precisely from an international legal point of view, is the same nonsense and absurdity as would be the "official denunciation" by the Soviet Union of the German-Soviet agreements on "non-aggression" and "friendship and border", signed in 1939 by the USSR and the Third Reich, after the military attack of Nazi Germany on the USSR on June 22, 1941. For the validity of the agreement, in this case, is terminated by the REFUSAL of one of the signatory parties to fulfill their obligations. And the "form" of this REFUSAL (official, preliminary, diplomatic notification or DIRECT ACTION - MILITARY AGGRESSION against another party to the agreement, without formal prior notification) does not matter. And he does not give any grounds for fortune-telling on the topic "whether there is an agreement with force or not." So it is with Japan. She OFFICIALLY signed the Act of Unconditional Surrender and REFUSAL OF ALL TERRITORIAL claims. Those. OFFICIALLY RETURNED from the "state of war", OFFICIALLY (by the act of surrender) RECOGNIZING my MILITARY DEFEAT, Point and amen ... The question was dropped. What kind of "peace treaty, and on what basis, is it" required "for Moscow to sign with a country that OFFICIALLY left the" state of war "70 years ago? .. What" Kuriles "and" territorial question "? .. Tokyo has abandoned ALL TERRITORIAL Moreover, from the text of the Act of surrender, it clearly follows that this refusal (OBLIGATION of Japan) has an ABSOLUTE character and concerns ANY territories and states, and does not apply only to the countries that accepted the Japanese surrender. So what is the question? ... The act of surrender, in relation to Japanese OBLIGATIONS, has ABSOLUTE international legal force and is not subject to any "denunciation." Unlike any subsequent "declaration" (including the so-called "Moscow" or "Tokyo" ...), which in terms of international legal force, there is only nothing and no-one binding statements of intent, and nothing more ...
    1. Avior
      Avior April 27 2021 12: 42
      +1
      Not certainly in that way
      the same nonsense and absurdity, which would be the "official denunciation" by the Soviet Union of the German-Soviet agreements on "non-aggression" and "friendship and border" signed in 1939 by the USSR and the Third Reich, after the military attack of Hitlerite Germany on the USSR on the 22nd June 1941.

      nevertheless, there was an official denunciation of these agreements, which is reflected in the Maysky-Sikorsky Treaty of 1941.
      The Government of the USSR recognizes the 1939 Soviet-German treaties regarding territorial changes in Poland as null and void.

      The end of the war between Japan and the USSR was officially recorded in the 1956 agreement.
      Article 1
      The state of war between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Japan ceases from the day this Declaration enters into force, and peace and good neighborly relations are restored between them.

      On the surrender of Japan
      She OFFICIALLY signed the Act of Unconditional Surrender and REFUSAL OF ALL TERRITORIAL claims.

      The Japanese army was subject to unconditional surrender, Japan, as a state, surrendered on the terms of the Potsdam Declaration put forward by the allies, as recorded in the act of surrender
      The Government of Japan and his successors will faithfully abide by the terms of the Potsdam Declaration, give orders and take whatever action is required by the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers or any other representative appointed by the Allied Powers in order to implement this Declaration.

      hi
      1. ABC-schütze
        ABC-schütze April 27 2021 13: 20
        0
        And I do not agree with this ... 1. After all, this "recognition" by the Soviet Union of the "loss of force" of the aforementioned agreements, AFTER Germany's military attack on the USSR, from the EXACTLY legal point of view, is no more than a simple CONSTITUTION OF FACT, and not diplomatic "an act of denunciation". Relatively speaking, with the same success, it was possible to mention in the same document that "the Earth revolves around the Sun", and to declare that the parties "officially" recognized this. 2. The aforementioned "agreement", as CLEARLY SEE from the TEXT, is - "Declaration", ie statement of intent. And its difference from an international treaty lies in the fact that any of the parties has the right to refuse from intentions unilaterally. Without any legal consequences for yourself. Unless of a "moral" character ... And an international treaty is already an ACCEPTANCE of SPECIFIC OBLIGATIONS to the parties, and not a statement of intentions. And it is no longer possible to abandon the OBLIGATIONS without legal consequences for oneself, especially, unilaterally. 3. Wars are waged on "armies", and on states. And the army, "continuing to fight", after the legitimate government has admitted defeat and accepted the conditions of the victors, becomes no longer an "army", but a partisan detachment, in extreme cases, a mass of people "dressed in military uniform." And from a legal point of view, in this case, even the status of prisoners of war can be deprived of them. And in the context of Japan, in the San Francisco Peace Treaty it signed, Japan officially renounced South Sakhalin and the Kuriles. And the fact that the USSR did not sign this treaty, from a legal point of view, does not in any way remove from Japan the OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED on IT by this treaty. Moreover, the speech here, in the BILATERAL Treaty, is ALREADY about the territories, OBVIOUSLY OWNING, according to the Yalta agreements, to the THIRD party, i.e. THE USSR.
        1. Avior
          Avior April 27 2021 13: 46
          +1
          the given "recognition" by the Soviet Union of the "loss of force" of the aforementioned agreements

          this is article one of the agreement
          If it were the way you wrote it, it would not have been mentioned or written in the preamble something like “in conditions when the agreements became invalid”.
          The mentioned "agreement", as it is CLEARLY SEE from the TEXT, is - "Declaration", i.e. statement of intent.

          the text clearly shows the opposite - this is an agreement that requires its mutual ratification by parliaments. How it is formally written does not matter.
          Article 10
          This Joint Declaration is subject to ratification. It will enter into force on the day of the exchange of the instruments of ratification. The exchange of the instruments of ratification shall be made as soon as possible in Tokyo.

          Wars are waged on "armies", and on states.

          and it was the state of Japan that capitulated not unconditionally, but on certain predetermined conditions, recorded in the Potsdam and Cairo declarations. Unconditional surrender of the troops is one of the conditions.
          And in the context of Japan, in the San Francisco Peace Treaty it signed, Japan officially renounced South Sakhalin and the Kuriles.

          1. There is no question of transferring these territories to the USSR. Moreover, the Kurils, unlike South Sakhalin, do not fall under the terms of the Cairo and Potsdam declarations.
          2. The USSR, by not signing the treaty, expressed its disagreement with it, that is, Japan's refusal from these lands.
          speech here in the BILATERAL Treaty
          what kind of contract are we talking about?
          The United States did not sign the San Francisco Treaty regarding Japan's abandonment of the Kuriles and Sakhalin.
          1. ABC-schütze
            ABC-schütze April 27 2021 14: 27
            -1
            First, that is, the CONSTATION by the Soviet Union, FACT, the loss of force of the Soviet - German agreements, in my response to your post refers to the text of the Treaty of Maisky and Sikorsky mentioned by you. "And not to the Moscow Declaration. Further, the legal STATUS of the document is determined from its name. And this name is used further in the text. But whatever the "severity" of the textual formulations, it does not in any way cancel the legal STATUS of the document. That is, the Declaration, from an international legal point of view, remains only an agreement on the intentions of the parties, and not an OBLIGATION And how the parties put this DECLARATION into force (by parliamentary ratification or in some other way ...) is their internal affair, for even the ratification by the parliaments of the DECLARATION (ie the intentions of the parties) only OPENS the way for the FOLLOWING signing by the parties of AGREEMENTS. AGREEMENTS, these INTENTIONS of the parties into the OBLIGATIONS of the parties transforming. With the subsequent parliamentary ratification by the parties of the AGREEMENTS. And the USSR OVOROV did not sign with Japan. Further ... And in the Japanese - American San Francisco Peace Treaty, in general, there should not be any talk about any "transfers" by the defeated and surrendered Japan of the territories of the USSR. Moreover, its territories, and so ALREADY "de jure" do not belong. For the Kuriles and Sakhalin retreated to the USSR according to the documents ALREADY SIGNED PREVIOUSLY by the United States of the Yalta Agreements. For this, no - either, "separate acknowledgments" of the belonging of these territories of the USSR from the States, from an international legal point of view, were absolutely unnecessary ...
            1. Avior
              Avior April 27 2021 15: 10
              0
              First, that is, CONSTATION by the Soviet Union, FACT,

              Nothing like this. The articles record the subject of the contract. And, strictly speaking, in the general case, the fact of war in itself does not cancel such things. The war may end, but the treaty will remain in effect.
              the legal STATUS of a document is determined from its name.

              nothing like this.
              The status of an international treaty does not depend on its specific name: agreement, convention, charter of an international organization, protocol, pact. To determine whether a document is a treaty, it is necessary to analyze its content, that is, to find out whether the parties had an intention to assume international legal obligations. There are cases when treaties are even referred to as declarations or memoranda, although traditionally documents with such names are not treaties.

              how the parties put this DECLARATION into force (by parliamentary ratification or in some other way ...) is their internal affair.

              this is written in the text of the agreement, which means that it is not internal
              And in the Japanese - American San Francisco Peace Treaty, in general, there should not be any talk about any "transfers" by the defeated and surrendered Japan of the territories of the USSR.

              In fact, almost 50 states have signed it.
              retreated to the USSR according to the documents ALREADY SIGNED PREVIOUSLY by the United States of the Yalta Agreements

              The United States believed that the USSR had violated these agreements by not signing the treaty, therefore it also reneged on its obligations in this part of the Yalta Agreements.
              from an international legal point of view
              Until now, there is no agreement confirming that the islands belong to the USSR, there is only an internal decision of the USSR.
              1. ABC-schütze
                ABC-schütze April 27 2021 23: 04
                -1
                The subject of the contract is indicated in its name. The name also implies its legal status. And in the articles only the contractual "specifics" are developed. This time ... The thesis declaring that the status of an international agreement is determined only by its content and "does not depend" on its name, even if it is taken "from textbooks", is just a scientific (or not so ...) opinion, and does not carry a legal burden. Moreover, it is inherently absurd. Indeed, with such an approach, in principle, a complete contradiction between the name of the document and its text is allowed ... The fact that the San Francisco Treaty was signed by more than 50 states does not disavow the allies' OBLIGATIONS under the Yalta Agreements in relation to the USSR. And by his "non-signing" of the San Francisco Treaty, the USSR could not "violate" the Yalta Agreements in any way. Because at the Crimean conference itself, the provisions of this peace treaty with the Soviet Union were not discussed in any way. And the Soviet side never took upon itself any obligations on the UNCONDITIONAL signing of "any" peace treaties. Even with regard to Japan ... So the United States could "count" anything. But there is no international legal basis behind these US "counting rhymes" ... The Crimean Conference (Yalta Agreements) was, quite to itself, international. And it became one of the legal foundations that determined the future world order. And, in particular, specifically and unambiguously, which determined the belonging of Sakhalin and the Kuriles ...
                1. Avior
                  Avior April 27 2021 23: 24
                  0
                  The subject of the contract is indicated in its name.

                  No
                  He does not disavow the obligations of the allies under the Yalta Agreements in relation to the USSR.

                  The Yalta agreements are an internal agreement between the allies and have no direct connection with Japan.
                  And the absence of a signature from the States breaks the link between this treaty and San Francisco with a treaty that actually concerned Japan.
          2. ABC-schütze
            ABC-schütze April 27 2021 14: 38
            -1
            the documents of the Yalta conference have already been declassified. Everything is clear there. The Agreement explicitly states: "Restoration of the rights belonging to Russia, violated by the treacherous attack of Japan in 1904".

            And further: “Return to the Soviet Union of the southern part of Fr. Sakhalin and all the adjacent islands. "

            And also: "Transfer of the Kuril Islands to the Soviet Union".

            And, as a result of the agreements: "The Heads of Government of the three Great Powers agreed that these claims of the Soviet Union must be unconditionally satisfied after the victory over Japan."

            It is also significant that in the declassified "Draft Information Telegram to the USSR Embassy on the Crimean Conference. February 15, 1945", which is published along with other documents, not a single word is said about Japan itself - the issue was finally and unambiguously resolved ...
            1. Avior
              Avior April 27 2021 15: 38
              0
              The United States believed that the USSR had violated these agreements by not signing the treaty, therefore it also reneged on its obligations in this part of the Yalta Agreements.

              hi
  21. zwlad
    zwlad April 27 2021 11: 58
    +1
    Naive Japanese youth!
  22. Yuriy71
    Yuriy71 April 27 2021 11: 58
    +1
    This "song" will be eternal!))). Have you changed the batteries?
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak April 27 2021 12: 30
      0
      Have you changed the batteries?

      Japanese batteries are quite tenacious ...))
  23. Azat Mambetov
    Azat Mambetov April 27 2021 11: 59
    +1
    This is already a tradition. Every prime minister breaks his teeth about this question. It looks like mazahism.
  24. 22 dmdc
    22 dmdc April 27 2021 12: 13
    +1
    It looks like mazachism. Harakiri (Japanese 腹 切 り), or seppuku (Japanese 切腹) [1] (literally "ripping open the abdomen"), is a ritual suicide by ripping open the abdomen, adopted among the samurai class
  25. awg75
    awg75 April 27 2021 12: 15
    +1
    Why don't we put forward a counterclaim? For example, in Hokkaido. Primordially Russian land))))
    1. ioan-e
      ioan-e April 27 2021 12: 28
      +1
      Quote: awg75
      Why don't we put forward a counterclaim? For example, in Hokkaido. Primordially Russian land))))

      And also Alaska to boot, and Fort Ross, and let the p.i.d.s.s. return the Texas Chacos to the Chakos!
  26. From Tomsk
    From Tomsk April 27 2021 12: 29
    +2
    It is very easy for Japan to get the Kuriles so that they become their own, it is necessary, like Crimea, to hold a referendum and ask to join Russia and our multinational Russian family will be replenished with Russians of Japanese nationality, the Japanese will be able to live in the Kuriles, on their own land.
  27. Irbiz123
    Irbiz123 April 27 2021 12: 38
    +3
    To the stubborn japam
  28. Pavel73
    Pavel73 April 27 2021 12: 50
    0
    They say that they and Hokkaido are not completely mastered. And these Kuril Islands are a purely political issue, not an economic one.
  29. viktor.
    viktor. April 27 2021 12: 53
    0
    Why doesn't Russia demand a couple more islands? in exchange for a (Peace) Treaty! With the Japanese that there is a treaty that it does not exist, in which case they must be immediately removed from the world map!
  30. Nikolay73
    Nikolay73 April 27 2021 13: 04
    0
    According to the current Constitution of the Russian Federation, there is only one legal way - to annex the rest of Japan ... but the Americans will not like it ... sadness ...
  31. Guru
    Guru April 27 2021 13: 13
    0
    Japanese Premier Yoshihide Suga saidthat the Japanese government plans to finally close the issue with Russia on the ownership of the Northern Territories (Kuril Islands), without leaving its decision to the future, and promised to adhere to the same course as his predecessor as Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.
    He just said, and where is the oath on the grave of his father. And when they already will do Harakiri for themselves. laughing
  32. Maikcg
    Maikcg April 27 2021 13: 16
    0
    and promised to follow the same course as his predecessor as Prime Minister Shinzo Abe

    That is, it will not do anything. The balabolka is empty.
  33. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy April 27 2021 13: 17
    +1
    Japan promised to resolve the issue of the Kuril Islands in negotiations with Russia
    fool It was resolved 75 years ago. request And, you were in a coma then, it also happens when issues are resolved without asking Russia.
  34. Slipper 2
    Slipper 2 April 27 2021 14: 12
    0
    Let the Chinese populate the Japanese, crawl and kiss the king's slippers before it's too late lol
  35. Borets
    Borets April 27 2021 14: 52
    +2
    Shinzo Abe swore at his father's grave that he would return the islands. If they are all such a samurai there, then in theory he should do seppuku.
  36. Abrosimov Sergey Olegovich
    Abrosimov Sergey Olegovich April 27 2021 15: 17
    +2
    As far as I remember, Shinzo Abe, when he was Prime Minister of Japan at his father's grave, vowed to resolve the issue of the Northern Territories.
    I didn't decide.
    I didn't decide. Therefore, he publicly violated the oath he had given.
    So, maybe our Maria Zakharova should ask: when will Mr. Shinzo Abe make himself hara-kiri, out of intolerable shame for an unfulfilled promise?
  37. Klingon
    Klingon April 27 2021 15: 45
    +2
    Every Japanese prime minister who promises to return the Kuril Islands must, after the next elections, perform Seppuku in front of his follower in order to wash off the shame of verbiage and restore the honor of the name. And then not in samurai, how does it work out wassat
  38. Antagonist
    Antagonist April 27 2021 15: 48
    +8
    Japan promised to resolve the issue of the Kuril Islands in negotiations with Russia

    How funny these Japanese are lol
  39. NF68
    NF68 April 27 2021 15: 52
    0
    123456789 promise / try to resolve this issue.
  40. Vlad5307
    Vlad5307 April 27 2021 16: 18
    0
    When they signed the surrender, they were told that "as soon as the American troops leave Japonia and Japan takes over the duties of neutrality and will have only the agreed self-defense forces," then negotiations on the status of some small islands are possible. And since all the conditions have been violated, then there is no subject for negotiations. hi
  41. Fedorovich
    Fedorovich April 27 2021 18: 10
    0
    Send the cat girls for negotiations - then we, so be it, will listen to you ...