Japan angry at Russian army drills on disputed islands

[mike2000]

well no surprise here. Russia has condusted military exercises before on the islands in the past. though the recent military exercises comes at a time Japan at the behest of the U.S imposed sanctions on Russia (though minimal). Its true its a sign from Russia to Japan that it too can act forcefully/be assertive towards Japan.
However, i dont read too much into this. As i said before, Russia will have/will never ever give the Kurils islands to Japan, irrespective of the Ukraine crisis. Japan hasn nothing much to lose sanctioning Russia, since there isnt much Russia can offer Japan that the West/U.S doesnt already offer Japan, and Japan and Russia interests dont match anyway. Russia(with China) have as aim to dislodged the U.S from their sphere of influence in Eastern Europe and Asia respectively. Japan doesnt share that view, in fact Japan can even be considered part of the west. since they are the only Asian country in the G7,are developed, democracy and have a massive U.S military base there. So Japan is firmly in the western Camp(though geographically they are in Asia.lol), So Japan will almost always go along with the west/U.S actions when it comes to critical issues like Ukraine crisis that is of great importance to the west. It was naive to ever think Japan will ally/partner with Russia, under no circumstances will that ever happen, except the U.S collapses/pull out of Japan entirely(which we all know is never going to happen, not this century i believe,)

So i think this military exercise by Russia is just a sign they dont know what else to do, to show their displeasure towards Japan. Japan shouldnt worry much about this, since it changes nothing. Russia has absolutely nothing to offer Japan other than oil and gas which Japan has been/can procure from other sources in the world.

But to be fair/honest(as im always when in a forum.), Japan did renounce all rights to this islands and Senkakus(which i think should belong to Taiwan by the way) as well after the second world war. However, times have changed, so dont think the san francisco treaty is relevant today.

 

[XenoEnsi-14]

Kuril islands? Didn't the San Francisco Treaty stipulate that Japan must give up all claim to the Kuril islands?

Yes and no:

Treaty of San Francisco

Article 2

(c) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands, and to that portion of Sakhalin and the islands adjacent to it over which Japan acquired sovereignty as a consequence of the Treaty of Portsmouth of 5 September 1905.

This doesn't say anything about Japans claim of the Kuril Islands as a consequence of the Matsumae Clan during Japans Edo period prior to the Treaty of Portsmouth of 5 September 1905.

Also in the Same Treaty

Article 1

(b) The Allied Powers recognize the full sovereignty of the Japanese people over Japan and its territorial waters.

The Ainu people of the Kuril Islands are ethnically Japanese. There for, the Allied Powers recognize that the Kuril Islands are Japanese through the Ainu people who are a Japanese.


Also, this treaty does not give the rights for Russia to lay claim to the Kuril Islands.

 

[Zsari]

Yes and no:

Treaty of San Francisco

Article 2

(c) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands, and to that portion of Sakhalin and the islands adjacent to it over which Japan acquired sovereignty as a consequence of the Treaty of Portsmouth of 5 September 1905.

This doesn't say anything about Japans claim of the Kuril Islands as a consequence of the Matsumae Clan during Japans Edo period prior to the Treaty of Portsmouth of 5 September 1905.

Also in the Same Treaty

Article 1

(b) The Allied Powers recognize the full sovereignty of the Japanese people over Japan and its territorial waters.

The Ainu people of the Kuril Islands are ethnically Japanese. There for, the Allied Powers recognize that the Kuril Islands are Japanese through the Ainu people who are a Japanese.


Also, this treaty does not give the rights for Russia to lay claim to the Kuril Islands.

Is the Kuril island Japan acquired in the Treaty of Portsmouth the same Kuril island Japan claims by the Matsumae Clan? If it is the same, then the former clearly precedes that of the later, as when you renounce your present claim, you cannot revert back to previous claim.

Note it is the full sovereignty of Japanese people over Japan. If you have renounced all claim to a territory, that is no longer Japan, which the previous statement would not qualify.

 

[XenoEnsi-14]

Is the Kuril island Japan acquired in the Treaty of Portsmouth the same Kuril island Japan claims by the Matsumae Clan? If it is the same, then the former clearly precedes that of the later, as when you renounce your present claim, you cannot revert back to previous claim.

Note it is the full sovereignty of Japanese people over Japan. If you have renounced all claim to a territory, that is no longer Japan, which the previous statement would not qualify.

You are talking about common sense and honesty, that's how you loose. Japan is using ambiguity against the the Treaty, which I explained above.

I think the Matsumae Clan had all of the Kuril Islands under there protection.