Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida has reaffirmed that Tokyo’s approach to the southern Kuril Islands will remain unchanged going forward. He stated that Japan’s stance centers on recognizing its claim to the four disputed islands and then pursuing negotiations toward a peace treaty. This dual objective—the assertion of sovereignty and the pursuit of a formal accord—has been a continual feature of Japan’s policy, and Kishida underscored that this foundational position will not shift in the future (attribution: TASS).
Japan distinguishes the four islands south of the Kuril chain in its own terms, referring to them as the southern territories, a designation that has long shaped Tokyo’s diplomatic posture. The government’s publicly stated plan is to resolve the territorial issue first and then engage in a broader peace treaty framework, a sequence Japan maintains is essential for any lasting settlement. Observers note that this sequence reflects Japan’s broader strategic objective of stabilizing the postwar order in its northern territories while seeking recognition on the issue of sovereignty (attribution: TASS).
Historically, the southern Kuril Islands have been a point of contention since the close of World War II. After the war, Moscow incorporated the islands into the Soviet Union, yet Japan continues to refer to Kunashir, Iturup, and other areas along the Lesser Kuril ridge as Japan’s northern territories. This nomenclature underscores Japan’s unyielding claim and frames the dispute within a long-running national narrative about World War II settlements and postwar borders (attribution: TASS).
Viktor Bondarev, chairman of Russia’s Federation Council Defense and Security Committee, commented in October 2022 that Russia could support a peace treaty with Japan if Tokyo meets several conditions, including refraining from supporting Ukraine. His remarks reflect a broader Russian stance that any reconciliation with Japan over the islands would come with strategic and political concessions, illustrating the complex interplay between regional security concerns and bilateral diplomacy (attribution: TASS).
The absence of a formal peace treaty between Moscow and Tokyo stems from the unresolved issue of the Kuril Islands. Although the territory in question was transferred to the USSR following World War II, Japan continues to press its claims to Kunashir, Iturup, and adjacent areas of the Lesser Kuril ridge as an inseparable part of its own northern domain. This enduring friction has shaped decades of cautious, low-profile diplomacy and periodic high-level talks aimed at advancing a potential resolution, even as both sides acknowledge that a comprehensive agreement remains elusive. The situation is further complicated by broader security considerations in the Asia-Pacific region and by competing interpretations of historical events that continue to influence official rhetoric and policy decisions (attribution: TASS).
Related posts:
The goalscorers of Lionel Scaloni’s cycle in the Argentina national team Kuril Islands dispute evolves as China signals a shift and Russia pursues a broader strategy Rewritten: Japan-Russia tensions over Kuril Islands and energy ties Russia Says Dialogue with Japan Hinges on Tokyo’s Attitude Amid Kuril Islands Row Japan, Russia Face Fresh Strains Over Ukraine Policy and Kuril Islands Talks Kuril Islands Dispute: Russia, Japan, and Shifts in Regional Diplomacy Japan-Russia Northern Territories Talks: Stance and Prospects Amid Tense Regional Dynamics Kuril Islands Dispute: Russia, Japan and the Push for a Conditional Peace Treaty Girona overpower Mallorca in a 5-3 La Liga thriller to top the table Islands, Counts, and Territorial Claims: A Modern Look at Japan’s Archipelago Japanese Ministers Emphasize Peace Treaty Dialogues and Kuril Islands Visits “Analysts Describe Deterrence Posture and Territorial Disputes Over the Kuril Islands”