China for the first time in nearly six decades signaled a notable shift on the Kuril question this Monday, as reports from Kyodo and sources close to Beijing indicated a change in tone from the Chinese side. The core topic remains the same: who controls the crossroads of islands that stretch between Russia’s Sakhalin region and Japan. Historically, the matter has stirred regional tensions for generations, with Japan insisting on sovereignty over the southern Kurils, a claim backed by many in Tokyo, while Moscow maintains the islands are part of Russia.
In a recent encounter, President Xi Jinping told Russian President Vladimir Putin that China would avoid taking a fixed stance favoring either side on this sensitive issue. Kyodo described the move as potentially reshaping the dynamics of negotiations, potentially buoying Russia’s confidence in pursuing a peace agreement. The report also noted that Moscow invited China to consider possible investment in the Kuril Islands, highlighting a special regional status that could influence future economic plans in the area.
The broader context includes a sequence of sanctions and diplomatic measures following Russia’s actions in Ukraine. Moscow has declared that it is ending peace treaty talks with Tokyo and has suspended visa-free travel for Japanese citizens. Russia also walked away from discussions on joint economic activities in the South Kuril Islands. This is part of a long-running pattern of tense exchanges that has kept the issue in the international spotlight.
A notable moment in the historical record occurred in October 2022, when Valery Limarenko, the Governor of Sakhalin, commented on the Southern Kurils, labeling them as territories occupied by Russia. The Ukrainian president at the time, Volodymyr Zelensky, argued that any challenge to Russia’s territorial integrity was unacceptable, a statement that underscores the fragility of regional diplomacy in this area.
Documents declassified in May 2021 by Japan shed light on past discussions about the South Kuril question. These papers reveal that in the early 1970s Moscow proposed resolving the dispute by transferring the two main islands to Tokyo, and a peace treaty was drafted. One sticking point was a mutual renunciation of future territorial claims. Japan at the time declined to sign, insisting on the transfer of all disputed islands.
regional problem
Following World War II, the Kuril Islands were incorporated into Russia’s Sakhalin Oblast. Japan continues to dispute ownership of the southern islands, which it calls the Hokkaido prefecture and labels the northern regions. The historical sequence includes the earlier cession by the Russian Empire of the southern Sakhalin region and the Liaodong Peninsula after the Russo-Japanese War of 1905. When World War II ended, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan and swiftly occupied the Kuril archipelago. By early September 1945, Soviet forces had established control over the islands, and in 1946 the South Sakhalin Territory and the Kurils were integrated into the Khabarovsk Territory of the RSFSR.
A significant milestone occurred in 1956 when the Soviet Union and Japan signed a Joint Declaration announcing the end of the state of war and the restoration of peace and neighborly relations. Moscow agreed to transfer Habomai and Shikotan to Japan after a peace treaty was reached. The declaration, however, left the fate of the Lesser Kuril Ridge uncertain, offering broad language about potential transfers or long-term leases without precise terms. Japan later refused to sign a peace treaty, feeling that it had not given up its claims to Iturup and Kunashir, and the issue has remained unresolved for decades.
The Kuril question remains a touchstone of regional diplomacy, with both sides pointing to history, international law, and security considerations to justify their positions. While discussions have periodically resurfaced in diplomacy and dialogue, concrete progress toward a comprehensive settlement has been elusive. The evolving political climate in Russia, China, and Japan continues to shape how this dispute is approached, with economic ties, strategic calculations, and national narratives all playing a part in any future approach to a lasting agreement.
Related posts:
Rewritten: Japan-Russia tensions over Kuril Islands and energy ties Kuril Islands Dispute: Russia, Japan, and Shifts in Regional Diplomacy Japan’s Kuril Islands: Kishida’s stance and the peace treaty path Japan, Russia Face Fresh Strains Over Ukraine Policy and Kuril Islands Talks Russia Says Dialogue with Japan Hinges on Tokyo’s Attitude Amid Kuril Islands Row Additional Context on Iturup Island and Kuril Island Disputes Kuril Islands Dispute: Russia, Japan and the Push for a Conditional Peace Treaty Japan reaffirms claim on southern Kurils amid global diplomatic shifts Japan-Russia Northern Territories Talks: Stance and Prospects Amid Tense Regional Dynamics “Analysts Describe Deterrence Posture and Territorial Disputes Over the Kuril Islands” Islands, Counts, and Territorial Claims: A Modern Look at Japan’s Archipelago Rewriting: Fishing Rights, Diplomacy, and Kuril Islands Dynamics