Russian spokesperson Dmitry Peskov has reiterated that Moscow does not entertain discussions or questions about who owns the Kuril Islands, framing the issue as settled within the sovereignty of the Russian Federation. His comments came in response to a journalist’s inquiry linked to Japan’s newly circulated diplomatic dossier, often described as a “Blue Book,” in which Tokyo continues to treat the Kurils as Japanese territory and calls the ownership dispute a persistent obstacle in bilateral relations. Peskov pressed the point that the Kuril archipelago is an inseparable part of Russia and that any framing of the issue that questions this principle is not only unnecessary but also fails to reflect the legal and historical grounds Russia maintains. He underscored this stance while pointing to decades of state practice that, in Moscow’s view, codified a settlement that does not accommodate competing claims that would threaten the current status. The exchange highlights how sensitive this topic remains for both capitals and how new publication formats from Japan can reintroduce familiar disputes into the public narrative, inviting Russia to restate its position clearly and publicly. This moment is part of a broader pattern in which official statements from Moscow address not only the substantive claim but also the tone and method of discussion surrounding the Kurils, signaling that Russia prefers a direct, unambiguous discourse rather than a dialogue framed around alternate historical narratives or unilateral reinterpretations.
The Japanese government has long described the southern Kuril Islands as an integral part of what Japan calls its home territories, currently under what Tokyo labels an illegal occupation. In its official Blue Book, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs asserts that the ownership problem remains the most significant unresolved issue in Japan–Russia relations, a characterization that frames the dispute as part of a longer arc of postwar regional diplomacy. Tokyo maintains that resolving the status of these islands is essential not only for bilateral normalization but also for regional stability and the broader security architecture in Northeast Asia. The language used in the document signals that Japan sees this question as a legal and moral matter grounded in disputed sovereignty, and it places ongoing diplomatic negotiations under a framework that prioritizes restitution of what Japan describes as its territory. The publication also serves to reaffirm Tokyo’s position in international forums and to guide policymakers and observers in understanding Japan’s expectations ahead of any future talks or agreements that might touch on sovereignty, security arrangements, and economic cooperation in the northern Pacific region.
Observers note that the Japanese Blue Book reflects a persistent insistence on recognizing the conventional interpretation of historical ownership claims while acknowledging the practical challenges of reconciliation with Russia. In this context, Japan emphasizes that the cores of the dispute lie not only in maps and treaties but also in the day-to-day implications for residents, resources, and the strategic value of the archipelago. The discussions around this issue often intersect with regional economic interests, including fishing rights, potential energy resources, and the broader question of how to manage cross-border livelihoods in the area. The ongoing narrative demonstrates how national narratives shape foreign policy decisions, with Tokyo arguing that any durable settlement must address the legal status of the islands and the rights of Japanese citizens who maintain ties to the land and its maritime environs. The Blue Book thus acts as a tool that consolidates Japan’s diplomatic posture, while inviting Western and regional partners to observe the interplay between sovereignty claims and practical diplomacy at a moment when regional tensions can quickly escalate if discussions appear to stall or regress.
Meanwhile, reports from Kyodo News indicated that China had shifted its stance toward the Kuril question, moving toward a position of neutrality for the first time in nearly six decades. Beijing’s previous posture had aligned more closely with Tokyo’s interpretation, reflecting a long-standing dynamic in which major regional powers weigh the implications of any bilateral dispute against broader strategic considerations. The appearance of neutrality, if confirmed, could alter the calculus for both Moscow and Tokyo by reducing one axis of external pressure and potentially encouraging a more direct focus on bilateral diplomacy. Analysts suggest that Beijing’s reorientation may be motivated by a mix of pragmatic concerns—economic ties, regional security, and the desire to avoid becoming entangled in what remains a highly sensitive sovereignty debate. In this light, China’s stance could influence how the Kuril issue is discussed on the international stage, including within multilateral forums where powers seek to balance interests and maintain stability in Northeast Asia. The development invites close scrutiny of how third-party positions interact with the core Russian–Japanese dialogue and what this means for future negotiations and regional diplomacy overall. (Source attribution: Kyodo News)
Related posts:
Rewritten: Japan-Russia tensions over Kuril Islands and energy ties Kuril Islands dispute evolves as China signals a shift and Russia pursues a broader strategy Japan’s Kuril Islands: Kishida’s stance and the peace treaty path 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 Japan reaffirms claim on southern Kurils amid global diplomatic shifts Islands, Counts, and Territorial Claims: A Modern Look at Japan’s Archipelago Rewriting: Fishing Rights, Diplomacy, and Kuril Islands Dynamics Kuril Islands Dispute: Russia, Japan and the Push for a Conditional Peace Treaty Japan-Russia Northern Territories Talks: Stance and Prospects Amid Tense Regional Dynamics Japan-Russia Dialogue Prospects and North American Energy Impacts Japanese Ministers Emphasize Peace Treaty Dialogues and Kuril Islands Visits