Business Insider: Russia stopped flirting with Japan on the Kuril topic

December 20 2020 26

Russia and its leader Vladimir Putin for a long time "played" with the former Prime Minister of Japan Shinzo Abe on the Kuril issue, but now all conventions have been discarded. This conclusion can be drawn from the recent publication of the largest news portal Business Insider.

Japan's decades-old diplomatic efforts to end a long-standing territorial dispute with Russia have failed, the US Supreme Commander in Japan said this month. Moscow made this unambiguously clear by starting military reinforcement of the islands by deploying S-300 air defense systems there.

Diplomatically speaking, there was absolutely no return from these conversations. […] The source of tension is still there

Said Lieutenant General Kevin Schneider, the commander of US forces in Japan, at a meeting of the United States Air Force Association on December 1.

After Abe left office in September, and his successor, Yoshihide Suga, also promised to deal with the problem, but, as noted in the article, the current head of state is likely to achieve no more success than his predecessor in high office.

Abe did put a lot of effort into personal diplomacy with Putin to try and move the case.

- said Sheila Smith, Senior Fellow Japanese Studies at the New York Council on Foreign Relations.

Smith believes that Putin "played with Abe by showing interest in the idea of a settlement and then rejecting it." An unnamed retired Russian official called the president's approach "trolling," she said.

Abe probably put in too much effort, and Putin has repeatedly rebuffed him. [...] There were times when I think it must have become clear to Prime Minister Abe that Putin is not going to move in this direction

Smith says.

The publication also voiced other opinions. But they, rather, only confirm the above.

Undoubtedly, the fact is the strengthening of Russian military power in Eastern Siberia and the Far East. […] This is most obvious in the example of the accelerated updating of the capabilities of the Pacific Fleet of the Russian Federation

- previously believed the military expert Alexei Muravyov.

The article notes that facing double pressure from Russia and China, in the north and south, respectively, and economic difficulties, Japan nevertheless in response will increasingly build up its own defensive capabilities, as well as rely more on the system of international alliances.

In addition, the publication recalls that incidents between Russian and American warships have also become more frequent in the North Pacific.

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

beeper

+9

20 December 2020 12: 15

"Return" ... oops, why am I writing the old-fashioned way, because, probably, it is easy to unwittingly "fly in" under a fresh article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation about "an attempt on territorial integrity" ?!
I noticed how in this News everything is streamlined and vaguely diplomatic, in Aesopian language it is "formulated" - "games ... on the Kuril topic (although those readers who are" not in the subject "are unlikely to understand what kind of" games " such and what kind of "Kuril theme" is this, if the News specifically about its essence is not gu-gu ",
but only hints, hints ?! ) "," long-standing territorial disputes (between Japan and Russia) "," these conversations "," a source of tension "," the idea of a settlement "," move in this direction "," try to move things ", ?!
Instead of writing directly and clearly about the decades-old Japanese insistent desire-demand (at the suggestion of Khrushchev-Gorbachev) to the USSR (and now to the present-day RF, at the suggestion of EBN, as well as Putin-Medvedev, with an "inspiring" example of "chic the settlement of territorial, sea and land, disputes "with the United States, China and Norway in the unconditional favor of these" demanding people "!)" voluntary return of the northern territories ", that is, the Kuril Islands, which were recognized by WWII (including by the authorities USA, since 1945 and still occupying Japan!) the territory of our Soviet Union!
Now, with the new "alignment of forces" and liberal "partner (" best friendly ") sentiments" in the Russian leadership, rapidly reviving Japanese militarism and in every possible way awakening revanchist sentiments in the Japanese community, Washington (in the person of Tokyo controlled by it) is insistently "demanding a return." Russian Kuriles (it is obvious that under the American naval base and for complete control of the Sea of Okhotsk, the straits along which Russian strategic missile carriers go on alert duty into the ocean).
By the way, if, God forbid, allow the slack in the "Kuril theme", then the American-Japanese will inevitably raise the "Sakhalin theme" - after all, "the claw is stuck, the bird is lost" ...

PS Cheat to me, looking from the outside, did not seem at all to be "trolling" by Vladimir Putin's recent attempts to "agree on the Kuril issue" with the Japanese Shinzo Abe ?!
And, in my opinion, only the growing "resonance" in Russian society about yet another compliant "territorial agreement" with demanding "partners" forced the Kremlin to slow down on the "Kuril theme" (but the Japanese do not hide their hopes, "playing for a long time", for more "negotiated" future Russian leadership or "limited blitzkrieg" at an opportune moment, while rushing about the "growing Russian threat" by rapidly building up its own assault landing naval forces! ) ?!
IMHO
1. Alexzn
  
  -24
  
  20 December 2020 12: 50
  
  that is, the Kuril Islands, according to the results of WWII, recognized (including by the US authorities, from 1945 and until now occupying Japan!) The territory of our Soviet Union!
  
  Well, you, my friend, piled up ...
  The USSR acquired the islands as a result of aggression against Japan (the reasons for this can be explained, but the fact remains).
  The Americans did NOT recognize sovereignty over the 4 islands and consider them occupied by the USSR / RF.
  The Americans were against the treaty between Japan and the USSR on the 2nd islands, as they believed that this would be a recognition of the annexation of the Sov. By the union of the other two, Japan agreed (there was a threat of not returning Okinawa).
  Japan is not occupied by states - sheer stupidity. The American administration of Okinawa ceased to exist in 1972.
  1. Evgeny Popov
    
    +8
    
    20 December 2020 22: 03
    
    Japan is studded with American objects. Something about a hundred. The tricks of the military are hushed up and released on the brakes. What is this if not an occupation? The same bullshit with Germany, albeit to a lesser extent.
  2. shinobi
    
    +2
    
    23 December 2020 02: 22
    
    Just do not say it in Okinawa itself, they can beat you.
    PS: The Empire is where its Gornison stands! -Ju. Caesar
    In fact, Japan, Germany, France, (underline the necessary) occupied territories, except for the fact that they do not have an American administration.
  3. The comment was deleted.
2. Evgeny Popov
  
  +4
  
  20 December 2020 22: 31
  
  with an "inspiring" example of a "smart settlement of territorial, sea and land disputes" with the United States, China and Norway in the unconditional favor of these "demanding people"!
  
  Let's deal.
  1. Norway. Firstly, the dispute in any case should have been settled sooner or later. Secondly, we have not lost anything. Thirdly, in the presence of a territorial dispute, we could not apply to the UN to join something like 1.2 million square kilometers on the Arctic shelf. And our application has been accepted and approved over the years. If the USA knew about this, then Norway would never agree to resolve this dispute across itself.
  2. China. I advise you to look at the map to understand where the Tarabarov island is located purely logically. As for the other territory, its transfer was agreed upon much earlier. The main thing is that potential points of conflict on a territorial basis are excluded.
  3. USA. What does this mean?
  Russia has perfectly resolved territorial disputes and, through an amendment to the constitution, gave a hint to the rest of them that they figured out their wishlist.
  1. beeper
    
    -2
    
    20 December 2020 23: 02
    
    Dear Evgeny Popov, Thank you for your explanations!
    If you pay attention, the word "inspiring" is quoted by me, since such a "game of territories", by mere fact (and not by the latent meanings of such "chess moves"), could well have inspired only those who had territorial claims to the USSR ( and later, to the RF) ?!
    In this particular case, observing such a "smart settlement of issues", the Japanese and themselves "rose up and imbued", there Prime Minister Abe, joyful after Putin's encouraging "trolling", even "swore on the grave of his father" ... now here, clean -samurai ", will have to Mr. Shinzo" seppuku "to do (il said sick and that's it ?!) ?!
    1. taisiya
      
      +3
      
      21 December 2020 21: 53
      
      Oh, yes, the Japanese were faced with the question of a hypothetical alleged possibility of transferring the islands like a carrot in front of their noses in order to interest the Japanese in the joint development of the islands. They offered them all kinds of gingerbread so that the Japanese would invest in the islands.
      The Japanese did not agree to invest. The question was closed.
andrey f.

+1

20 December 2020 23: 23

You know, I'm tired of this topic, the Kuril Islands, to be honest! Shoigu handsome-cut off all the questions! Damn, how I respect this chela !!!
gore

-1

21 December 2020 07: 01

Who are the Japanese?
Alexzn

-6

21 December 2020 08: 30

Quote: Evgeny Popov
Japan is studded with American objects. Something about a hundred. The tricks of the military are hushed up and released on the brakes. What is this if not an occupation? The same bullshit with Germany, albeit to a lesser extent.

By your logic, Syria is occupied by Russia, there are not just bases there, Russian soldiers killed thousands of Syrian citizens ...
In Armenia, a Russian soldier not only raped someone, he killed the whole family ... Is Armenia, by the way, also occupied? And Kyrgyzstan?
1. The presence of bases on the territory is not an occupation.
2. The problem of the behavior of servicemen from bases on the territory of third countries is a general problem, but it has nothing to do with the occupation.
1. Evgeny Popov
  
  +2
  
  21 December 2020 14: 48
  
  Yes, you have schizophrenia. Go take pills. What are the "bases"?
  - Raise all our planes!
  - sho, all two?
  What are the killings of "thousands" of Syrian citizens? Who shit in your brain like that? Or fell for the production of white helmets with toxic substances? :)
  Yes, there was a tragedy in Armenia. One, albeit large. About rape again seems to be invented something. As far as I remember, the family was shot. The conscript - sh-i-z-i-k.
  The presence of about a hundred military facilities is a clear occupation, for which the Japanese themselves also pay. All sorts of rape and so on happen to them all the time, but this is all released on the brakes, and the guilty are sent home. And they are unlikely to be punished. As for Armenia, the culprit is serving a life sentence. Russian military bases outside the country are literally one at a time. Therefore, it is impossible to compare in any way.
  Returning to Japan, we can say for sure that the country is completely independent and follows in the wake of its older brother, the United States.
  
  According to Okinawa Police Department reports from 1972 to 2016, 4700 crimes were recorded in Okinawa, including 574 cases of violent crimes - murder, robbery, beatings and rape - by the US military. In other words, according to these statistics, the US military commits an average of one violent crime per month in Okinawa.
  Some of these crimes are raging all over the world.
  Such, for example, was the murder by 33-year-old American infantryman Kenneth Franklin, who remained to work in Japan as a civilian specialist after seven years of service, of a 20-year-old Japanese girl whose body was found only a month after the murder.
2. Alexzn
  
  -1
  
  22 December 2020 08: 57
  
  Quote: AlexZN
  What are the "bases"?
  
  ... TV channel "Zvezda" reported that Russia will create a new helicopter base in the city of al-Qamishli in northern Syria. It will become the third permanent residence of the Russian contingent in Syria: along with the airbase in the city of Khmeimim, 30 kilometers from the border with Turkey, and the naval base in Tartus. In addition, the Russian aviation uses two so-called jump airfields - in Shayrat and in Tiyas.
  
  What are the killings of "thousands" of Syrian citizens? Who shit in your brain like that? Or fell for the production of white helmets with toxic substances? :)
  
  Since the beginning of the operation, aviation has flown 18 sorties, inflicted 800 strikes on terrorist infrastructure. 71 training camps, 725 factories and workshops for the production of ammunition, one and a half thousand units of military equipment of terrorists, 405 thousand militants, including 35 field commanders, were liquidated - this is the official data of the Russian side. In the conditions of the CIVIL WAR, when up to 204% of the militants were Syrians ...
  PS Well, who shit who? Who needs a pill?
3. Max Winter
  
  0
  
  25 December 2020 07: 42
  
  where you taught history, multifaceted, are you ours?
Alexzn

-4

21 December 2020 08: 37

From the reaction, I understood:
1. USSR \ RF you can terminate the peace treaty and attack third countries - this is not aggression.
2. USSR \ RF can occupy the territory of third countries with subsequent annexation.
3. USSR \ RF can be condemned by a third party if it does not recognize the annexation.
4. And in general, who are the Japanese, we will not give them anything, these are primordially Russian lands, Russians have always lived there.
1. Evgeny Popov
  
  +3
  
  21 December 2020 14: 53
  
  You didn't understand a damn thing.
  
  About annexation ... the rest of the nonsense will fall off by itself.
  
  From the UN Charter:
  
  All peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of this right, they freely establish their political status and freely ensure their economic, social and cultural development ... All states participating in this Covenant ... must, in accordance with the provisions of the UN Charter, promote the exercise of the right to self-determination and respect this right. "
  
  We can say that this right rests against the territorial integrity of the state. But the principle of territorial integrity is aimed solely at protecting the state from external aggression, and not from its own peoples who want to self-determine.
  
  It is with this that his wording in paragraph 4 of Art. 2 of the UN Charter:
  
  All UN members refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force, either against the territorial inviolability or political independence of any state, or in any other way incompatible with the purposes of the United Nations.
  
  It is also pointed out that the principle of territorial integrity is secondary and subordinated to the right of peoples to self-determination: according to the Declaration on the Principles of International Law, in the actions of states “nothing should be interpreted as authorizing or encouraging any actions that would lead to dismemberment or partial or complete violation of territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent states, observing in their actions the principle of equality and self-determination of peoples ”.
  
  It follows that if the state does not respect the principle of equality and self-determination of peoples, then the principle of territorial integrity does not apply to this state. This has been shown by the example of the Crimea.
  
  Further, the completely independent Crimea became part of the Russian Federation. Annexation is in the minds of all liberals, but in fact - everything is in accordance with international law. Because the West can only helplessly gaff from the side doing all sorts of nasty things.
Alexzn

-4

21 December 2020 15: 26

Quote: Evgeny Popov
You didn't understand a damn thing.

About annexation ... the rest of the nonsense will fall off by itself.

From the UN Charter:
“All peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of this right, they freely establish their political status and freely ensure their economic, social and cultural development ... All States Parties to the present Covenant ... must, in accordance with the provisions of the UN Charter, promote the exercise of the right to self-determination and respect this right. ”

We can say that this right rests against the territorial integrity of the state. But the principle of territorial integrity is aimed solely at protecting the state from external aggression, and not from its own peoples who want to self-determine.

It is with this that his wording in paragraph 4 of Art. 2 of the UN Charter: "All UN members refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force, either against the territorial inviolability or political independence of any state, or in any other way incompatible with the Goals of the United Nations."

It is also pointed out that the principle of territorial integrity is secondary and subordinated to the right of peoples to self-determination: according to the Declaration on the Principles of International Law, in the actions of states “nothing should be interpreted as authorizing or encouraging any actions that would lead to dismemberment or partial or complete violation of territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent states, observing in their actions the principle of equality and self-determination of peoples ”.

It follows that if the state does not respect the principle of equality and self-determination of peoples, then the principle of territorial integrity does not apply to this state. This has been shown by the example of the Crimea.

Further, the completely independent Crimea became part of the Russian Federation. Annexation is in the minds of all liberals, but in fact - everything is in accordance with international law. Because the West can only helplessly gaff from the side doing all sorts of nasty things.

You perfectly confirmed the point about the annexation of the Kuril Islands (we can discuss Crimea separately, there was no talk about it in this thread) ...
Or was there a right to self-determination? Amused.
The USSR first, as a result of aggression (see the definition), squeezed the islands, then occupied them with subsequent annexation.
Now try to refute that.
1. Evgeny Popov
  
  +4
  
  21 December 2020 15: 37
  
  After defeat in the war, Japan signed the Act of Unconditional Surrender (September 2, 1945) and accepted the terms of the Potsdam Declaration of July 26, 1945. Japanese sovereignty was limited to the islands of Honshu, Kyushu, Shikoku and Hokkaido, as well as the smaller islands of the Japanese archipelago (by decision of the Allies). All. What is the annexation of the Kuril Islands? What self-determination? What are you talking about? :)
  Once again: by right of the winner.
  Those. Japan is now contesting what it itself signed.
2. Evgeny Popov
  
  +2
  
  21 December 2020 15: 49
  
  There is nothing to discuss about Crimea. I have described everything above.
Alexzn

-5

21 December 2020 15: 55

Quote: Evgeny Popov
After defeat in the war, Japan signed the Act of Unconditional Surrender (September 2, 1945) and accepted the terms of the Potsdam Declaration of July 26, 1945. Japanese sovereignty was limited to the islands of Honshu, Kyushu, Shikoku and Hokkaido, as well as the smaller islands of the Japanese archipelago (by decision of the Allies). All. What is the annexation of the Kuril Islands? What self-determination? What are you talking about? :)
Once again: by right of the winner.
Those. Japan is now contesting what it itself signed.

1. Not you, but you.
2. Now questions.
a. Was the USSR aggression against Japan?
b. Was there an occupation of the Kuril Islands?
in. Was there a subsequent annexation of the islands?
If you reduce to the RIGHT OF THE WINNER, then this does not deny the existence of - aggression, occupation, annexation.
Accordingly, we return to my previous conclusions.
1. USSR \ RF you can terminate the peace treaty and attack third countries - this is not aggression.
2. USSR \ RF can occupy the territory of third countries with subsequent annexation.
3. USSR \ RF can be condemned by a third party if it does not recognize the annexation.
4. And in general, who are the Japanese, we will not give them anything, these are primordially Russian lands, Russians have always lived there.
1. Evgeny Popov
  
  +4
  
  21 December 2020 17: 16
  
  Okay, questions ...
  1. Is the desire to restrain the violent and dangerous aggression? What does it mean, there was aggression against Napoleon, against Hitler? We are not good for driving them all back :)
  2. Ie in the process of restraining a violent and dangerous one should not enter its territory? Those. was the occupation of Paris, Berlin ... yes? :) It turns out that the adversary, once on his territory, could say that he is in the house and that's it, no one can do anything to him? :)
  3. Not annexation, but retribution for aggression. Annexation is a forcible annexation, and the islands crossed over according to the Potsdam Declaration, i.e. the legal document and the agreements of the Yalta conference. The latter, however, does not apply to Japan. The main thing for her is that she is losing sovereignty over part of the territories, and in whose favor it is no longer her concern.
  
  Now conclusions ....
  
  On April 5, 1945, the USSR announced the denunciation of the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact (1941; should have been in effect until April 1946).
  
  This is not exactly a peace treaty that would have been in effect for just another year. This is normal practice. Aren't you outraged that the United States is quietly withdrawing from any treaties?
  1. Yes, it can, if the third party poses a threat. Considering that at that time it is well known what all these treaties are worth on the example of Germany, and Japan was its ally. The enemy must be stopped in someone else's territory, as far as possible from his own. And yes - this is not aggression, it is preventive protection. The ideal embodiment of the wisdom "the best defense is offense."
  2. Yes, you can, if the third party is a threat and has shown aggression itself. You cannot lisp with the enemy and he must pay for his aggression. Pay so that you will not be forgotten. Losing territories is a great option. And not annexation, but by right of the winner.
  3. Yes, you can, because the third party itself signed the documents, and now it breaks down. This is disgusting and clearly does not match the appearance of the samurai and their honor. Today's Japs are just cunning bugs. Fig them, not smoked.
  4. There is nothing to talk about at all. First, it’s silly to go deeper into history, because there weren't any Japs either. So are the "Americans" in America. Secondly, they lost - there is nothing to arise.
Alexzn

-5

21 December 2020 18: 03

Is it aggression to want to rein in the violent and dangerous? What does it mean, there was aggression against Napoleon, against Hitler? What are we not good that drove them all back :)

The legal concept of aggression does not include the concept of good / bad.
Who was violent and dangerous usually determines the winner.
Aggression is the use of force by one state against the territorial inviolability or political independence of another state.
Actions against Hitler and Napoleon cannot be regarded as aggression due to their initiation of actions that fall under the definition of aggression.

Not annexation, but retribution for aggression. Annexation is a forcible annexation, and the islands crossed over according to the Potsdam Declaration, i.e. the legal document and the agreements of the Yalta conference.

Those. Japan did not attack the USSR, and the Soviet attack on Japan is an act of Japanese aggression ... for which Japan must pay with islands that Russia has NOT forcibly annexed to itself.

On April 1945, the USSR announced the denunciation of the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact (1941; should have been in effect until April 1946). "This is not quite a peace treaty.

So after all, denunciation is not exactly annulment (if you understand the difference).

"the best defense is offense."

Certainly not aggressive! The most peaceful thing to eat!

And not annexation, but by the right of the winner.

Killing logic! The annex is ALWAYS the winner, but if he is the winner, it is not an annexation.
1. Evgeny Popov
  
  +5
  
  21 December 2020 19: 21
  
  Those. Japan did not attack the USSR, and the Soviet attack on Japan is an act of Japanese aggression ... for which Japan must pay with islands that Russia has NOT forcibly annexed to itself.
  
  You don't like working with sources. But it is enough to dig a little and everything will become clear:
  From 1905 to 1945, the Russo-Japanese War, by and large, did not stop, writes the historian Alexei Toporov. - So, as soon as civil strife began on Russian soil, even before the start of large-scale battles between the Whites and the Reds, in early January 1918, the Japanese cruiser Iwami entered the Vladivostok Bay in the name of “protecting the interests and lives of Japanese subjects living on Russian soil”. And in April, after the murder of two Japanese businessmen in the city (it is not clear by whom and for what), a Japanese landing was landed there.
  Then there was the capture of Primorye, Transbaikalia, Northern Sakhalin. Punitive expeditions in the village of Ivanovka in the Amur region killed 257 people - 37 were burned alive in a barn, the rest were shot from a machine gun.
  Later, the "yellow devils" were smoked from everywhere, but after the capture of Manchuria in 1932, the Japanese violated the border 124 times, 40 times their aircraft invaded Soviet airspace.
  
  And these are several episodes of "peaceful" Japan, which got "no way" :)
  You can find the rest on the Internet yourself. The Japs themselves asked for it.
  
  So after all, denunciation is not exactly annulment (if you understand the difference).
  
  Denunciation is a duly formalized refusal by a state from an international treaty concluded by it. It differs from other methods of termination of international treaty obligations in that the right to denouncement must be provided for in the treaty itself and is carried out in the manner strictly established by the treaty.
  Refusal - there is cancellation. What questions?
  
  Killing logic! The annex is ALWAYS the winner, but if he is the winner, it is not an annexation.
  
  There are nuances.
  The USSR received the winner by right in accordance with international agreements. If you want an example of annexation, look at the opposite side of the globe. Let's start with Texas and beyond, something that never belonged to the United States. Although, in principle, they did not own anything there. The US state itself is a 100% example of a pure annexation of territory from the Aborigines, i.e. Indians.
2. TeeRex
  
  +3
  
  23 December 2020 16: 50
  
  The legal concept of aggression does not include the concept of good / bad.
  Who was violent and dangerous usually determines the winner.
  Aggression is the use of force by one state against the territorial inviolability or political independence of another state.
  Actions against Hitler and Napoleon cannot be regarded as aggression due to their initiation of actions that fall under the definition of aggression.
  
  Poor Hitler, almost the entire Western bloc of countries and, first of all, treacherous France and Great Britain showed aggression against him ... The rest a little later pulled themselves up with their aggression, although apart from the United States, they were originally white and fluffy until they were declared war and then officially entered into conflict. And about the islands, all claims are against the United States and Great Britain, after all, on the right of the allies, they called the USSR into their conflict with Japan at the Yalta Conference, promising the islands not to suffer losses in the defeat of the Kwantung Army.
nikola bb

+3

21 December 2020 23: 47

Neither Russia nor Putin ever hinted with a single word about the possibility of transferring Iturup and Kunashir to Japan. All that the Japanese have fantasized about this topic are their personal problems.
shinobi

+2

23 December 2020 02: 57

The American Navy began to gradually lower it all over the place. Percussion AUGs are no longer a horror that, let's say, they were right after the war. Then no one could compete with the Yankees. Really. Although already in 1944-45 Japan outlined a way, albeit cannibalistic, to fight aircraft carriers. 500kg of bombs disables any (even modern) aircraft carrier, two torpedoes in the side are guaranteed to sink it. No illusion about their invulnerability. With the widespread proliferation of heavy anti-ship missiles, the role of aircraft carriers is reduced to local operations against states that do not have anti-ship missiles. The United States is politically poking its nose everywhere, military power is already lacking, despite all the efforts of Hollywood. For example: Little Korea. It was enough for Eun to threaten, and we’ll drown the whole fleet! And the three AUGs present then quickly cleared away from its shores. Trump then sat down in I don’t know how and what the diplomats later agreed on, but the fiasco of the United States just talked to the media. And again America won everyone. The Kuril Islands, in fact, are very This is a kind and eternal topic specifically for Russia. According to the agreements that are so peddled in the Japanese media and our liberal get-together, the transfer (hypothetically) of the islands is possible only after the complete closure of the US Navy bases in Okinawa. This is unrealistic for the US itself (understandably why), so And for Japan itself. The question is eternal and in fact closed. For Japanese politicians, a convenient, safe and win-win topic for PR. The constitutional amendment, a way to protect against a fool in the government. But there is no 100% guarantee, there are precedents.
Elen_msk

0

23 December 2020 23: 28

You have a wonderful author - Volkonsky. Let him write more, why is there so little of it?