The future of the Kuriles

For a year now, the theme of the Kuril Islands has been one of the main ones that attract attention, are discussed and excite public consciousness in Russia. No wonder – the prospect of voluntarily (even on the initiative) to share the historically original Russian territory with Japan is unprecedented, and therefore requires not only consent in society (including through a national referendum), but also changes in the Constitution of our country.

This is far from a “technical” territorial dispute, as was the case with China in delimiting the fairway line on the Amur that has changed over the years, as a result of which two uninhabited islands were ceded to China. And now, a year later, it seemed that numerous and multifaceted weighty objections to the rejection of Russian territory in favor of Japan finally prevailed in Moscow, since the Japanese leaders themselves helped with loud and unceremonious statements about how they would start to manage, settling on their already ” northern territories. In addition.

their American patrons did not even hide the fact that they could get their hands on this tidbit of new Japanese territory, in addition to Okinawa – to the right to host on Japanese soil, and even at Japanese expense, they were used to from the moment Tokyo surrendered in World War II war.

And it seems that the leadership of Russia, which initially for some reason decided, using the example of the Lesser Kuril ridge, to demonstrate what kind of legal state we have, and therefore revived the long-outdated Joint Declaration of 1956 as a basis for unnecessary negotiations on an unnecessary peace treaty (in which the possibility of transferring the island of Shikotan and the Flat / Habotai ridges was laid.

it began to understand that it had been taken somewhere in the wrong place, that our population in the perception of such an act turned out to be not at all amorphous and practically united in an extremely negative attitude towards it, that everything is not so simply from a political and economic point of view, and that the desired will still remain far from reality.

All sorts of fantasies about the coming prosperity between Russia and Japan after such a gift, a “new qualitative level of relations”, a shower of long-awaited investments from Tokyo, the patronage of Japanese brains and knowledge, capital and technology in the development of Russian territories, somehow began to lose their showcase appeal.

. An attempt to play along with S. Abe through an agreement on “joint economic activities” on the islands as the first stage of their actual transfer to Japan somehow “did not work out” right away, put Moscow in a position of deep thought, and possibly rethinking. And how could it be otherwise – after all, in Tokyo, having felt the “smell of blood”, as a condition they immediately demanded the creation of an unprecedented extraterritorial zone on the islands of the Lesser Kuril ridge.

with some kind of special legislation and rules, with double subordination to some kind of joint administrative control structure – and most importantly, without any hint of the manifestation of Russian sovereignty over these islands. And, if not for Japan’s categorical refusal to recognize this sovereignty as the result of the Second World War and shameless.

clear indications that for Tokyo the meaning of the peace treaty lies in only one thing – in obtaining the Kuril Islands (at the first stage, at least the Shikotan Islands and the Habotais Ridge ), and then “at least the grass does not grow”, then we would probably soon line up at the Japanese embassy for visas to the Curies.

But one should hold back a sigh of relief – Moscow recently announced that the situation is still not a dead end and that further steps should be taken. And immediately we again began to hear the voices of those who can not wait to play along and please the Kremlin.  Montego have already appeared, in which joy slips through the fact that “the position of the foreign ministers of the two countries emphasizes that the movement towards each other continues.”

But after all that has been written and said on this subject, from the point of view of common sense and objectivity, one can only be surprised at the continuing naivety, and frankly speaking, the primitiveness of the arguments of the apologists for the transfer of the islands almost about the benefits of the loss of these territories.

They do not see the penetration into the essence of things and their details, into the effectiveness of attractive, but, in fact, completely unjustified expectations. They try to convince us that there is some possibility of a compromise, but we know that the root of the problem is whether we sacrifice the islands and their inhabitants as part of such a “compromise” or not. If firmly “no!”, then why did we agree to these confusing negotiations and only provoked the Japanese?

Let us turn to chanting in both voices the thesis of reaching a “qualitatively new level of relations in all areas without exception, including foreign policy and economics.” Firstly, and the current level is not so bad – all the necessary attributes of interstate relations are “working” as usual, trade is gradually recovering to its peak level in 2014. The Russia-Japan cross year of various events has just ended. Japanese fishermen continue to not only enjoy the unprecedented.

only allowed to them, the right to fish in the territorial waters of Russia, but even allow themselves to poach there, as evidenced by the recent arrest of five Japanese trawlers. Secondly, what, in general, lies behind this mysterious term-mirage? And what are the prerequisites for rising to this stage, unprecedented in the history of Russian-Japanese relations? The military-political alliance between Washington and Tokyo is as strong as ever. Washington rightfully calls Japan its most important partner and ally outside the NATO sphere, and Tokyo is only too happy about this.