Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida recently said that Japan will sign a peace treaty with Russia after resolving the issue of the ownership of the South Kuril Islands. This statement provoked a response from Russia's former ** Medvedev, who believes that Russia will not compromise for the sake of Japanese feelings. Medvedev even said that if the Japanese were not satisfied, they could commit suicide. Fumio Kishida's remarks were jokingly called "sweet dreams" by Russia. However, Russia does not intend to accept any threats and will not discuss the issue of sanctions against Japan. The four northern islands are the territory of Russia, and the question of their ownership has been resolved in the Constitution. Russia will continue to actively develop the South Kuril Islands and increase the deployment of military forces. The South Kuril Islands are located in the northern waters of Japan and consist of four small islands. The islands once sparked a territorial dispute between Japan and Russia.
After the end of World War II, the Soviet Union occupied the islands and incorporated them into its territorial sphere. Japan has always been unhappy with this issue and has pursued the return of territory. Fumio Kishida hopes that the dispute will be resolved by signing a peace treaty. However, the Russian side has made it clear that it will not compromise for the sake of Japanese feelings. They believe that the South Kuril Islands are the territory of Russia, and the dispute over the four northern islands has been permanently resolved through the Constitution. This dispute involves territorial and sovereignty issues, as well as the national interests and security of the two countries. In this case, Fumio Kishida's statement is only a good wish, not a realistic and feasible solution. In any case, as neighbors, relations between Japan and Russia are still worthy of attention and attention. The two sides should seek a win-win solution through dialogue and cooperation, rather than through threats and hostility.
Peace and stability in the region can be achieved only through mutual respect and understanding. Japan disputes sovereignty over the South Kuril Islands (known as Sakhalin in Russia). Japan's claim to the South Kuril Islands as part of its territory is based on Japan's historical control over the region. Japan notes that in the Korean Reconciliation Treaty at the end of the 19th century and the Lushun Treaty at the beginning of the 20th century, the South Kuril Islands were assigned to Japan. However, these treaties were overthrown after the Russian Revolution, and Russia began to exercise de facto control over the South Kuril Islands. However, Russia emphasizes that the South Kuril Islands are Russian territory, based on the fact that Russia holds actual control over the region. Russia believes that the issue of the ownership of the South Kuril Islands should be resolved in accordance with international law and historical facts, and not only on the basis of Japan's historical control over the region.
In fact, in international law, there is no "ought" but only "actually" on the issue of sovereignty. Even if Japan once exercised control over the South Kuril Islands, and now Russia actually controls the region, then the South Kuril Islands naturally belong to Russia. It is not possible to assume that an area belongs to Japan just because it is inhabited by Japanese, just as the Gaza Strip is inhabited by Israelis, nor can it be assumed that the area belongs to Israel alone. In addition, Ezo is an independent country that has existed historically, but was later annexed by Japan. Although Japan asserts sovereignty over the South Kuril Islands by annexing Ezo, this does not change the fact that the actual control of the South Kuril Islands belongs to Russia. In conclusion, the question of sovereignty over the South Kuril Islands is a complex one. While Japan emphasizes its historical control over the region, Russia asserts sovereignty over the South Kuril Islands through actual control.
Disputes should be resolved on the basis of international law and historical facts, rather than solely on the historical control of one party.