The recent smooth exchange of spies between Russia and the US appears to demonstrate that the “reset” in relations between the two countries has worked. But Russia has so far done little to “reset” its relations with Japan. That is not only a lost opportunity, given Russia’s need to modernize its economy, but a grave strategic error in view of Russia’s increasing worries about China’s ambitions in Asia, which includes Russia’s lightly populated Siberian provinces.
In April, China’s navy carried out military exercises near Japan, and its Fleet No. 91756, recognized as one of its finest, conducted a live-fire exercise in the East China Sea off the coast of Zhejiang Province, including missile-interception training with new vessels. China’s objectives appear to have been to enhance its navy’s operational capacity, particularly in terms of jamming and electronic warfare, and to test its joint capabilities with the Chinese air force.
Perhaps more importantly, the Chinese seem to have intended to send a warning signal to US and South Korean naval forces as their joint maneuvers in the Yellow Sea approach. But the Chinese also sent a powerful signal to Japan and Russia.
Japan’s government should, of course, be keeping a close eye on China’s military. Instead, the administration plans to send the ex-chairman of sogo-shosha (a trading conglomerate) as its ambassador to China — that is, a man whose interests in China may be commercial rather than national security.
Meanwhile, Russia is only now beginning to realize that it must be pro-active in protecting its national-security interests in the Pacific region. The problem is that Russia’s focus is wrong-headed. Coinciding with China’s naval exercises in the Yellow Sea, the Russian Armed Forces carried out part of its “Vostok 2010” drills (involving 1,500 troops) on Etorofu, the largest island among the Russian-occupied Northern Territories of Japan. The entire Vostok 2010 exercise involved more than 20,000 troops.
Russia’s illegal occupation of these islands began on Aug. 18, 1945, three days after Japan accepted the Potsdam Declaration (or the Proclamation Defining Terms for Japanese Surrender), which ended the Pacific War. Stalin’s Red Army nonetheless invaded the Chishima Islands, and has occupied them, Southern Karafuto (or Southern Sakhalin), and the islands of Etorofu, Kunashiri, Shikotan, and Habomai — which had never been part of the Russian Empire or the Soviet Union — ever since.
Indeed, the lower house of Russia’s Duma recently passed a resolution designating Sept. 2 as the anniversary of the “real” end of World War II, effectively making it a day to commemorate the Soviet Union’s victory over Japan — and thus an attempt to undermine Japan’s claim that the occupation of the islands came after the end of World War II.
On a recent trip to Vladivostok, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev declared that the social and economic development of Russia’s Pacific region is a national priority. However, by continuing to maintain its illegal occupation of Japanese territory Russia precludes expansive Japanese involvement in this effort, effectively leaving the Chinese to dominate the region’s development.
Russia’s persistence in its self-defeating occupation is surprising. Indeed, when Boris Yeltsin was Russia’s president, the country came close to recognizing the need to return the Northern Territories to Japan. But a nationalist backlash doomed Yeltsin’s efforts.
Even Japan’s strategically myopic current government seems to understand that Russia needs to play some role in achieving a new balance of power in Asia. There are rumors that Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan’s administration is planning to break the logjam in the Japan-Russia relationship by appointing Yukio Hatoyama, his predecessor as prime minister, ambassador to Russia.
Hatoyama is the grandson of former Japanese prime minister Ichiro Hatoyama, who signed the Japanese-Soviet Joint Declaration on Oct. 19, 1956, which formally restored diplomatic relations between two countries and also enabled Japan’s entry into the UN. That treaty, however, did not settle the territorial dispute, resolution of which was put off until the conclusion of a permanent peace treaty between Japan and the Soviet Union.
In the 1956 declaration, the two countries agreed to negotiate such a treaty, and the Soviet Union was to hand over Shikotan and Habomai islands to Japan once it was concluded. In the meantime, the status of the larger Etorofu and Kunashiri islands would remain unresolved and subject to negotiation.
Japanese public opinion has remained adamant for decades that all four islands belong to Japan, and that no real peace can exist until they are returned. So sending Hatoyama as ambassador may elicit harsh criticism, as his grandfather once agreed to a peace process that returned only two islands, and many Japanese fear that his grandson may also be prepared to cut another unequal deal.
Ambassadorial appointments should never be used as political stunts. This is particularly true for the appointment of an ambassador to a country that is critical to Asia’s balance of power. But it is not surprising coming from a government that lacks any coherent concept of Japan’s national security.
Fortunately, Japanese voters sense their government’s irresolute nature, delivering it a sharp rebuke in the recent elections to the upper house of the Diet. But it is not only Japan that needs a government that takes regional security issues seriously. Russia should recognize that it has neglected its position in Asia for too long, and that only when it returns Japan’s Northern Territories can Japanese expertise be brought seriously to bear in developing Russia’s Far East.
Only normal bilateral relations will allow the two countries to work together to forge a lasting Asian balance of power. Given his record, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin would not face the type of nationalist backlash that Yeltsin confronted if he sought to reach an agreement that restored Japan’s sovereignty over its Northern Territories. Will he have the strategic vision to do so?
Yuriko Koike, a former Japanese minister of defense and national security advisor, is a member of the opposition in the Diet.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) last week announced that the KMT was launching “Operation Patriot” in response to an unprecedented massive campaign to recall 31 KMT legislators. However, his action has also raised questions and doubts: Are these so-called “patriots” pledging allegiance to the country or to the party? While all KMT-proposed campaigns to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmakers have failed, and a growing number of local KMT chapter personnel have been indicted for allegedly forging petition signatures, media reports said that at least 26 recall motions against KMT legislators have passed the second signature threshold
The Central Election Commission (CEC) on Friday announced that recall motions targeting 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers and Hsinchu Mayor Ann Kao (高虹安) have been approved, and that a recall vote would take place on July 26. Of the recall motions against 35 KMT legislators, 31 were reviewed by the CEC after they exceeded the second-phase signature thresholds. Twenty-four were approved, five were asked to submit additional signatures to make up for invalid ones and two are still being reviewed. The mass recall vote targeting so many lawmakers at once is unprecedented in Taiwan’s political history. If the KMT loses more
Taiwan’s unconditional support “for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India to safeguard national security and fight terrorist forces that cross borders to attack innocent civilians” marked a monumental shift in the relationship between Taipei and New Delhi. At a time when the Indian government sent several delegations of parliament members to convey to the rest of the world Pakistan’s role in sponsoring terrorism against India, Taiwan became one of the few nations that unequivocally supported India’s military operation, “Sindhoor.” Sure, this change in bilateral ties did not happen in a vacuum. Over the past decade,
RSS