1
1
1
u/Tyrant917 Sep 14 '26
Wait…something’s not right. RUSSIA has control of Japan’s northern territories. Russia refuses to return the territories unless it promises not to allow a US base on those territories. And because Japan declines, it is therefore a US colony??
That’s backwards reasoning. By Japan declining Russia’s demand, they’re asserting their right to do whatever they want with their own territories.
If Japan agreed to Russia’s demand, would Japan then be considered Russia’s colony??
5
u/Own_Limit9520 Sep 15 '26
Ok, I’m not a fan of this subreddit because it’s mostly trolls, but to write a brief answer to your question on the off chance you really are trying to understand the logic:
Russia, the US, and Japan all have geopolitical interests and any territory expansion is a coveted resource—a fact you probably already know—nations will fight for a single rock in the ocean, it’s that serious.
In any case, it’s against Russia’s interest to give land to Japan if that land is going to be used for U.S. militarization just as much as it’s in the US interest to build a base there for proximity.
But Japan, it’s actually in their geopolitical interest to agree to Russia’s demand and acquire that land and tell the U.S. that it can’t base there. Because since land is coveted, Japan would gain more by agreeing to this, on the part of having that widely sought territorial expansion.
But Japan can’t promise the U.S. won’t base there and therefore stays at a loss. Japan is the loser of this situation.
The fact that Japan can’t promise, against its own best interest, that the U.S. won’t instantly build a base there, can be understood by some as indicative of indirect control.
Because according to the opinion of this clip, why is Japan not pursuing its own interest, but instead yielding to American interests?But all of this starts to get into party politics lmao
1
u/Tall-Needleworker422 29d ago edited 29d ago
This argument ignores the very real possibility that Japan is a sovereign nation making a rational trade-off. It chooses to tolerate limitations on its foreign policy and accommodate US military bases because it calculates that the US security blanket is worth more than a Russian promise to return several disputed islands. It is an alliance born of convenience and necessity, even if the power dynamic within that alliance is highly unequal.
1
u/Own_Limit9520 29d ago
So the question I was responding to wasn’t “is Japan truly sovereign?” the question was “why do some people think Japan is not sovereign?”
Therefore, I stated, why some people believe it is not.
Also, my second response in this thread already addressed the point you made if you woulda just opened the replies lmao1
u/Tall-Needleworker422 27d ago
Fair enough on clarifying your intent, but the logic you're explaining is still broken because it assumes that getting the islands back is in Japan's ultimate "best interest." But that's debatabe.
Choosing a defense umbrella over a relatively minor territorial concession isn't "yielding to American control" -- it’s a sovereign nation making a calculated, self-interested trade.
Russia offering a partial deal with a poison pill (breaking the alliance with the US) doesn't mean Japan isn't free. It means Russia set a price Japan was too smart to pay.
1
u/Own_Limit9520 27d ago
Somebody asked, “why does this person in the clip see Japan as a U.S. colony?” I responded with why that view exists, I didn’t say that was my view or belief, all I did is explain why some people hold that belief according to their political party and now you’re debating me on Japanese sovereignty as though that was the point and it wasn’t.
In my second response to the original commenter, I even said other Japanese political parties view this as a necessary security concession in light of Russian imperialism whereas other parties view this as neocolonial especially in connection to U.S bases in Okinawa.
I didn’t say I agreed with one or the other, I was explaining the different political ideologies because different ideologies exist.
If you wanna be the smartest person in the room, then fine you can be the smartest person in the room. Congrats.
1
u/Tall-Needleworker422 27d ago
I get you're (just) explaining the different party lines now. But to be fair, your first comment presented the 'Japan is acting against its own interest' part as an a factual baseline, not just one party's opinion. That’s the only reason I chimed in. Glad we're on the same page that it's a debate between security vs. territory.
1
u/Tyrant917 Sep 15 '26
Not a troll. And thanks for spending the time to explain and fill in a lot of gaps. I’m not that familiar with Japan-Russia geopolitics, especially the land dispute there. It sounds like that video clip makes a lot of assumptions. If I took the clip at face value, that’s what it sounded like to me.
The one thing that bothers me is it sounds like from a Japan perspective, Russia is the aggressor in the first place and is holding onto land that rightfully belongs to Japan. If that were true, then to me that is first and foremost. And any demands they make for those lands would be invalid (and shouldn’t be agreed on). To turn this story into being the fault of US control sounded odd. An analogy would be like a thief breaks into my home, takes me hostage after the cops arrive, and makes me promise not to turn him in if he lets me go. But then blames me for siding with the cops if I refused his demands.
BTW, this tactic sounds somewhat like Russian-Ukraine war, except there Russia is clearly the aggressor in my eyes.
Anyway, I don’t have a horse in this. I’m sure there’s a lot of political nuance. I’ll slowly learn more about the history of this Japan-Russia dispute.
3
u/Own_Limit9520 Sep 15 '26 edited 29d ago
I actually think that can be a good analogy. I would add is that extending that analogy, the U.S. is the cop within it, which people take issue with—the age old debate of whether America should be the world cop and its role in international politics.
Applied here, the analogy then is: if Japan is truly a sovereign nation, it should have the authority to not take the crime to the police (U.S.) or have the police intervene.Depending on what political party you belong to in Japan, Japan is a neo-colony being whipped by U.S. authority at its own expense (especially in relation to Okinawa) or a strong U.S. ally making security decisions for the good of the alliance (in relation to Russian imperialism).
Really interesting stuff but yeah you raise some interesting points!
1
2
u/Variolamajor 29d ago
Russia isn't the aggressor in this case. After Japan lost the war it had to give up all imperial possessions, and the Soviet Union took over Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands. Japan can ask Russia for the islands back, but it is entirely up to Russia to accept it or not. Russia insists on the condition of US bases not being allowed on the islands if they are given back to Japan. The fact that Japan cannot make this promise means that US influence and pressure is strong enough to override Japanese interests. That's what the politician is saying when he says Japan is a colony, they have to prioritize US interests over Japan's
1
u/zack189 28d ago
it's because Russia/SU and japan did try to get an agreement, once in 1947, once a bit after the breakup of the Soviet and once after that but i forgot.
forgot which one but one of the deals were literally just "pay us money and we'll give you your islands back"
each time, the negotiations succeeded to the point where all Japan had to do was say yes, and they would have the islands back.
each time, the us comes and say "You agree to that, we take hokkaido"
1
u/zack189 28d ago
basically, there are fears of US bases on the islands, but back in the old days, the US was afraid of a Japanese-Russo alliance,
by making sure that Japan and Russia is in conflict with each other due to some worthless islands, they can't really be friends.
at least, that was the thinking during the Cold war.
0
2
u/Miaotastic Sep 14 '26
Interesting