The question of ownership of the KURIL ISLANDS is not a complicated issue. All needs to be asked is: Who started the war that resulted in Japan losing the Kuril Islands? No one needs to answer the question of who won that war because it is a known fact. There should be consequences for countries that start wars and lose them. If Japan wanted to keep the territorial integrity of their country, they should have either never started the war, or won the war. Since they lost the war, they are lucky that they are not being assessed the total cost of the war and also punitive damages for the people they killed during the war. Japan got off very easy for the atrocities their little DICTATORS committed. They should be very thankful to the victors of that war.

If they call Russian occupiers, what do the Japanese call Americans on Hokkaido and other bases from which the American soldiers keep terrorising and raping the population?

I agree, KURIL, Japan is entirely blameworthy for starting the Pacific war. But Japan did not start war with Russia. Russia did that, a few days before the close of WW2, and contrary to treaties it had with Japan. It then grabbed the Kuriles, again contrary to existing territorial agreements it had with Japan. These are the factors that have a bearing on the status of the Kuriles, and these are the factors that Moscow and its apologists are ignoring. I think it is also more than a little rich for KURIL to pontificate on “the atrocities of Japan’s little dictators” while maintaining a pained silence about the atrocities of Russia’s Big Dictator. Alann, Japanese do call Russians in their Northern Territories “occupiers”. They call US troops stationed in Hokkaido “US troops stationed in Hokkaido”, and they are there by the permission of the sovereign government in Tokyo – unlike Russians in the Kuriles. Perhaps you should do a little research on the meaning and nature of occupation. Finally, it is pointless for the Russian Foreign Ministry to grandly call the denial of visas Kuriles-based Russian businessmen “unacceptable” because they simply have to accept that those people don’t have visas, and that is that. Just like Japan must accept that Russia continues to occupy the Kuriles, and is not about to leave. A sensible approach for all is not to “unaccept” realities, but to work within them. Realities are real.

Dear Marzipan6, I totally agree and very much appreciated with your view point. Especially, what I want to emphasize is that who declare the war between Japan and Russia with what reason. For USA case, Japan declare the war so that they fight back. For China, Japan actually occupied its teritory so that they fight for its own land. For Kuril Island, not whole islands from Kamchatka penninsula but only 4 islands where Japan govern since "Treaty of Shimoda", it was Japanese teritory for even before the WW2 started. Hence Japan did not gain this land as its invasion activities during WW2. In this article, Russian side comments "unacceptalbe" for Japanese refusal for visa to Russian business man. But come to think if Japanese govenment consider this 4 islands the teritory of Japan, then Japan cannot "import" or "export" the goods to and from this islands since this is not the international trade but should be considered as the domestic trade. So, this events is not just "simple visa issue" but is quite important understanding of the teritorial issue for both side; if Japan issue visa to this Russian business man, Japan needs to accept this 4 islands as economically under Russian control. As for Japaneses, such understandings never be acceptable.

Japan attacked Soviet forces in Mongolia in 1938 in an undeclared war. Just as the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour occured without a declaration of war being issued by the Japanese first. The attacks ended in the battle of Khalkhin Gol which made the Japanese forces look south into asia for the resources they needed instead of north and west to Siberia. If Russia must give back the Kuriles then I guess China must give back Manchuria too? It seems that Russia doesn't have to do anything, and petty actions by the Japanese will only ruin future relations. I remember just at the end of the cold war many westerners feared that Japan might use its industrial might and its financial might to work with Russia and regrow its lost aircraft industry position. Seems these fears are unfounded. As long as relations between Russia and Japan are poor I can't see any reason for Russia to gift anything back to Japan. Without political and economic ties there is no point in giving such strategic locations to a country that is no friend of yours.

You’re right, Garry, “Russia doesn’t have to do anything.” It can stay in the northern Kuriles until the next Ice Age if it wants to, and I doubt that anyone can push it out. But if it wants to have normal relations with its neighbours, and especially with a neighbour as potentially important and valuable as Japan, it has to moderate its behaviour to fit in with expected norms. Self-interest and no great enthusiasm for historical honesty make it terribly hard for Moscow to acknowledge occupation that Russians have worked on others. For example, to this very day Moscow still holds to the absolutely absurd notion that its three Baltic neighbours committed joint national suicide in 1940 by willingly, voluntarily and entirely legally joining Stalin’s Soviet Union, and eagerly stayed there for 50 year because they loved it so much. Moscow asserts that there never even was a Soviet occupation of the Baltics, and its claim about its on-going non-occupation of Japanese territory in the northern Kuriles is of a similar historical and ethical quality. Japan’s war in Mongolia may be evaluated as harshly as you like, and I doubt that many Japanese themselves try to justify it. But that war has no bearing on the illegitimacy of Russia’s continuing occupation of Japan’s Northern Territories.

The problem, Marzipan6 is that neither Russia nor the Soviet Union have ever really had very good relations with Japan. The Russians have an economy largely based on the export of raw materials while Japan lacks such materials and has an economy based on exports of finished products and luxury goods. On the face of it it sounds like a perfect relationship, but in reality the Russians are trying to move away from exporting low tech raw materials and become an exporter of goods and services with domestic raw materials. I would rather see Russia with a good relationship with China and South Korea than with Japan, which is already clearly in the US camp and not really interested in cooperation with Russia under any circumstances. I think any concessions Russia might make will not be enough to draw Japan away from the US, and that is not a criticism, simply a fact.