GodEmperorLeto said:.......
For such a smart guy, this comment shows an enormous lack of understanding about Japan and China in the modern political arena. Getting Japan and China to reconcile would be like having Southerners forgive Northerners for winning the U.S. Civil War....
GodEmperorLeto said:.... I don't see why Russia needs to hold onto it. On the other hand, I don't see why Japan needs it. As I said before, northern Hokkaido is already a cultural hinterland. I think it is more a matter of pride. The island is strategically and economically worthless, unless someone finds trillions of dollars worth of oil beneath it, which I doubt. It is not much of an asset. Therefore, it must be a pride issue. Therefore, I believe it is something either Japan or Russia (or both) should decide to concede on. Basically, either they should compromise, or one country should "be the bigger man".
Sakhalin has experienced an oil boom with extensive petroleum exploration and mining by most large oil multinationals. The oil and natural gas reserves contain an estimated 14 billion barrels (2.2 km³) of oil and 96 trillion cubic feet (2,700 km³) of gas.
In 1996, two large consortiums signed contracts to explore for oil and gas off the northeast coast of the island, Sakhalin-I and Sakhalin-II. The two consortiums are estimated to spend a combined $21 billion U.S. dollars on the two projects.
Sakhalin's economy is growing rapidly thanks to its oil and gas industry. By 2005, the island had become the largest recipient of foreign investment in Russia, followed by Moscow. Unemployment in 2002 was only 2%.
Well, I'll be damned! Wow. Well, I just got schooled.inkink said:Here's what wikipedia has to say....
This is stuff I have had yet to hear! There are times when I enjoy being proven wrong. I was always under the impression that reconciliation was a long way off, but I feel more positive learning that is not the case.A China-Japan reconciliation is actually not that far-fetched. In fact a good China-Japan relation is a very recent memory.
The federation of independent states that sprang up in the wake of the Soviet Union's disintegration is (or was, during the '90s) a league of nations economically interdependent (due to Soviet zoning programs) but also politically sovereign. The sum of the states occupy the total land mass of the old Soviet Union. Therefore, all of the territory that they occupy, they rightfully inherited from the Soviet Union.Mycernius said:Just a minor point here, but the treaty to cede the islands was made to the USSR, a country that no longer exists, not to Russia. The USSR effectively ceased in 1991. So unless a new deal has been drawn up, the old one is null and void.
I'm not saying the land reveerts back to its original owner. After all if that happened everytime a country or empire split or vanished, no-one would own anything. The point is that the old treaty was made to the USSR. In order to keep the old treaty alive surely a new one would need to be drawn up. This time it might be better, probably taking in account the actual feeling of the people on these islands.GodEmperorLeto said:The federation of independent states that sprang up in the wake of the Soviet Union's disintegration is (or was, during the '90s) a league of nations economically interdependent (due to Soviet zoning programs) but also politically sovereign. The sum of the states occupy the total land mass of the old Soviet Union. Therefore, all of the territory that they occupy, they rightfully inherited from the Soviet Union.
I'll give you an example... Let's assume the United States breaks apart into a dozen smaller confederacies. Does that mean that every state from the Mississippi River west to the Pacific should revert to Mexico? No, it doesn't.
You bring up a very interesting point, though. However, I disagree that the previous treaty has expired with the Soviets.
And I'm saying it doesn't. The Russian Federation inherited the terms of the treaty, including Sakhalin Island. There is no need for a new treaty, the original one is still valid. It might be nice if they had a new treaty. But there is no requirement for one.Mycernius said:I'm not saying the land reveerts back to its original owner. After all if that happened everytime a country or empire split or vanished, no-one would own anything. The point is that the old treaty was made to the USSR. In order to keep the old treaty alive surely a new one would need to be drawn up.
I think Japan needs the added space more than Russia for it overpopulated people.
And Russia really needs Japan's economic tutelage right now to straighten out their economic flaws..I say they need to trade and help one another out.
Japan really needs more land and resources for it's seriously overcrowded people, and Russia really needs jAPAN'S PROVEN knowhow....
Work the **** out guys..and you both will benefit greatly..that is what trade is all about guys.
Japan is not overpopulated. Isolated, remote places in Japan are currently suffering from decrease in population. Acquiring Sahkalin Island does little to improve the overcrowdedness of major metropolitan areas in Japan.
Space and land are not needed at remote places. They are much demand around big cities like Tokyo and Osaka, so the major cities have to go vertically higher. It is the same everywhere in the world.Perhaps, but if space and land is not needed, then why all the plans for the future huge super-skyscraper cities?
Ya'll bored?
Space and land are not needed at remote places. They are much demand around big cities like Tokyo and Osaka, so the major cities have to go vertically higher. It is the same everywhere in the world.
Is this relevant to the discussion of this thread? It's useless to argue about how big cities grow, when all we are talking about is Sahkalin island, miles away from major cities. Your argument is much like claiming the land surrounding the Grand Canyon when San Francisco needs land to expand.You live here, you know our cities grow by spreading out and invading our suburbs.
They don't expand upwards.
And the scale is unprecedented.
Why deny?
You took us off topic, don't put that on me please.Is this relevant to the discussion of this thread? It's useless to argue about how big cities grow, when all we are talking about is Sahkalin island, miles away from major cities. Your argument is much like claiming the land surrounding the Grand Canyon when San Francisco needs land to expand.
Yeah right. The below is what you said.You took us off topic, don't put that on me please.
Don't start (or try to fool) crap with a finisher/closer.
Such is not wise, nor productive for either of us.
Perhaps, but if space and land is not needed, then why all the plans for the future huge super-skyscraper cities?
Ya'll bored?
Yeah right. The below is what you said.
RUSSIA will hopefully be the first to develop the SOUTH POLE--and hopefully become the first along with JAPAN to learn how to harness our most important resource----THE EARTHS CORE AND ITS MAGNETIC ENERGY---we seemingly continue to look UPWARDS----when its down and into the EARTH that lies our future!! did you know that 25 feet into the earths surface the temperature is constant? where else can you find this? gargantuan civilizations living underground with beautiful aquifers and stunning views of hot molten magma rivers to provide warmth---im thinking that SAKHALIN ISLAND --should become the command center for the future of our PLANET---run completely by the RUSSIANS AND JAPANESE together!! lets celebrate!!!