Disputed frontier territories of France. Territorial disputes between Russia and other countries

On July 5, 1943, the Battle of Kursk began, also known as Battle of Kursk. This is one of the key battles of the Second World War and the Great Patriotic War, which finally consolidated the radical change in the course of the Great Patriotic War, which began near Stalingrad. The offensive was launched by both sides: both Soviet and German. The summer strategic offensive of the Wehrmacht on the northern and southern faces of the Kursk bridgehead was called Operation Citadel.

According to Soviet and Russian historiography, the battle lasted 49 days, it includes: the Kursk strategic defensive operation (July 5 - 23), Oryol (July 12 - August 18) and Belgorod-Kharkov (August 3 - 23) strategic offensive operations.

How about the Oryol-Kursk salient? Is it also more correct?

In various sources, one can find references to the events of July 5 - August 23, 1943 as the "Oryol-Kursk Battle" and the "Oryol-Kursk Bulge". For example, in his report at a solemn meeting in the Kremlin Palace of Congresses dedicated to the 20th anniversary of the victory of the Soviet people in the Great Patriotic War on May 8, 1965, L. I. Brezhnev says:

"Giant Battle on the Oryol-Kursk Bulge in the summer of 1943 she broke her back ... ".

How common is this spelling? We'll find out a little later.

The arc was located between the Oryol and Kursk regions, which means that this is how it should be called - Oryol-Kursk

An arc is a section of a curve between two of its points. south point the ledge that had developed at the front by July 5, 1943 - Belgorod, now the Belgorod region, the northern one is Maloarkhangelsk station, now the Oryol region. by name extreme points let's give the name: Belgorod-Oryol arc. So?

  • June 13, 1934 Belgorod was included in the newly formed Kursk region.
  • On June 13, 1934, after the liquidation of the Central Black Earth Region, the Maloarkhangelsky District became part of the newly formed Kursk Region.

For a contemporary of the Battle of Kursk, it would be quite natural to call the arc the Kursk-Kursk Bulge. That is ... just the Kursk Bulge. That's what they called her.

Where was it called that?

See titles of some materials different years:

  • Markin I.I. On the Kursk Bulge. - M.: Military Publishing, 1961. - 124 p.
  • Antipenko, N. A. On the Main Direction (Memoirs of the Deputy Front Commander). - M .: Nauka, 1967. Chapter " On the Kursk Bulge»
  • OA Losik - Head of the Military Academy of Armored Forces, Professor, Colonel General. From a speech on July 20, 1973 at the IVI MO of the USSR at a scientific session dedicated to the 30th anniversary of the defeat of the Nazi troops on the Kursk Bulge
  • Even Brezhnev, in his speech at the solemn meeting dedicated to the awarding of the Order of Lenin to Georgia, at the Sports Palace in Tbilisi on November 1, 1966, noted as if he had not said anything about Orel in 1965:

    ... stood to death at the walls of the legendary Stalingrad and on Kursk Bulge…

  • Etc.

Below are some interesting statistics.

In 1944, the Maloarkhangelsky district returned to the Oryol region, and Belgorod became administrative center the newly formed Belgorod region only in 1954. The Belgorod Bulge never became, and the Oryol part was sometimes added - without any visible system.

Okay with the bow. Well, is it really the battle of Oryol-Kursk? Okay, Kursk-Orlovskaya?

I. V. Stalin, who read a report on November 6, 1943 at a solemn meeting of the Moscow Soviet of Working People's Deputies with party and public organizations Moscow city says:

From a purely military point of view, the defeat of the German troops on our front by the end of this year was predetermined by two major events: the battle of Stalingrad and the battle of Kursk.

Textbooks of different years also do not lag behind:

History of the USSR. Part 3. Grade 10. (A. M. Penkratova. 1952), p. 378.

The Germans expected to strike from two sides - from the Oryol bridgehead in the north and from the Belgorod region in the south - to encircle and destroy the Soviet troops concentrated in the bend Kursk Bulge, and then lead the attack on Moscow.

§10. Battle of Kursk. Completion of a radical turning point in the war

Methodological guide to recent history. Bogolyubov, Izrailovich, Popov, Rakhmanova. - 1978, p. 165. 2nd question for the lesson:

What was the historical significance of the largest battles of the Second World War - Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk?

Whatever you take, everything they have is Kursk.

Maybe there was no Oryol battle?

According to Soviet and Russian historiography, there was the Oryol strategic offensive operation as part of the Battle of Kursk.

It's still right - the Battle of Oryol-Kursk

If we compare the frequency of mention on the Internet, the difference is striking:

  • "Oryol-Kursk battle"- 2 thousand results;
  • "Battle of Kursk" -Orlovsko- 461 thousand results;
  • "Oryol-Kursk Bulge"- 6 thousand results;
  • "Kursk Bulge" -Orlovsko- 379 thousand results;
  • "Oryol arc"- 946 results. Indeed, why not.

So not all documents are uploaded to the Internet

There are no "underloaded" documents in quantities that can compensate for the two hundredfold difference.

So, the Battle of Kursk and the Kursk Bulge?

Yes, the Battle of Kursk and the Kursk Bulge. But if for some reason you want to name the events, adding the Oryol component, no one is against it. Formally, a small piece of the Orel region, even in 1943, was part of the ledge.

The battle on the Kursk Bulge lasted 50 days. As a result of this operation, the strategic initiative finally went over to the side of the Red Army and, until the end of the war, was carried out mainly in the form of offensive actions on its part. On the day of the 75th anniversary of the start of the legendary battle, the website of the Zvezda TV channel collected ten little-known facts about the Battle of Kursk. 1. Initially, the battle was not planned as an offensive When planning the spring-summer military campaign of 1943, the Soviet command faced a difficult choice: which method of action to prefer - to attack or defend. In their reports on the situation in the area of ​​the Kursk Bulge, Zhukov and Vasilevsky proposed to bleed the enemy in a defensive battle, and then go on the counteroffensive. A number of military leaders opposed - Vatutin, Malinovsky, Timoshenko, Voroshilov - but Stalin supported the decision to defend, fearing that as a result of our offensive, the Nazis would be able to break through the front line. The final decision was made in late May - early June, when.

“The real course of events showed that the decision to deliberately defend was the most rational type of strategic action,” emphasizes military historian, Candidate of Historical Sciences Yuri Popov.
2. In terms of the number of troops, the battle exceeded the scale of the Battle of Stalingrad The Battle of Kursk is still considered one of the largest battles of World War II. On both sides, more than four million people were involved in it (for comparison: during the Battle of Stalingrad, a little more than 2.1 million people participated in different stages of hostilities). According to the General Staff of the Red Army, only during the offensive from July 12 to August 23, 35 German divisions were defeated, including 22 infantry, 11 tank and two motorized. The remaining 42 divisions suffered heavy losses and largely lost their combat capability. In the Battle of Kursk, the German command used 20 tank and motorized divisions out of a total of 26 divisions that were available at that time on the Soviet-German front. After Kursk, 13 of them were completely defeated. 3. Information about the plans of the enemy was promptly received from scouts from abroad Soviet military intelligence was able to timely reveal the preparation of the German army for a major offensive on the Kursk salient. Foreign residencies obtained information in advance about Germany's preparations for the spring-summer campaign of 1943. So, on March 22, the GRU resident in Switzerland, Sandor Rado, reported that for “... an attack on Kursk, the SS tank corps will probably be used (the organization is banned in the Russian Federation - approx. ed.), which is currently receiving replenishment.” And intelligence officers in England (GRU resident, Major General I. A. Sklyarov) obtained an analytical report prepared for Churchill "Assessment of possible German intentions and actions in the Russian campaign of 1943."
"The Germans will concentrate their forces to eliminate the Kursk salient," the document said.
Thus, the information obtained by the scouts in early April revealed in advance the plan of the enemy's summer campaign and made it possible to forestall the enemy's strike. 4. The Kursk Bulge became a large-scale baptism of fire for Smersh The Smersh counterintelligence agencies were formed in April 1943 - three months before the start of the historic battle. "Death to Spies!" - so succinctly and at the same time succinctly defined the main task of this special service, Stalin. But the Smershevites not only reliably protected units and formations of the Red Army from enemy agents and saboteurs, but also, which was used by the Soviet command, conducted radio games with the enemy, carried out combinations to bring German agents to our side. The book "The Fiery Arc": The Battle of Kursk through the Eyes of the Lubyanka, published on the basis of the materials of the Central Archive of the FSB of Russia, tells about a whole series of Chekist operations in that period.
So, in order to misinform the German command, the Smersh Directorate of the Central Front and the Smersh Department of the Oryol Military District conducted a successful radio game "Experience". It lasted from May 1943 to August 1944. The work of the radio station was legendary on behalf of the reconnaissance group of Abwehr agents and misled the German command about the plans of the Red Army, including in the Kursk region. In total, 92 radiograms were transmitted to the enemy, 51 were received. Several German agents were called to our side and neutralized, cargo dropped from the aircraft was received (weapons, money, fictitious documents, uniforms). . 5. On the Prokhorovsky field, the number of tanks fought against their quality This locality ensued, as is believed, the largest battle of armored vehicles for the entire time of the Second World War. On both sides, up to 1,200 tanks and self-propelled guns took part in it. The Wehrmacht had superiority over the Red Army due to the greater efficiency of its equipment. For example, the T-34 had only a 76-mm cannon, and the T-70 had a 45-mm gun. The Churchill III tanks, received by the USSR from England, had a 57 mm gun, but this vehicle was notable for its low speed and poor maneuverability. In turn, the German heavy tank T-VIH "Tiger" had an 88-mm cannon, with a shot from which it pierced the armor of the thirty-four at a distance of up to two kilometers.
Our tank, on the other hand, could penetrate 61 mm thick armor at a distance of a kilometer. By the way, the frontal armor of the same T-IVH reached a thickness of 80 millimeters. It was possible to fight with the hope of success in such conditions only in close combat, which was applied, however, at the cost of heavy losses. Nevertheless, near Prokhorovka, the Wehrmacht lost 75% of its tank resources. For Germany, such losses were catastrophic and proved difficult to replace almost until the very end of the war. 6. Cognac of General Katukov did not reach the Reichstag During the Battle of Kursk, for the first time in the years of the war, the Soviet command used large tank formations in echelon to hold a defensive zone on a broad front. One of the armies was commanded by Lieutenant General Mikhail Katukov, future twice Hero of the Soviet Union, marshal of the armored forces. Subsequently, in his book "On the Edge of the Main Strike", in addition to the difficult moments of his front-line epic, he recalled one funny incident related to the events of the Battle of Kursk.
“In June 1941, after leaving the hospital, on the way to the front, I popped into a store and bought a bottle of cognac, deciding that I would drink it with my comrades as soon as I won the first victory over the Nazis,” the front-line soldier wrote. - Since then, this cherished bottle has traveled with me on all fronts. And finally, the long-awaited day has come. We arrived at the CP. The waitress quickly fried the eggs, I took a bottle out of my suitcase. They sat down with their comrades at a simple wooden table. Cognac was poured, which brought back pleasant memories of a peaceful pre-war life. And the main toast - "To victory! To Berlin!"
7. In the sky over Kursk, the enemy was smashed by Kozhedub and Maresyev During the Battle of Kursk, many Soviet soldiers showed heroism.
“Every day of fighting gave many examples of courage, bravery, stamina of our soldiers, sergeants and officers,” notes retired Colonel-General Alexei Kirillovich Mironov, participant in the Great Patriotic War. “They deliberately sacrificed themselves, trying to prevent the enemy from passing through their defense sector.”

Over 100 thousand participants in those battles were awarded orders and medals, 231 became Heroes of the Soviet Union. 132 formations and units received the title of guards, and 26 were awarded the honorary titles of Oryol, Belgorod, Kharkov and Karachev. Future three times Hero of the Soviet Union. Alexei Maresyev also took part in the battles. On July 20, 1943, during an air battle with superior enemy forces, he saved the lives of two Soviet pilots by destroying two enemy FW-190 fighters at once. On August 24, 1943, the deputy squadron commander of the 63rd Guards Fighter Aviation Regiment, Senior Lieutenant A.P. Maresyev, was awarded the title of Hero of the Soviet Union. 8. The defeat in the Battle of Kursk was a shock to Hitler After the failure at the Kursk Bulge, the Fuhrer was furious: he lost the best connections, not yet knowing that in the fall he would have to leave the entire Left-Bank Ukraine. Without changing his character, Hitler immediately laid the blame for the Kursk failure on the field marshals and generals who were in direct command of the troops. Field Marshal Erich von Manstein, who developed and conducted Operation Citadel, later wrote:

“This was the last attempt to keep our initiative in the East. With its failure, the initiative finally passed to the Soviet side. Therefore, Operation Citadel is a decisive turning point in the war on the Eastern Front.
The German historian from the military history department of the Bundeswehr Manfred Pay wrote:
“The irony of history is that Soviet generals began to learn and develop the art of operational leadership of troops, which was highly appreciated by the German side, and the Germans themselves, under pressure from Hitler, switched to Soviet positions of tough defense - according to the principle "by all means".
By the way, the fate of the elite SS tank divisions that took part in the battles on the Kursk Bulge - the Leibstandarte, the Totenkopf and the Reich - developed even more sadly in the future. All three formations participated in the battles with the Red Army in Hungary, were defeated, and the remnants made their way into the American zone of occupation. However, the SS tankers were handed over to the Soviet side, and they were punished as war criminals. 9. The victory at the Kursk Bulge brought the opening of the Second Front closer As a result of the defeat of significant Wehrmacht forces on the Soviet-German front, more favorable conditions were created for the deployment of American-British troops in Italy, the beginning of the disintegration of the fascist bloc was laid - the Mussolini regime collapsed, Italy withdrew from the war on the side of Germany. Under the influence of the victories of the Red Army, the scale of the resistance movement in the countries occupied by German troops increased, and the authority of the USSR as the leading force of the anti-Hitler coalition was strengthened. In August 1943, the US Joint Chiefs of Staff prepared an analytical document in which they assessed the role of the USSR in the war.
"Russia occupies a dominant position," the report noted, "and is a decisive factor in the forthcoming defeat of the Axis in Europe."

It is no coincidence that President Roosevelt was aware of the danger of further delaying the opening of the Second Front. On the eve of the Tehran Conference, he told his son:
“If things in Russia continue as they are now, then perhaps next spring there will be no need for a Second Front.”
Interestingly, a month after the end of the Battle of Kursk, Roosevelt already had his own plan for the dismemberment of Germany. He presented it just at a conference in Tehran. 10. For the salute in honor of the liberation of Orel and Belgorod, they used up the entire supply of blank shells in Moscow During the Battle of Kursk, two key cities of the country, Orel and Belgorod, were liberated. Joseph Stalin ordered an artillery salute to be arranged in Moscow on this occasion - the first in the entire war. It was estimated that in order for the salute to be heard throughout the city, about 100 anti-aircraft guns would have to be deployed. There were such weapons, but only 1,200 blank shells were at the disposal of the organizers of the solemn action (during the war, they were not kept in reserve in the Moscow air defense garrison). Therefore, out of 100 guns, only 12 volleys could be fired. True, the Kremlin division of mountain guns (24 guns) was also involved in the salute, blank shells for which were available. However, the effect of the action could not turn out as expected. The solution was to increase the interval between volleys: at midnight on August 5, firing from all 124 guns was carried out every 30 seconds. And in order for the salute to be heard everywhere in Moscow, groups of guns were placed in stadiums and wastelands in different areas capital Cities.

Abstract on the topic:

"Disputed Territories"

Pupil 8 "A" class

linguistic gymnasium №13

Korostyleva Vladimir

Scientific adviser: Lokteva Galina Ivanovna

I.Introduction…………………………………………p.1

II.History of discovery and development Kuril Islands and Sakhalin Islands……………………..page 2

III. The problem of the "Northern Territories" after the second

World War…………………………………..page 4

IV.Conclusion…………………………………..page 10

V. Bibliography…………………………………p.11

Globalization processes are beginning, countries are actively cooperating with each other, but still there are unresolved problems, territorial issues, for example, the dispute over Western Sahara between Mauritania and Morocco, over the island of Mayote (Maore) between France and the Federal Islamic Republic of the Comoros, about the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands between Great Britain and Argentina, the War of Independence of Palestine, etc. Russia is also among the disputants, Japan lays claim to the southern part of the Kuril archipelago. This is what I am going to talk about in my essay.

The Problem of the “Northern” Territories

ancient and medieval history Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands are full of secrets. So, today we do not know (and we are unlikely to ever know) when the first people appeared on our islands. Archaeological discoveries of recent decades only allow us to say that this happened in the Paleolithic era. The ethnic affiliation of the population of the islands remains a mystery until the first Europeans and Japanese appeared here. And they appeared on the islands only in the 17th century and were caught in the Kuriles

and southern Sakhalin Ainu, in northern Sakhalin - Nivkhs. Probably already then the Ulta (Oroks) lived in the central and northern regions of Sakhalin. The first European expedition that ended up near the Kuril and Sakhalin

shores, became an expedition Dutch navigator M.G. Friza. He not only explored and mapped the southeast of Sakhalin and the South Kuriles, but also proclaimed Urup a possession of Holland, which, however, was left without

any consequences. Russian explorers also played a huge role in the study of Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands. First - in 1646 - the expedition of V.D. Poyarkov discovered the north-western coast of Sakhalin, and in 1697 V.V. Atlasov learned about the existence of the Kuril Islands. Already in the 10s. 18th century the process of studying and gradually joining the Kuril Islands to the Russian state begins. The success of Russia in the development of the Kuriles became possible thanks to the entrepreneurial spirit, courage and patience of D.Ya. Antsiferov, I.P. Kozyrevsky, I.M. Evreinov, F.F. Luzhin,

M.P.Spanberg, V.Valton, D.Ya.Shabalin, G.I.Shelikhov and many other Russian explorers-explorers. Simultaneously with the Russians, who were moving along the Kuriles from the north, the Japanese began to penetrate into the South Kuriles and the extreme south of Sakhalin. Already in

second half of the 18th century. here appear Japanese trading posts and fishing, and since the 80s. 18th century - scientific expeditions begin to work. Mogami Tokunai and Mamiya Rinzo played a special role in Japanese research.

At the end of the XVIII century. research off the coast of Sakhalin was carried out by a French expedition under the command of J.-F. Laperouse and an English expedition under the command of V.R. Broughton. The emergence of the theory about the peninsular position of Sakhalin is connected with their work. The Russian

navigator I.F. Kruzenshtern, who in the summer of 1805 unsuccessfully tried to pass between Sakhalin and the mainland. G.I. Nevelskoy put an end to the dispute, who in 1849 managed to find a navigable strait between the island and the mainland. The discoveries of Nevelskoy were followed by the accession of Sakhalin to Russia. Russian military posts and villages appear one after another on the island. In 1869-1906. Sakhalin was the largest penal servitude in Russia. Since the beginning of the XIX century. Sakhalin and the Kuriles become the object of the Russian-Japanese territorial dispute. In 1806-1807. on South Sakhalin and Iturup, Russian sailors defeated Japanese settlements. The answer to this was the capture by the Japanese of the Russian navigator V.M. Golovnin on Kunashir. Over the past two centuries, Russian-Japanese

the border has changed several times. In 1855, in accordance with the Shimodsky Treaty, the border passed between the islands of Urup and Iturup, while Sakhalin was left undivided. In 1875, Russia handed over to Japan the Northern Kuriles that belonged to it, receiving in return all rights to Sakhalin. Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands met the beginning of the 20th century as part of different states. Sakhalin was part of the Russian Empire, the Kuril Islands were part of the Japanese Empire. The issue of the territorial belonging of the islands was resolved by the Russian-Japanese

an agreement signed in 1875 in St. Petersburg. In accordance with the St. Petersburg Treaty, Japan ceded to Russia all its rights to Sakhalin. Russia, in exchange for this, ceded the Kuril

islands. As a result of Russia's defeat in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. Japan managed to wrest away from her South Sakhalin. In 1920-1925. Northern Sakhalin was under Japanese occupation.

The last time the Russian-Japanese border changed was in 1945, when our country regained South Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands as a result of victory in World War II. In August-September 1945, with US approval, the Soviets occupied all the Kuriles, and in 1946 the US Occupation Administration announced to the Japanese government that the entire Kuril chain, including Habomai, was excluded from Japanese territory. In 1951, Japan began peace negotiations with the United States and its allies. Moscow participated at first, but then withdrew from the talks under the pretext of disagreements over US actions in the Cold War. Despite this, the final text of the San Francisco Peace Treaty establishes quite unambiguously that Japan "renounces all rights, claims and claims to the Kuril Islands."

At that time, Prime Minister Shigeru Yoshida, who was negotiating on the Japanese side, publicly stated that Japan was unhappy with this wording, especially with regard to the southern part of the islands. Administratively, Habomai and Shikotan under Japanese rule

always referred to Hokkaido, and not to the Kuriles. As for Iturup and Kunashir, the historical fate of these two islands differs from the fate of the rest of the Kuriles, the rights of Russia to which were recognized by Japan back in 1855.

Nevertheless, Yoshida signed the treaty. All he could get from the Americans, represented by the ardent anti-communist Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, was that if Japan had such strong feelings for Habomai, it might try

apply to the International Court of Justice. Regarding the Japanese claims to the rest of the islands, the answer was very loud silence.

In 1955, Japan began trying to negotiate a separate peace treaty with Moscow. Japan understood the weakness of its position regarding the islands. But she hoped that there was an opportunity to get at least some

concessions regarding Habomai and Shikotan and to ensure that the United States, France and Britain recognize that at least these islands do not belong to the Kuril Islands, which Japan abandoned in 1951.

To Tokyo's surprise, the Soviets agreed to this demand: they wanted to stop Tokyo from moving closer to the US. But the conservatives in the Foreign Ministry, fearing any Japanese-Soviet reconciliation, immediately intervened and included Iturup and Kunashir in the list of territorial claims. Moscow said no, and the conservatives calmed down.

Nevertheless, in 1956, Prime Minister Ichiro Hatoyama decided to try to break the stalemate and sent his conservative foreign minister, Mamoru Shigemitsu, to Moscow with the authority to negotiate peace.

Shigemitsu started with the already standard Japanese requirements of Iturup and Kunashir - - was immediately refused. However, the Soviets again offered to return Shikotan and Habomai on the condition that a peace treaty be signed.

contract. Shigemitsu decided to accept this offer. However, when news of a possible deal leaked out, the Tokyo anti-communist

The Conservatives are back in action.

Shigemitsu was recalled and on the way home was "intercepted" by the same John Foster Dulles, who only five years earlier forced the Japanese to abandon the Kuril Islands, including most of what is now called the Northern Territories. Dulles warned that if Japan stopped claiming all of the Northern Territories, the US would not

will return Okinawa to the Japanese. Tokyo immediately broke off negotiations with Moscow.

Scientists argued a lot about how Dulles managed to make such a 180-degree turn. One theory claims that the US knew in 1951 that if it did not abide by the Yalta Accords over the Kuriles, Moscow might cease to abide by the Yalta Accords.

agreements on Austria - the problem had all but disappeared by 1956. Another interesting theory put forward by Professor Kimitada Miwa of Sophia University in Tokyo claims that the 1951 American position was the result of a deal with the Soviets that secured Micronesia to the United States by decision of the UN Security Council three years earlier.

And, finally, there is such a theory that the insidious Dulles thought everything over and planned in advance. His intention from the very beginning was to force Japan to give up the Kuriles in 1951 and, knowing that the Japanese would later try to return the islands, to include in the peace treaty an article

Allowing the US to turn in its favor any concession that the Japanese might make to the Russians in the future. In short, if Japan allows the Soviets to hold even part of the Kuriles, the US is holding Okinawa. Today's Japanese position completely ignores all the subtleties described above. She simply states that the Northern Territories are ancestral Japanese lands ("koyu no ryodo") and as such must be returned. As far as the San Francisco Treaty is concerned, Tokyo puts forward two highly controversial arguments. The first is that, since the treaty does not say who exactly should receive the very Kuriles that Japan refused, then anyone, including Japan itself, can claim them. Another argument is that the Northern Territories do not belong to those Kuril Islands that Japan refused, and indeed cannot be treated, being, again, "original Japanese lands." With the last argument, however, not everything is in order. If Japan had not really given up the Northern Territories in 1951, then why would Yoshida have declared to the whole world in 1951 that he was devastated by the loss of the Northern Territories? Upon his return from San Francisco, he appeared before Parliament and was asked whether the term "Kuril Islands" used in the San Francisco Treaty included Iturup and Kunashir. The Office of Treaties of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, responding officially to this request on behalf of the Prime Minister, replied to Parliament on October 19, 1951: "Unfortunately, yes, it includes." Over the following years, Foreign Ministry officials commented on this key point in the following way: that the answer to parliament on October 19 was: a) misunderstood, b) outdated, and, finally, c) was "kokunai flour", that is, "for internal use" , - in other words, foreigners like me should not stick their nose into such matters. Foreign Ministry officials also like to indicate vigorous support from the United States, which, since 1956, has officially stated that Iturup and Kunashir definitely do not belong to the territories, which Japan abandoned in San Francisco. It is clear that the US, saying exactly the opposite of what it said in 1951, is simply using a little Cold War-style ploy to keep Tokyo and Moscow at bay - but such an assumption is politely ignored. But not only the United States participated in this process. In 1951, Britain played a major role in forcing Japan to give up the Kuriles, and the British embassy in Tokyo has in its archives a report from 1955, where the unexpected demand by the Japanese of Iturup and Kunashir was called "amusing and naive." Today Britain supports the same demand as perfectly reasonable. Australia, which in 1951 made efforts to prevent any concessions to Yoshida on territorial issues (for fear that post-war Japan would use any border uncertainty as an excuse for militarization), today also unequivocally supports the Japanese position. In short, what began as an exercise in punishing Japan for wartime aggression turned into the most successful operation of the Cold War to keep Japan in the West's camp. I am not suggesting that the Japanese position be completely abandoned. If Tokyo would refer to the reluctance with which Yoshida abandoned the Kuriles, and especially from their southern part in San Francisco, and would present some secret documents demonstrating what exactly the United States forced him to surrender, this would constitute a good legal basis for that. to push for a revision of this part of the peace agreement. But today Japan is trapped in its own claims that it never gave up the Northern Territories, so it no longer dares to tell the truth about what exactly happened in 1951. It is easier for her to blame everything on the former Soviet Union than on the United States. It vainly insists on the return of these "primordial lands" by Moscow, not realizing that in the face of precisely such a demand, Moscow cannot yield, even if it wanted to, for fear of setting a precedent that would allow its other neighbors to lay claim to the former "primordial lands". ". Hashimoto's suggestion that Moscow can control the territories for a few more years, provided it recognizes Japanese sovereignty over them, shows how inadequate Tokyo perceives both the laws of international diplomacy and the Russian mentality. Meanwhile, most Japanese, even educated ones, have completely forgotten what exactly happened back then, in the 50s, and are convinced that Tokyo's demands are absolutely legal. The government is being urged to continue negotiations in a hard-line manner and ignore Moscow's regular hints that it is still ready to return Shikotan and Habomai. Such a dispute is doomed to eternal extension. And John Foster Dulles is giggling to himself in his coffin.

I believe that the Kuriles should belong to Russia, because. Japan abandoned them in 1951 and it is too late to abandon their decisions, she lost the war and must endure the hardships associated with this. After all, if all peoples demand their lands, then there will be no such states as the USA, Great Britain, Russia, etc. And secondly, Russia and Japan are still at war, and from the beginning it is necessary to sign a peace treaty, and only then talk about territorial disputes.

List of territories about which there are disputes and whose sovereignty is in question. This category contains information about territories that do not independently claim the status of a separate sovereign state, and disputes between recognized and partially recognized states are considered as disputes between recognized states.
EUROPE
1. Lake Constance - a latent conflict about the ownership of the lake between Austria, Germany and Switzerland.
2. Veliki Shkolzh and Mali Shkolzh - controlled by Croatia, disputed by Bosnia and Herzegovina.
3. Top of Mont Blanc - a dispute about the ownership of the peak between France and Italy.
4. Military complex near Sveta Gera, in the region of Žumberak - administered by Slovenia, contested by Croatia.
5. Gibraltar - Spain claims that the territory belongs to her under the Treaty of Utrecht. Managed by the UK.
6. Piran Bay - a long dispute between Slovenia and Croatia.
7.Ivangorod and Pechersky district - Russia recognized them as part of Estonia under the Tartu Treaty of 1920. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the region remained with Russia. Formally, Estonia has no claims in this area.
8. Imia or Kardak is part of the Aegean dispute between Greece and Turkey.
9. Carlingford Lough - border dispute between Ireland and the UK.
10. Loch Foyle - a border dispute between Ireland and Great Britain.
11. The settlements of Vasilevka, Dorotskoye, Kochiery, Koshnitsa, Novaya Molovata, Pogrebya, Pyryta, Kopanka and part of the city of Bendery (village Varnitsa) - controlled by Moldova, disputed by the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic
12. The area around the peak of Montmalus - between Andorra and Spain.
13.Olivensa - administered by Spain, disputed by Portugal.
14. Vukovar Island - controlled by Croatia, disputed by Serbia.
15. Tuzla Island and the Kerch Strait - disputed by Ukraine from Russia since 2003.
16. Sherengrad Island - during the existence of Yugoslavia, it was part of Croatia. During the war, it was controlled by the armed forces of the Serbian Krajina. Came under Serbian administration after the war, disputed by Croatia.
17. Isthmus between Gibraltar and Spain - Spain claims that the UK illegally occupies the territory because it was not included in the Treaty of Utrecht.
18. Prevlaka - controlled by Croatia, disputed by Montenegro.
19. Regions of the Danube, parts of the regions of Osijek and Sombor - a dispute between Croatia and Serbia.
20.Sarych - controlled by Ukraine, disputed by Russia. The conflict is based on the division of the Black Sea Fleet and the lease agreement for Sevastopol facilities.
21. Sastavsi - administered by Serbia, disputed by Bosnia and Herzegovina.
22. Northern Kosovo - under local government and controlled by KFOR, disputed by the Republic of Kosovo and Serbia.
23.Rockall Rock - administered by the UK, disputed by Ireland, Denmark ( Faroe islands) and Iceland.
24. Mouth of the Ems and West Side Dollart Bay is a dispute between the Netherlands and Germany.
25. Aegean dispute - a wide range of contentious issues about the ownership of the national airspace, territorial waters and the exclusive economic zone between Greece and Turkey.
ASIA AND OCEANIA
1. Aasal, Al-Qaa, Al-Qasr, Deir Al-Aashayer, Kfar Kouk and Tufail is a disputed territory between Lebanon and Syria.
2. "Point 20", a small piece of land reclaimed from the sea in Singapore - Malaysia claims that it is in its territorial waters.
3. Abu Musa - controlled by Iran, disputed by the United Arab Emirates.
4. Azerbaijani exclaves of Karki, Yukhara, Askipara, Bakkhudarli and Yaradullu - controlled by Armenia after the Nagorno-Karabakh war.
5. Aksai Chin - controlled by China, disputed by India.
6.Albert Mayer - Administered by Tonga, disputed by New Zealand
7. The enclaves of Bhutan in Tibet (Cherkip Gompa, Dungmar, Gesur, Gezon, Itse Gompa, Khochar, Nyanri, Ringang, Sanmar, Tarchen and Zufilfuk) - controlled by China, disputed by Bhutan.
8. Artsvashen/Bashkend is an exclave of the Gegharkunik region of Armenia, held by Azerbaijan after the Nagorno-Karabakh war.
9. Beveridge - controlled by Tonga, disputed by Niue (associated with New Zealand state)
10. Big Tomb and Small Tomb - controlled by Iran, disputed by the United Arab Emirates.
11. Boraibari - controlled by Bangladesh, disputed by India.
12. Gilgit-Baltistan - administered by Pakistan, disputed by India.
13. Golan Heights - Syrian territory captured by Israel in 1967 and annexed by Israel in 1981.
14. The Bakdu Mountains are a disputed area between North Korea and China, which is also claimed by Taiwan and South Korea.
15.Daihata-Dumabari - administered by India, disputed by Bangladesh.
16. Demchok, Chumar, Kaurik, Shipki Pass, Jadh and Lapfal are disputed areas located between Aksai Chin and Nepal, controlled by India but disputed by China and Taiwan. Demchok controls China.
17. Jammu and Kashmir - divided between Pakistan, India and China, disputed by India and Pakistan.
18. Doi Lang - controlled by Burma, disputed by Thailand.
19. Isfara Valley - administered by Kyrgyzstan, disputed by Tajikistan.
20. Shaksgam Valley - administered by China, disputed by India.
21.Indo-Bangladeshi Enclaves - There are 103 Indian enclaves inside the main body of Bangladesh while there are 71 Bangladeshi enclaves inside the main body of India. In 1974 Bangladesh approved a proposed treaty to exchange all the enclaves in each other's territories, but India never ratified it.
22. Karang Unarang is a disputed territory between Indonesia and Malaysia.
23.Korean Peninsula - North and Southern Territory consider each other's territory their own.
24.Kula Kngri and mountainous areas west of this peak, the western region of Haa - administered by China, claimed by Bhutan.
25. Siachin Glacier and Saltoro Region - Captured by India in 1984, disputed by Pakistan.
26. Durand Line - tribal territory partly administered by Pakistan and Afghanistan, Afghanistan claims all land inhabited by Pashtuns.
27. Lifitila - controlled by India, disputed by Bangladesh.
28. Minerva - ruled by Tonga, disputed by Fiji
29. The monastery complex of David Gereji is a border dispute between Georgia and Azerbaijan.
30.Small parts of the Oecussi region - administered by East Timor, disputed by Indonesia.
31. Some islands on the Naf River are disputed between Bangladesh and Burma.
32. Several areas in the Ferghana Valley are disputed between Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan.
33.Niloson (Lancaster) - disputed by France (French Polynesia)
34.Oaruh and Umm Al-Maradim - Kuwait-ruled, disputed Saudi Arabia.
35. Kalapani region, Sasta river dispute, Antudanda and Nawalparasi - administered by India, disputed by Nepal.
36. The Prachinburi area is disputed between Thailand and Cambodia.
37. Renaissance Island (now a peninsula) is a disputed territory between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.
38. Swains Island - US-ruled, contested by Takelau, which is dependent on New Zealand, which also does not recognize US sovereignty over the island.
39. Hawar Island - administered by Bahrain, disputed by Qatar
40. South Talpatti or New Moore Island, the island that appeared and disappeared, over which there was a dispute between India and Bangladesh from the 1970s to the 2000s, still affects the uncertainty of the maritime border.
41. Islands in the Torres Strait between the Australian peninsula of Cape York and the island New Guinea- administered by Australia, disputed by Papua New Guinea
42. Macclesfield Islands - Administered by China, contested by Taiwan and Vietnam.
43. Matvey and Hunter Islands - disputed between Vanuatu and France.
44. Senkaku Islands (Daoyu) - administered by Japan, disputed by China and Taiwan.
45. The Spratly Islands are disputed between China, Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei.
46. ​​Islands Ukatny, Rigid and disputed island of Little Pearl - controlled by Russia, disputed by Kazakhstan.
47. Khuriya Islands Miraya - Administered by Oman, disputed by Yemen.
48. Paracel Islands - fully controlled by China, disputed by Taiwan and Vietnam.
49. The pass of three pagodas is disputed between Burma and Thailand.
50.Pirdivah - administered by India, disputed by Bangladesh.
51. Border dispute between Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
52. Pratas - controlled by China, disputed by Taiwan.
53. Pulau Batek - transferred by Timor to Indonesia as compensation in 2004.
54. Various territories: Dac Jerman, Dac Dang, the La Drank zone, the islands of Bae, Milyu, Eyu, Peak, and Northern Piratis are disputed between Vietnam and Cambodia.
55. Muharaja River Island - controlled by India but disputed by Bangladesh.
56. Minerva Reefs - controlled by Tonga, but claimed by Fiji.
57. Sabah (North Barneo) - controlled by Malaysia. The Philippines retains claims to Sabah on the grounds that it is a historical part of the Sultanate of Sulu, whose successor is the Philippines.
58. Gaza Strip - controlled by Hamas, disputed by the Palestinian National Authority, formed from representatives of Fatah
59. The village of Perevi - in Soviet times, it was partly part of the South Ossetian Autonomous Region, on the basis of which part of the village (the so-called Maly Perev) is considered by the authorities of South Ossetia the territory of the republic. The reason for the disputed status is the impossibility of access to the Georgian part of the village, bypassing the South Ossetian one. In 2008-2010 Perevi was completely controlled by Russia. Since 2010, it has been transferred under the control of Georgia (including Maly Perev).
60. The village of Aibga in the Gagra district of Abkhazia with the adjacent territory (160 sq. km) is disputed by Russia as part of the single village of Aibga, divided in Soviet times by the administrative border along the Psou River between the RSFSR and the Georgian SSR. Controlled by Abkhazia.
61. Liancourt Rocks - Managed South Korea, disputed by Japan.
62. Scarborough - administered by China, disputed by the Philippines and Taiwan.
63. Sir Creek - small swampy land disputed between India and Pakistan.
64. Thewa-i-Ra (ex. Conway) - controlled by Fiji, disputed by France (New Caledonia)
65.Tuva - ruled by Russia, disputed by Taiwan
66. Wake - Administered by the US, contested by the Marshall Islands.
67.Fasht Ad-Dibal and Kitat Jaradeh are disputed between Bahrain and Qatar, not included in the 2001 Judgments of the International Court of Justice during the division.
68. Shabaa Farms is a disputed territory between Israel and Syria, which is also claimed by Lebanon.
69. Jiandao - administered by China, contested by Taiwan, North Korea and South Korea.
70. Part of the Poipet commune - administered by Thailand, disputed by Kombodia.
71.Part of Akrotiri Sovereign Base - UK controlled, disputed by Cyprus.
72.Part of Dakelia Sovereign Base - UK-administered, disputed by Cyprus.
73. Shatt al-Arab is a disputed territory between Iraq and Iran.
74. South Kuril Islands - administered by Russia, disputed by Japan.
75. Southern Tibet - Administered by India, but contested by China and Taiwan, which do not recognize the legitimacy of the McMahon line.
AFRICA
1. Abyei - Both Sudan and South Sudan claim the area, but control Sudan after the independence of South Sudan since 2011.
2.Bakassi - the area was transferred to Cameroon by Nigeria by decision of the International Court of Justice and the conclusion of the Greentree Agreement.
3. Bank du Geyser - France claims that the islands are part of a group of islands in Indian Ocean in the French Southern and Antarctic lands. Disputed by Madagascar and the Comoros.
4.Basas da India, the island of Europe and the island of Juan de Nova - de facto part of the French Southern and Antarctic lands, disputed by Madagascar.
5. Bure - administered by Ethiopia, disputed by Eritrea.
6. The Caprivi strip is a disputed territory between Botswana, Namibia, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
7. Ceuta - ruled by Spain, disputed by Morocco.
8. The Chagos Archipelago - The UK administers the archipelago under British Territory in the Indian Ocean. Disputed by Mauritius and the Seychelles.
9. Part of Gikumbi District, Northern Province - administered by Rwanda, contested by Uganda.
10. Gloriose Islands - de facto part of the French Southern and Antarctic lands, disputed by Madagascar, Seychelles and Comoros.
11. The Halaiba Triangle - was previously under the joint control of Egypt and Sudan. Egypt now claims full control.
12. Heglig - claimed by both Sudan and South Sudan, controlled by South Sudan, internationally recognized as part of Sudan.
13. Ilemi Triangle - administered by Kenya, disputed by South Sudan.
14.Islas Chafarinas - administered by Spain, disputed by Morocco.
15. Jodha - claimed by both Sudan and South Sudan, controlled by South Sudan.
16. Part of the Kabale area - administered by Uganda, disputed by Rwanda.
17. Kafiya Kingi - claimed by both Sudan and South Sudan, controlled by South Sudan.
18. Kaka - claimed by both Sudan and South Sudan, controlled by South Sudan.
19. Ka-Ngwane - controlled by South Africa. Swaziland claims that the territory was confiscated during the colonial wars.
20. Part of the Kahemba region is a disputed area between Angola and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The countries agreed to end the dispute in July 2007, but the issue has not been fully resolved.
21. The village of Koualou is disputed between Benin and Burkina Faso.
22. Village of Kpeaba - Guinean troops have occupied the village since January 2013, but de jure belongs to Côte d'Ivoire.
23. Moyo District, an area near Logoba - disputed between South Sudan and Uganda.
24. Lanchinda-Pweto Province - administered by Zambia, disputed by the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
25. Islands in Mbamba Bay and Lake Nyasa - controlled by Tanzania, disputed by Malawi on the basis of the Anglo-German treaty of 1890.
26. The islands of Mbanje, Cocotiers and Congo are disputed between Gabon and Equatorial Guinea.
27. Melilla - administered by Spain, disputed by Morocco.
28. The surroundings of Migingo Island and further north, near the islands of Lolwe, Owasi, Remba, Ringiti and Sigulu in Lake Victoria, are disputed between Kenya and Uganda.
29. Ogaden - belongs to Ethiopia, but is inhabited by ethnic Somalis, which was the reason for the claim from Somalia. This was the reason for the two Ogaden wars - 1962 and 1977.
30. Several islands on the Ntem River are disputed between Cameroon and Equatorial Guinea.
31. Several villages near the Okpara River are disputed between Benin and Nigeria.
32. Orange River Border - Namibia claims that the border runs along the middle of the river, while South Africa claims that it lies along the north coast.
33. Peñón de Alusemas - administered by Spain, disputed by Morocco.
34. Peñon de Vélez de la Gomera - Administered by Spain, contested by Morocco.
35. Perejil Island - Administered by Spain, disputed by Morocco. After the 2002 incident, both countries agreed to return to the status quo of the previous incident.
36. Ras Doumeira and Doumeira Island - Administered by Eritrea, contested by Djibouti.
37. The Rufunzo Valley and Sabanerwa are disputed between Rwanda and Burundi.
38. Rukwanzi Island and the Semliki Valley are disputed between the Congo and Uganda.
39. Sindabezi Island - Administered by Zambia, contested by Zimbabwe.
40. Sokotri archipelago - Somalia does not officially claim the archipelago, but asked the UN to look into the "status" of the archipelago, whether it should belong to Yemen or Somalia.
41.Southeastern Algeria - disputed by Libya.
42. Tiran and Sanafir Islands - administered by Egypt, disputed by Saudi Arabia.
43. Tromelin Island - de facto part of the French Southern and Antarctic lands, disputed by Mauritius and the Seychelles.
44. Tsoron-Zalambessa is a disputed territory between Ethiopia and Eritrea.
45. Wadi Halfa - administered by Egypt, disputed by Sudan.
46. ​​Coast of Yenga, left bank of the Macon and Moa rivers - administered by Sierra Leone, disputed by Guinea.
47. Badme is the pretext for the 1998 Ethiopian-Eritrean war. Currently under Ethiopian control.
48. Mayotte - In a 2009 referendum, the population decided to become an overseas department of France, but the Comoros claim the territory.
49.South-eastern part of Western Sahara - administered by Morocco, disputed by Western Sahara.

NORTH AMERICA
1. Hans Island - Canada and Denmark (on behalf of Greenland) claim ownership of the island.
2. Continental shelf in the eastern Gulf of Mexico beyond 200 miles - the ownership of a small gap beyond 200 nautical miles of the economic zones of the United States, Cuba and Mexico has not yet been definitively determined.
3. Machias Seal Island - US and Canada can't determine ownership.
4.North Rock - US and Canada can't determine ownership.
5. Strait of Juan de Fuca - US and Canada cannot determine ownership.
6. Dixon-Entrance - US and Canada can't determine ownership.
7. Portland Canal - US and Canada can't determine ownership.
8. Beaufort Sea - US and Canada can't determine ownership.
9. The Northwest Passage and some other Arctic waters are in Canadian territorial waters, but the US claims navigational rights
CENTRAL AMERICA
1.Isla Aves - Administered by Venezuela, Dominica renounced claims to the island in 2006, but continues to claim adjacent seas.
2. Bajo Nuevo - controlled by Colombia. Honduras recognized the sovereignty of Colombia, Nicaragua, Jamaica and the United States did not recognize.
3. Southern half of Belize - disputed by Guatemala, which previously claimed all of Belize.
4.Northern part of the island of Calero - controlled by Costa Rica, disputed by Nicaragua.
5. Island of Conejo - controlled by Honduras, disputed by El Salvador.
6. Navassa - US-ruled, contested by Haiti.
7. Sapodilla Cay - administered by Belize, disputed by Guatemla and Honduras.
8. Serranilla - Jamaica recognized the sovereignty of Colombia, Honduras, Nicaragua and the United States do not recognize.
SOUTH AMERICA
1. Guyana West of the Essequibo River - Venezuela and Guyana have overlapping maritime claims. Barbados and Guyana also signed an agreement on joint cooperation in this area.
2. Ankoka Islands - Administered by Venezuela, contested by Guyana.
3. Arroyo de la Invernada (Rincón de Artigas) and Vila Albornoz - Uruguay disputes 237 sq. km. the river Invernada near the Masoller region.
4. Falkland (Malvinas) Islands - administered by the UK, disputed by Argentina.
5. French Guiana west of the Marouini River - administered by France, disputed by Suriname.
6. Guaira Falls (Set Quidas) - the disputed islands, partially controlled by Brazil and Paraguay, were flooded by the Itaipu reservoir.
7. Guyana east of the upper arm of the Quarantine - Administered by Guyana, contested by Suriname.
8. Isla Brasiliera - Administered by Brazil, but Uruguayan officials claim the island is part of their Artigas department.
9.Isla Suarez - Administered by Bolivia, contested by Brazil.
10. The maritime border of the Gulf of Venezuela - Colombia claims that it has the right to the waters in this bay.
11.South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands - administered by the UK, disputed by Argentina.
12. The ice field of Southern Patagonia between Monte Fitz Roy and Cerro Murallion - the border has not yet been officially defined, however, Argentina and Chile have their own claims here.

In 2014, Crimea "returned to its native harbor." To what extent is this reasonable in terms of international law, we will not argue. But the fact remains that Ukraine considers this an annexation, and it is unlikely that it will recognize this territory as Russia in the near future. This means one thing: Russia's disputed border territories will long be a stumbling block in international politics. However, Ukraine is not the only power that has claims against us. The disputed ones have been creating difficulties in international politics for many years. Which states want to bite off a piece of land from us and why? Let's try to figure it out.

At war

Few people know, but de jure our country is officially at war with a neighboring country. No, not with Ukraine, as many might think. Despite the loud statements of “occupation by Russia”, there was no announcement from the Poroshenko regime. Aggressive rhetoric sounds only for the domestic electorate.

We are currently at war with Japan for two reasons:

  • Russia is officially the legal successor of the USSR. This means that all international legal treaties of a single now refer directly to us. Some say it's unfair. Like, there were many republics, but only Russia is responsible. But this should have been asked of our deputies in the early nineties, who received the entire gold reserve of the Union and a permanent seat in the Security Council with the right to veto any UN decisions.
  • It is we who own the lands that we inherited after the collapse of the USSR, which are claimed by our eastern neighbor.

What does Japan want from us?

The disputed territories of Russia and Japan are located among the Kuril Islands and on Sakhalin. The Kuriles include four islands that are part of our country: Iturup, Kunashir, Shikotan and the Khamobai archipelago. In 1956, the USSR was ready to transfer two islands (Khamobai and Shikotan). We wanted to keep Iturup and Kunashir for ourselves, in which a powerful military infrastructure has already been created, and the islands themselves are considered strategic objects. The Land of the Rising Sun was already ready to make concessions, but the United States intervened. They demanded that Japan not enter into such agreements and insisted on the return of all the islands. However, the USSR did not agree to this. In the end, no one gave anything to anyone. The disputed territories of Russia and Japan are with us. Let's delve into history. When exactly did the problem occur?

Synod treatise on friendship and trade

The disputed territories of Russia (the Kuril Islands) did not always belong to us. In 1855, Nicholas I signed a trade agreement with Japan, according to which the Russian Empire has no historical claims to the four disputed islands. Modern skeptics believe that this was a forced step. Russia was drawn into the Crimean War, in which we fought against all the developed countries of Europe at once. That is, Nicholas I had to look for allies in the East, but apart from Japan there was no one there. Yes, and she was still weak in the military and economic terms. Just started to come out of isolation.

The position of opponents of the transfer of the Kuril Islands is based on the fact that it was Russia who discovered these islands, which is not entirely true. The distance between them and the main Japanese territories is such that they observe each other from a telescope. There was no point in "opening" these territories to the Japanese. They were, in fact, open and were under their control in the 17th century.

Territory swap

The Synod treatise (1855) did not resolve the issue of Sakhalin. Both Japanese and Russians lived in this territory. Historically, it turned out that our compatriots settled in the north, and Asians - in the south. As a result, Sakhalin became a joint territory, but no one had de jure rights. The situation was changed by the treaty of 1875. According to it, all the islands in the Kuriles were transferred to Japan, and Sakhalin retreated to our country. Thus, historically disputed territories Russia (the Kuril Islands) should belong to the Land of the Rising Sun, if not for further events.

Russo-Japanese War

The Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905 ended with the signing of it, Russia gave up southern Sakhalin. This gives the supporters of imperialism reason to assert that the treatise of 1905 crossed out all the previous ones. It follows from this that previous agreements on the transfer of the Kuril Islands may not be respected. However, the tsarist regime, the Provisional Government and the communists in 1917 did not dispute these territories with documents.

The Second World War

Great Patriotic War ended in May 1945. However, World War II was still going on. Japan was the strongest state in pacific ocean after USA. The Kwantung Army in Manchuria, Korea, and Mongolia numbered up to a million men with high morale. The Soviet Union agreed to the transfer of the army from Germany to the east, with the authorization of the Allies to return the transfer of South Sakhalin and the disputed Kuril Islands. After the approval of the West, our grandfathers, instead of going home and establishing a peaceful life, were drawn into hostilities even before September 2. Because of this, as expected, the disputed territories of Russia appeared.

The results of the confrontation with Japan

Modern pro-Western human rights activists unanimously argue about the "illegal occupation" of the Kuril Islands. Of course, historically one can agree that they did not originally belong to our country. However, human rights activists forget that after the defeat in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. South Sakhalin went to the Asian state. War often results in territorial gains. If this principle is used in the construction of international borders, then many countries must completely redraw their borders.

"Catherine, were you wrong?"

Are there disputed territories between Russia and the US? Every Russian patriot will say - "of course." Alaska, which was sold, and some even claim that it was allegedly leased by Empress Catherine II. Where does such a myth come from? Unclear. But the sale of Alaska took place relatively recently. In 1867, Russia sold this territory for $7.2 million. Of course, we can say that at that time it was a lot of money. But actually it is not. All the territories that the United States conquered from other countries (England, Spain, Mexico) were subsequently purchased. And these amounts were twice as much - from 14 million dollars. In fact, Alexander II sold twice. However, let's try to figure out why this was done?

Emperor Alexander announced his intentions to sell Alaska 10 years before. Historians have found correspondence with brother Konstantin. In it, the emperor consulted on the sale of North American possessions. Why did he do it? Was it necessary? Speaking objectively, yes, since the expediency of such an agreement is confirmed by the following facts:

  • Russia's weakness in military and economic terms. Our country physically could not gain a foothold in this territory. In addition, it was necessary to choose: to gain a foothold in America or on Far East. The loss of both was a reality. The government correctly decided that the preservation of America with the loss of the Far East would subsequently lead to the loss of the first component.
  • Rising United States. Of course, by 1867 the United States itself was not going to take Alaska from Russia, as they did with Mexico, Spain and France. But the idea of ​​a "united America" ​​was already in the air then. Alaska was only a matter of time. By 1867, the States were simply not up to Russia with northern territories. In addition, the expansion of the population to Alaska created a threat of free reunification with the rest of the States by the population. In this case, Russia would not have received anything.
  • Allied relations with the USA and the hostility of Old Europe. Russia at this time surrounded itself with enemies. The Crimean War showed who is who. In this situation, the emperor decided to transfer the North American territories to his allies for money, since the likelihood of this territory being captured by England or France was high. Our sailing fleet could no longer resist the steamers, especially in such remote lands from the capital.

Bottom line: Alaska was sold for half the price the US paid its enemies after the annexation war. Conclusions suggest themselves. The United States did not really need this territory at that time either. Congress didn't want to buy it. Few people imagined what would happen in 100-150 years. About huge natural resources no one knew about this area either.

However, there are disputed territories of Russia and the United States even without Alaska.

Although the treaty of 1867 alienated North American lands from us, the maritime boundary line was not finally determined. The parties proposed different methods of delimitation:

  • Russia - loxodrome. There is a straight line on the map, a bend on the plane.
  • USA - great circle. On the map, a bend, on a plane, a straight line.

As a result, they agreed on an alternative option: the line was in the middle between the loxodrome and orthodrome. However, this conflict has not been fully resolved. The United States took advantage of the weakness of the USSR and imposed a new treaty in 1990, which significantly worsened our situation in this region. But so far the treaty has not been ratified by our country, which gives the right to consider it null and void. Now this territory is considered disputable, and actions that can somehow aggravate relations in this territory are not being taken.

Disputed territories of Russia with other countries

However, Japan and the US are not the only countries with which such problems arise. The existence of disputed territories hinders international cooperation. What other states have claims against us? They are actually not so few:

  • Norway;
  • Ukraine;
  • Estonia;
  • China;
  • Denmark;
  • Canada;
  • Iceland;
  • Sweden;
  • Finland;
  • Azerbaijan;
  • Turkmenistan;
  • Kazakhstan;
  • Iran;
  • Lithuania;
  • Latvia;
  • Mongolia.

The list is certainly impressive. But why so many countries? The fact is that the disputed territories of Russia and neighboring states are not only lands, islands, but also water shelves, sea border areas. Many countries belong to the Arctic powers. Today there is a battle for a new continent. So far, only legal and scientific methods.

Battle for the Arctic

Several states are fighting for the Arctic at once. This is the only mainland that did not participate in the colonial division. It is understandable: who needs ice? So it was until the moment when humanity could not technically and economically develop new hydrocarbon deposits in the north. But the situation has changed. High prices for oil, the development of science and technology has made it profitable to extract gas and oil from northern ice. Several countries were drawn into the new colonial division at once: Russia, Canada, USA, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway. In general, those countries that directly border the Arctic.

In the south, the waters of the Caspian Sea cannot be divided by Iran, Kazakhstan, Russia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan.

Disputed territories of Russia and Finland: it's not just about the Arctic

Russia and Finland have claims not only about the Arctic. The stumbling block with the northern neighbor is Karelia. Until the Winter Campaign of 1939, the Soviet-Finnish border passed just north of St. Petersburg. The leadership of the USSR understood that in the event of an impending war, this territory would be a good springboard for an invasion of our country. After some provocations, the Winter War of 1939-1940s began.

As a result, the USSR suffered heavy casualties and was not ready for such a war. However, the result was positive: the territory of Karelia became part of the Union. Today, Finnish revenge-seekers are demanding the return of these lands from Russia.

“What are you, your royal muzzle, scattering state lands?”

I would like to recall the famous phrase from the famous comedy film. But this is no laughing matter. Until 2010, there were disputed territories of Russia and Norway in the waters Barents Sea. We are talking about a pool of 175 thousand square meters. km. Until 2010, the parties found a compromise: both countries are engaged in fishing here, and hydrocarbon production was banned. Everything would be fine, but geologists have found huge reserves here. And here, as they say, "blew the roof off" our officials. Russia voluntarily abandoned 175 thousand square meters. km. fisheries in exchange for the joint production of gas and oil. A short-sighted step, especially with today's low prices for oil. In addition, the entire northern fishing industry was destroyed by one signature.

All for China?

Norway is not the only country that has received a generous territorial gift from us. There were disputed territories of Russia and China. In 2004, our country gave away the disputed Tarabarov Island and part of the Ussuriysky Island to the "celestial kingdom". However, not all so simple. Having received one part of the territory, China immediately demands another. Now we must, according to Chinese historians, give up part of the territory in Altai and the Far East. And we will not talk about the vast territories in Transbaikalia, which were leased for half a century. Today these are our territories, for now, but what will happen in 50 years? Time will show.

We recommend reading