Russia's Putin praises Abe, says late Japanese PM wanted peace treaty
No treaty was ever signed as the two countries could not resolve a dispute over the then-Soviet Union's seizure at the end of the war of four islands in the Southern Kuril chain, known in Japan as the Northern Territories.
Russian media said Abe and Putin met altogether 27 times during the nearly nine years the Japanese leader was in office. Abe left office in 2020 and was assassinated two years later while making an election campaign speech.
"I know that his dream - and he truly strived to achieve this - was to conclude a peace treaty between our two countries. The situation is different now," the Russian leader said.
Putin, whose comments to Abe's widow in the Kremlin were reported by Russian news agencies, also said fulfilling that dream was not possible in the current international situation given the conflict in Ukraine.
"Your husband did a great deal for the development of Russian-Japanese relations. We had very good personal relations," Putin was quoted as telling Akie Abe.
Russia's relations with Japan have been strained by Tokyo's support for sanctions imposed by Ukraine's Western allies over Moscow's 2022 invasion of Ukraine. All negotiations on clinching a peace treaty have been suspended.
Akie Abe told Putin, according to the agencies, that her husband had wanted to meet Putin even after the start of the Ukraine conflict "but unfortunately circumstances were such that he was no longer able to meet you. His life was cut short."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
15 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Letters: What began as a war against Hamas has turned into the starvation of an entire people
How many more images of starving children must we see before we, as a nation and as people of conscience, speak with moral clarity about what is happening in Gaza? What began as a campaign against Hamas has become something far more harrowing. We are witnessing the deliberate starvation of civilians, the destruction of homes, the suffocation of hope. The Israeli government under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has crossed a line — from war to widespread humanitarian atrocity. This is not just a military operation. It is a policy of deprivation, displacement and collective punishment. Food and water are cut off. Aid is obstructed. Families are left to scavenge while their children wither from hunger. This is a stain on our shared humanity. Dare we acknowledge the echoes of history? We say 'never again' with solemnity, but here we are — watching the deliberate denial of food and medical care to a trapped population. The difference is that this time, the suffering is being inflicted by a state that should know too well the horrors of systemic dehumanization. And still, many hesitate to speak out. Let us be clear. Condemning the Netanyahu government's policies is not antisemitic — it is moral. It is necessary. Silence in the face of starvation, particularly of children, is complicity. We must find the courage to separate political fear from human truth. This is not about geopolitical alliances or partisanship. This is about children. About families. About the simple, undeniable truth that no government has the right to bomb civilians into submission or starve them into silence. History is watching. Our moral integrity is being tested. Will we fail this test?I've read many articles about the horrendous conditions in Gaza. War is always a tragedy for all involved, particularly when one side has clearly lost but continues to fight — causing more destruction and loss of life than necessary. In looking at history, Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee surrendered long after it had become clear that the Confederacy had lost the war. Likewise, Adolf Hitler's Germany surrendered to the Allied forces only after the destruction of Berlin, despite the successful invasion on D-Day and defensive offensive actions of the Russian army. If the Confederacy and Germany, both of which like Hamas started the wars at issue, had surrendered sooner, much less loss of life would have occurred, not to mention destruction of cities. Think of the loss and suffering that would have been avoided if Japan, which was given opportunities to surrender prior to U.S. nuclear bombs being dropped, had done so. War is complicated, and each side has positions that are entrenched in nationalism and sadly strong emotions such as greed, hate and racism. Still, history shows that eventually it becomes clear to one side the cause is lost. It is time for Hamas to stop the suffering of the Palestinian people it claims to lead and protect. Hamas has lost the war. Thus, it is not, given the rules and construct of war, for Hamas to attempt to govern the terms of surrender. If Hamas would release the Israeli hostages and withdraw its forces from Gaza, what does it think Israel would do? Certainly, with all eyes on Israel at that point, Israel would be compelled to immediately provide aid, engage in reconstruction of Gaza and treat the Palestinian people with dignity. However, according to Israel's terms, this can only be accomplished once the threat of Hamas is eliminated from Gaza. Hamas must recognize it has lost, surrender and end the unimaginable suffering of its anyone know what the term 'unconditional surrender' means? It means that war is ugly. If Hamas wants to stop children from starving, it needs to surrender unconditionally. Ask Nazi Germany. Ask Japan. Our expert news reporters never ever mention this fact.I am one of the Jewish people painfully sad about the starvation and armed killing inflicted upon innocent Palestinians and their children by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his ultra-right coalition and his firepower orders to Israeli military forces. The increased antisemitism in this country is, in effect, mostly anti-Netanyahu-ism. His original response to the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas massacre of Israelis and others certainly was expected — a death penalty for the Palestinian terrorists who make even their own people suffer. But he has carried on the Gaza assault for so long and indiscriminately that it has stricken an unthreatening population to the extent that it is considered a genocide by Israeli human rights groups. There are several other unfortunate factors in this ungodly situation. First of all, there is really no chance to totally kill off a hate-filled faction such as Hamas. Also, Netanyahu and his formidable intelligence team were unprepared for the Oct. 7 horror, although the danger always was warned. And it took hours before Netanyahu had his forces respond. Before this happened, a majority of Israelis would have voted an unpopular Netanyahu out of office over the corruption charges against him. The war with Hamas changed all that. For many years, Netanyahu has refused to accept a two-state solution. So he is at the root of this problem; the current part of it devastating beyond strength in numbers, and Arab states have taken a positive step to stop the carnage in Gaza Everyone wants the war in Gaza to end, especially Israel. Many wonder why the media and the noisy protesters at American universities seem to understand how to bring the war to a conclusion. I've yet to read or hear of anyone talking about Hamas laying down its weapons. If its fighters lay down their weapons, the war is over. Moral responsibility for protecting children from starvation is in the hands of Hamas, which started this front-page headline in the July 29 Tribune trumpets: 'Trump pushing Israel on Gaza aid.' Really? President Donald Trump has supposedly been 'pressuring' Israel for a long time, with no results. Trump generally doesn't hesitate to threaten other countries, as demonstrated by his tariff war. If he was actually pushing Israel, he could simply threaten to terminate our aid, as he did so publicly with Ukraine. But he won't because he and Israel likely are on the same page. It's called plausible David L. Applegate's letter to the editor ('Higher ed's liberal bias,' Aug. 1): Applegate defends Donald Trump's withholding of federal funds to force universities to abandon a perceived left-leaning bias. What Applegate's argument fails to note is that the initial attacks on the universities were based on an 'emergency' of antisemitism as declared by the president. After such declaration, draconian measures have been threatened and executed. In the past, standard procedures were used to handle allegations of antisemitism, such as letting the institution know; asking them to address the claims, if found to be legitimate; and giving the university time to address the incident. If these avenues were not taken to the liking of the government, additional steps might be taken. Trump deemed himself investigator, judge and jury, jumping almost immediately to 'atomic bomb' measures. Even worse, though, is piggybacking the unreasonable demands about who universities can hire to teach, what they can teach and who they can teach. This has nothing to do with antisemitism. It is just a ruse to force age-old, right-wing ideals on universities they don't like. If you want your kids to learn in a right-wing environment, send them to schools that embrace that ideology. Simple as that. Trump's tactics are winding through the courts. Hopefully some or all of it will be deemed unlawful. One can hope.
The Hill
15 minutes ago
- The Hill
Russia says it no longer will abide by its self-imposed moratorium on intermediate-range missiles
MOSCOW (AP) — Russia has declared that it no longer considers itself bound by a self-imposed moratorium on the deployment of nuclear-capable intermediate range missiles, a warning that potentially sets the stage for a new arms race as tensions between Moscow and Washington rise again over Ukraine. In a statement Monday, the Russian Foreign Ministry linked the decision to efforts by the U.S. and its allies to develop intermediate range weapons and preparations for their deployment in Europe and other parts of the world. It specifically cited U.S. plans to deploy Typhoon and Dark Eagle missiles in Germany starting next year. The ministry noted that such actions by the U.S. and its allies create 'destabilizing missile potentials' near Russia, creating a 'direct threat to the security of our country' and carry 'significant harmful consequences for regional and global stability, including a dangerous escalation of tensions between nuclear powers.' It didn't say what specific moves the Kremlin might take, but President Vladimir Putin has previously announced that Moscow was planning to deploy its new Oreshnik missiles on the territory of its neighbor and ally Belarus later this year. 'Decisions on specific parameters of response measures will be made by the leadership of the Russian Federation based on an interdepartmental analysis of the scale of deployment of American and other Western land-based intermediate-range missiles, as well as the development of the overall situation in the area of international security and strategic stability,' the Foreign Ministry said. The Russian statement follows President Donald Trump's announcement Friday that he's ordering the repositioning of two U.S. nuclear submarines 'based on the highly provocative statements' of Dmitry Medvedev, who was president in 2008-12 to allow Putin, bound by term limits, to later return to the office. Trump's statement came as his deadline for the Kremlin to reach a peace deal in Ukraine approaches later this week. Trump said he was alarmed by Medvedev's attitude. Medvedev, who serves as deputy chairman of Russia's Security Council chaired by Putin, has apparently sought to curry favor with his mentor by making provocative statements and frequently lobbing nuclear threats. Last week. he responded to Trump's deadline for Russia to accept a peace deal in Ukraine or face sanctions by warning him against 'playing the ultimatum game with Russia' and declaring that 'each new ultimatum is a threat and a step toward war.' Medvedev also commented on the Foreign Ministry's statement, describing Moscow's withdrawal from the moratorium as 'the result of NATO countries' anti-Russian policy.' 'This is a new reality all our opponents will have to reckon with,' he wrote on X. 'Expect further steps.' Intermediate-range missiles can fly between 500 to 5,500 kilometers (310 to 3,400 miles). Such land-based weapons were banned under the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. Washington and Moscow abandoned the pact in 2019, accusing each other of violations, but Moscow declared its self-imposed moratorium on their deployment until the U.S. makes such a move. The collapse of the INF Treaty has stoked fears of a replay of a Cold War-era European missile crisis, when the U.S. and the Soviet Union both deployed intermediate-range missiles on the continent in the 1980s. Such weapons are seen as particularly destabilizing because they take less time to reach targets, compared with intercontinental ballistic missiles, leaving no time for decision-makers and raising the likelihood of a global nuclear conflict over a false launch warning. Russia's missile forces chief has declared that the new Oreshnik intermediate range missile, which Russia first used against Ukraine in November, has a range to reach all of Europe. Oreshnik can carry conventional or nuclear warheads. Putin has praised the Oreshnik's capabilities, saying its multiple warheads that plunge to a target at speeds up to Mach 10 are immune to being intercepted and are so powerful that the use of several of them in one conventional strike could be as devastating as a nuclear attack. Putin has warned the West that Moscow could use it against Ukraine's NATO allies who allowed Kyiv to use their longer-range missiles to strike inside Russia. ___ The Associated Press receives support for nuclear security coverage from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and Outrider Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
The Hill
15 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump hones in on energy in trade talks, but specifics are scarce
President Trump is seeking to promote U.S. energy in his trade negotiations, but announcements about agreements so far have been light on details, and actual outcomes are largely mysterious. Recently, the Trump administration and the European Union announced a trade deal under which the EU will buy '$750 billion in U.S. energy' by 2028. An EU webpage said that the deal 'includes the intention to procure more US liquified natural gas (LNG), oil, and nuclear fuels and cutting-edge technologies and investments over the next three years.' On Wednesday, the administration announced another deal with South Korea that included the purchase of '$100 Billion Dollars of LNG, or other Energy products' Trump said on social media. The latest agreements come after one with Japan last month. That deal amounted to $550 billion in Japanese investments in U.S. industries, including energy infrastructure and production, semiconductors and mining. Reuters reported Monday that the administration also reached a trade deal with Malaysia that included an agreement under which state energy company Petroliam Nasional Berhad will buy $3.4 billion a year of U.S. LNG. While there appears to be a focus on energy in these deals, in many of them it's not clear exactly what kind of energy will be purchased in what quantities, who will supply it or who will buy it. 'There are a lot of still open questions,' said Aaron Bartnick, who served as an economic security official in the Biden White House. Clara Gillispie, a senior fellow for climate and energy at the Council on Foreign Relations, said, 'There's still a lot we don't know about what these deals look like, including in terms of how ambitious these actually are.' She said part of the issue is that it's not clear what even counts as 'energy.' 'You have in some of the detail deals references to energy products. Some say energy exports from the U.S. LNG is often referenced as part of a suggestive, but not necessarily all inclusive list.' Bartnick, who is now a fellow at Columbia University's Center on Global Energy Policy, said that the deals would be expected to result in the purchase of more U.S. energy 'if the terms as outlined, are executed.' But that's a big if. 'I'll be very interested to see how these foreign governments work with the private companies in their respective countries in order to coordinate these investments,' he said. On the U.S. side as well, decisions are made by private companies, rather than anything run by the state, and in many cases, if deals were economic, it's possible they would have already been made with or without a trade deal. However, Gillispie noted that 'there are things that governments can do to more positively influence the competitiveness of U.S. energy supplies in their own markets.' 'You could, for example, see governments look at waiving of certain import taxes or other fees that might be levied against energy imports, specific to waiving them in the U.S. case,' she said. Olympe Mattei-d'Ornano, a European gas analyst at BNEF, said in a statement shared with The Hill that the EU deal in particular may be difficult to actually achieve. 'Total energy imports from the US accounted for less than $80 billion last year vs $250 billion promised. The pledge is not legally binding but could spur a gesture from the EU's side to provide incentives/guidelines to increase EU buyers' contracts with US LNG projects,' said Mattei-d'Ornano. She indicated that at least some of the purchases may have happened anyway, 'given the pivot away from Russia in recent years.' However, the U.S. energy industry has appeared supportive of the Trump administration's efforts. 'We welcome President Trump's announcement of new trade frameworks that will expand new export market opportunities and support American energy development,' said Rob Jennings, vice president of natural gas markets at the American Petroleum Institute, a major oil and gas lobbying organization, in a statement to The Hill. Jennings, however, also called for a faster infrastructure buildout in the U.S., saying 'we can provide even more of that supply to our allies with more infrastructure.'
