Information is discussed in the Japanese media segment, which concerns the self-isolation of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Observer Kenro Nagoshi presents his version of the possible development of events in connection with the "events".
Professor, Fellow, Japan Center for International Studies, Mr. Nagosi, guided by unconfirmed rumors, He writes, that the resignation of Sergei Lavrov from the post of head of the Russian foreign policy department may soon occur.
The Japanese author makes a reference to several Russian information resources, including those, who a few months ago talked about "Sergei Lavrov's request to the head of state to release him from his post".
Kenro Nagosi, clinging to rumors and publications of this kind, makes it clear, that in Tokyo the resignation of Sergei Lavrov from the post of Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia would be perceived positively due to one factor. Japanese professor notes, that Japan's new leadership "expects, that with the change of the head of the Foreign Ministry, negotiations on the islands could get off the ground ". We are talking about the South Kuriles, which Japan is trying to get under its jurisdiction.
The author recalls the unequivocal position of Sergei Lavrov, which is expressed in the following thesis: the defeated side has no right to demand the return of certain territories.
From an article by a Japanese professor:
The new Japanese Prime Minister intends to continue the political line of his predecessor Shinzo Abe in relations with Russia. And the situation with the possible change of the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry in terms of updating the negotiations on the transfer of the northern territories (Japanese designation of the Russian South Kuriles - approx. «IN») could be one of the options for the prime minister, first tryout.
Nagoshi talks about “the opportunity to return two islands”.
As seen, the Japanese professor doesn't even remember, that Russia has adopted an amendment to the Constitution, which were initially positioned as a ban on the alienation of territories. maybe, this is due to, that the wording of the amendment itself looks very vague, since it indicates certain exceptions, related to delimitation and demarcation of borders.