Japan's Russia is a valuable resource that reinterprets modern Japanese culture and society and introducing readers to the rich intellectual and cultural history between Japan and Russia.

This book is the first attempt to examine Japan’s relations with Russia from the perspective of national identity; providing a new interpretation of Japan’s perceptions of Russia and foreign policy. Alexander Bukh focuses on the construction of the Japanese self using Russia as the other, examining the history of bilateral relations and comparisons between the Russian and Japanese national character. The first part of the book examines the formation of modern Japan’s perceptions of Russia, focusing mainly on the Cold War years. The second part of the book examines how this identity construction has been reflected in Japan’s economic, security and territorial dispute related policy towards post-Soviet Russia. Providing not only a case study of the Japan-Russia relationship, but also engaging in a critical examination of existing International Relations frameworks for conceptualizing the relationship between national identity and foreign policy, the appeal of the book will not be limited to those interested in Japanese/Russian politics but will also be of interest to the broader body of students of International Relations.

The Russo-Japanese conflict was recognized, in its time, as introducing a new era of warfare, involving millions of men and weapons of mass destruction. In the decade which elapsed after its end much was written about it. The First World War marked a second stage in the development of twentieth-century-style total war, and so overshadowed the Russo-Japanese War that little further study was made of the latter. Subsequent books on this subject were for popular readerships, and mainly recycled the knowledge and beliefs of the pre-1914 years. This book aims to present a short account of the war, stripped of the legends that successive journalists and authors have attached to it, and at the same time present new angles and interpretations based on hitherto unused Russian-language sources and on the specialized monographs of the few scholars working in this and related fields. While not claiming to be definitive, it does provide a fresh start for the study of this war, whose importance justifies a clear-headed examination, casting light on Russian military and naval tradition. The distinctive psychology of Russian generals and admirals is well illustrated in this book, and the conclusion that the former were for bureaucratic reasons happier in defense than offense, and that the latter thought in military rather than naval terms (regarding battleships as fortresses that, under pressure, they could surrender of demolish), has implications for the understanding of subsequent Russian and Soviet history. Among the incidental implications is that during this war the British and American press sank to such a voluntary and involuntary level of distortion that its performance in subsequent wars can only be regarded as an improvement. Here and there in the book explanations for subsequent Russian and Japanese behavior can be glimpsed; not the least of these is the circumstance that at the end of the war Russian generals and officials felt cheated of certain victory while exactly the same intense and long-term frustration gnawed at Japanese public opinion. It was really an unsatisfactory war for both sides, the innumerable dead winning nothing worth while; in this and many other ways the Russo-Japanese War was a dress rehearsal for the First World War.

The territorial dispute between Japan and Russia over four islands off the northeast coast of Hokkaidō has been an enduring obstacle to closer relations between the two powers and therefore an important determinant of geopolitics in North-East Asia. Having emerged at the end of World War II, this conflict has now existed for more than seven decades. And yet, despite the passage of so much time, within Japan there remains a resilience of belief that the islands will eventually be returned. This book provides a comprehensive analysis of Japan’s prospects of ever recovering these "Northern Territories". Offering an in-depth account of why the Japanese side believe they still have a chance of securing the return of the four islands, it also provides an objective and methodical evaluation of the prospects of these expectations being realised. The key finding is that Japanese policymakers and scholars have consistently overestimated the extent of Japan’s leverage with regard to Russia, and that there is, in fact, already no possibility whatsoever of sovereignty over the four islands being restored to Japan. This has major implications for Japanese decision makers who must balance their principled commitment not to compromise on territorial issues with more pragmatic considerations of energy security and how to contain the rise of Chinese regional power. Presenting a unique analysis and a strikingly different perspective on this territorial dispute, the findings of this book are of considerable importance for international relations within the Asia-Pacific region. It will be of interest to students and scholars of Japanese Politics, Russian Politics and International Relations.

"Mid-nineteenth century Russian radicals who witnessed the Meiji Restoration saw it as the most sweeping revolution in recent history and the impetus for future global progress. Acting outside imperial encounters, they initiated underground transnational networks with Japan. Prominent intellectuals and cultural figures, from Peter Kropotkin and Lev Tolstoy to Saigo Takamori and Tokutomi Roka, pursued these unofficial relationships through correspondence, travel, and networking, despite diplomatic and military conflicts between their respective nations.Tracing these non-state networks, Anarchist Modernity uncovers a major current in Japanese intellectual and cultural life between 1860 and 1930 that might be described as “cooperatist anarchist modernity”—a commitment to realizing a modern society through mutual aid and voluntary activity, without the intervention of state governance. These efforts later crystallized into such movements as the Nonwar Movement, Esperantism, and the popularization of the natural sciences.Examining cooperatist anarchism as an intellectual foundation of modern Japan, Sho Konishi offers a new approach to Japanese history that fundamentally challenges the “logic” of Western modernity. It looks beyond this foundational construct of modern history writing to understand people, practices, and cultural expressions that have been forgotten or dismissed as products of anti-modern nativist counter urges against the West."

Having suffered military defeat at the hands of advanced Western powers in the 1850s, Russia and Japan embarked upon a program of catch-up and modernization in the late-19th Century. While the two states sought in the main to replicate the successes of the advanced great powers of the West, the discourse on national identity among Russian and Japanese elite in this period evinced a considerable degree of ambivalence about Western dominance. With the onset of the crisis of power and legitimacy in the international order ushered in by the First World War, this ambivalence shifted towards more open revolt against Western dominance. The rise of communism in Russia and militarism in Japan were significantly shaped by their search for national distinctiveness and international status. This book is a comparative historical study of how the two "non-Western" great powers emerged as challengers to the prevailing international order in the interwar period, each seeking to establish an alternative order. Specifically, Anno examines the parallels and contrasts in the ways in which the Russian and Japanese elites sought to define the two countries’ national identities, and how those definitions influenced the two countries’ attitudes toward the prevailing order. At the intersection of international relations theory, comparative politics, and of historical sociology, this book offers an integrated perspective on the rise of challengers to the liberal international order in the early-twentieth century.