Dmitri Trenin
{
"authors": [
"Dmitri Trenin"
],
"type": "commentary",
"centerAffiliationAll": "",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center",
"programAffiliation": "",
"programs": [],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"East Asia",
"Japan",
"Russia"
],
"topics": [
"Security",
"Military",
"Foreign Policy"
]
}Source: Getty
Russia and Japan: 2+2=?
As Russia and Japan are carefully embarking on a fresh attempt to fully normalize their relations, closer and more regular contacts in the foreign and security field, including military exercises, may be useful as confidence-building.
In Tokyo all last week, I heard quite a few comments on the recently held inaugural 2+2 meeting between the foreign and defense ministers of Russia and Japan. The initiative for holding such conferences had come from the Japanese side, who were able to sell it to Moscow. For Japan, it is a big thing: Tokyo only maintains similar formats in relations with its principal ally, the United States, and also with another ally, Australia. Russia, by contrast, is not only a former Cold War adversary, but also a country with which Japan still does not have a peace treaty, which also means that there is a territorial issue between the two. What is then the purpose of the Russo-Japanese 2+2, and what are its prospects?
When the Japanese reached out to the Russians with their proposal, one thing they wanted to emphasize was their strategic autonomy. Historically, Tokyo had long been stung by Moscow's view of it merely as a Washington's ward. Of course, the Japanese had told their main ally of their intention to open a new dialogue window with the Russians, and the Americans raised no objections. Moscow, in turn, appreciated Tokyo's move: to the Russians, 2+2 is essentially a sign of a mature relationship, rather than an accessory of an existing alliance. Russia uses this format with countries as different as the United States; France; and, most recently, Egypt. If the Japanese now want to have a direct strategic dialogue with the Russians, this is welcome in Moscow as a sign of the world's increasingly "polycentric" nature.
More substantively, the major reason for Tokyo's overture to Moscow has been Japan's growing concern over China's assertive rise. An alliance with the United States remains vital, but it is not enough. From Tokyo's perspective, strengthening Japan's own link with China's strategic partner and close neighbor makes perfect sense. It is equally clear, however, that for the Russians there can be no question now of colluding with the Japanese behind China's back. As Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov put it, "we are not making friends against anyone." Beijing's Global Times, commenting on this last Monday, betrayed China's nervousness over the Russo-Japanese rapprochement, but immediately assured its readers that Russia was not about to sell out China. This is a correct assessment: as long as Beijing remains friendly vis-a-vis Moscow, Russia will do nothing which would jeopardize the relationship with China.
So, where is the substance for the Russo-Japanese 2+2? It can hardly be debating the issue of the U.S.-Japanese cooperation on missile defense. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu's recent criticisms of BMD in Asia-Pacific notwithstanding, Moscow has few reasons to worry about Japan's part in the project, which is directed at North Korea (overtly) and China (less so), but has no capability against Russia's strategic assets. There are some areas, however, where cooperation may have primarily psychological rather than strategic value. As Russia and Japan are carefully embarking on a fresh attempt to fully normalize their relations, closer and more regular contacts in the foreign and security field, including military exercises, may be useful as confidence-building. Thus, expanding the circle of stakeholders in a stronger and more positive Russo-Japanese relationship may be the real strategic goal that the leaders in Moscow and Tokyo are pursuing.
About the Author
Former Director, Carnegie Moscow Center
Trenin was director of the Carnegie Moscow Center from 2008 to early 2022.
- Mapping Russia’s New Approach to the Post-Soviet SpaceCommentary
- What a Week of Talks Between Russia and the West RevealedCommentary
Dmitri Trenin
Recent Work
More Work from Carnegie India
- Threading the Needle: India’s Path Forward with ChinaPaper
After the chill in ties between 2020 and 2024 that brought India–China relations to their lowest point in several decades, the two countries have engaged each other afresh. This paper argues that there are predominantly four imperatives guiding India’s approach to China, and they exist in an order of priority.
Saheb Singh Chadha
- Managing Divergence: India’s BRICS Presidency in 2026Article
This piece argues that India’s central challenge is not managing a single flashpoint but resolving the underlying tension between expansion and institutional coherency of the BRICS grouping.
Vrinda Sahai
- India–Africa Strategic Partnership: Challenges, Potential, and Possible PathwaysArticle
A partnership between India, a country of subcontinental size, and Africa, a continent of fifty-four countries, may seem asymmetric until one notes that both are home to nearly the same number of people—1.4 billion. This essay spells out the existing challenges to the partnership, its optimal potential, and the possible pathways to realize it over the next quarter-century.
Rajiv Bhatia
- Emerging From the “Zombie State” of Trade Agreements: The India-EU FTACommentary
The India–EU Free Trade Agreement (FTA) is shaping up to be one of the most consequential trade negotiations, both economically and strategically. But, what’s in the agreement, what’s missing, and what will determine its success in the years ahead
Vrinda Sahai, Nicolas Köhler-Suzuki
- The Coming of Age of India’s Nuclear TriadCommentary
The induction of INS Aridhaman, which features several technological enhancements, now gives India the third nuclear ballistic missile submarine to ensure continuous at-sea deterrent.
Dinakar Peri