This is an interesting conversation, thank you. You are considering what I say and replying to it rationally, that's refreshing, as it's rarer and rarer on HN for this kind of hot subjects.
My point of view is that a change of the status quo is an outlandish impossibility.
It would mean a really nasty, bloody conflict, and it is not even sure that anything good would result for the winner in total.
This is based on this assumption that I only considered either 1/ they keep disputing the status quo (but not changing it) or 2/ they accept it and build on it.
Maybe it is not very clear for the Senkakus example, as Japan is only "loosely" controlling it.
But it's much more obvious for the Northern Territories, the islands North of Japan that are controlled by Russia: Russia has bases, even cities on it, and is plentifully in control.
My point of view is that a change of the status quo is an outlandish impossibility.
It would mean a really nasty, bloody conflict, and it is not even sure that anything good would result for the winner in total.
This is based on this assumption that I only considered either 1/ they keep disputing the status quo (but not changing it) or 2/ they accept it and build on it.
Maybe it is not very clear for the Senkakus example, as Japan is only "loosely" controlling it.
But it's much more obvious for the Northern Territories, the islands North of Japan that are controlled by Russia: Russia has bases, even cities on it, and is plentifully in control.