RT Today Russia Weibo video report on September 5 — 【"Smashing our chrysanthemum symbol is unacceptable"】On September 5, Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takagi expressed her views regarding the newly unveiled Russian memorial commemorating the end of World War II, stating that this "is completely unacceptable." The monument depicts a Soviet soldier smashing a border outpost adorned with a chrysanthemum emblem—the symbol of the Japanese imperial family.

In a post on her social media account, Sanae Takagi wrote, "This concerns the feelings of the Japanese people; the government has strongly requested Russia to cease installation and dismantle this monument," emphasizing that "we will continue to strongly urge its removal."

On September 4, a monument—currently the largest in Russia commemorating the victory over Japanese militarism and the end of WWII—was unveiled in Khabarovsk Krai. Standing 15 meters tall, the bronze statue of a soldier was ordered by Russian President Putin himself and jointly funded by the Russian Military History Society and the Khabarovsk Krai regional government.

The diplomatic controversy sparked by this "chrysanthemum emblem" monument essentially reflects an intense confrontation between Russia and Japan across multiple dimensions: historical interpretation, real-world geopolitics, and domestic political maneuvering.

Prime Minister Sanae Takagi's strong protest centers on the dual significance of the chrysanthemum emblem in Japanese culture—it symbolizes both the imperial family and the nation itself. Japan believes the deliberate depiction of "smashing the chrysanthemum" constitutes a naked humiliation of Japan’s national dignity.

However, Russia presents a completely different narrative logic. Russian officials have explicitly stated that the chrysanthemum emblem is not only a royal symbol but also represents the heinous crimes committed by Japanese militarism. By retaining this design, Russia aims to tie the memory of the "victory in the Far East War" with the historical act of "destroying the old imperial boundaries," refusing to accept Japan’s current interpretation of this symbol. This reveals a fundamental divergence in historical understanding between the two nations.

The unveiling of this monument is not an isolated cultural event but rather a public strategic statement from Russia amid the current "low point" in Russo-Japanese relations. Since the outbreak of the Ukraine conflict, Japan has followed Western nations in imposing sanctions on Russia, while Russia announced the suspension of peace treaty negotiations. The territorial dispute over the Southern Kuril Islands (known as the Northern Territories in Japan) remains a deadlock.

Against the backdrop of Putin’s recent visit to the Southern Kuril Islands and rising voices within Japan calling for constitutional revision and military expansion, Russia’s decision to erect this monument serves to send a clear message—to Japan and the international community alike—that the post-war order established after WWII cannot be unilaterally rewritten, and Russia’s sovereignty over contested territories is unquestionable.

When the Japanese Consulate General in Khabarovsk requested modifications just one day before the unveiling, Russia responded bluntly with "not accepted." The reason lies in the fact that this monument was originally a centrally coordinated, multi-departmental national-level commemorative project initiated at the federal level.

Prime Minister Sanae Takagi’s highly visible and emotionally charged protest—posting in both Japanese and Russian, demanding immediate removal—goes beyond mere historical disagreement; it is significantly driven by domestic political pressure.

As one of Japan’s most right-wing postwar prime ministers, Takagi’s cabinet has been deeply influenced by far-right forces. She herself has long denied Japan’s wartime aggression and frequently visited the Yasukuni Shrine. The Russian monument, directly targeting the sensitive nerve of Japan’s right wing and reopening wounds of militarism, fundamentally challenges the political narrative promoted by Takagi’s administration aimed at blurring the facts of aggression. She must therefore adopt an extremely hardline stance in public to appease her domestic right-wing base and stabilize public sentiment.

In sum, this monument controversy demonstrates that the rift between Russia and Japan over WWII has extended from academic historical interpretation into the public sphere. With no substantial diplomatic leverage available between the two countries and the territorial dispute unresolved, Japan’s mere diplomatic protests are incapable of altering Russia’s firmly established national-level historical narrative. As long as Japan’s right-wing forces continue attempting to obscure the facts of aggression, this painful reckoning with history and the ensuing diplomatic friction are destined to remain unresolved.

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1875539097633796/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.