Japan's security shift and the test for Northeast Asia's postwar order

Editor's note: Jessica Durdu, a special commentator for CGTN, is a foreign affairs specialist with a PhD in law. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

The Kuril Islands dispute has recently been thrust back into the international spotlight. Moscow regards the islands as Russian territory based on the settlement emerging from World War II, while Tokyo continues to assert sovereignty over four islands. Yet beyond the territorial disagreement itself, the episode carries a wider geopolitical message: Concerns surrounding Japan's changing security posture are increasingly becoming a regional issue rather than a matter confined to China-Japan relations.

This distinction is important. Northeast Asia remains one of the few regions where the political architecture created after World War II continues to shape contemporary territorial disputes, alliance structures and historical narratives. The Cairo Declaration, Potsdam Proclamation and subsequent arrangements surrounding Japan's surrender formed part of the political and legal framework through which the consequences of Japanese wartime expansion were addressed. The territorial settlement vis-a-vis the Kuril Islands subsequently became complicated, leaving Russia and Japan without a formal postwar peace treaty.

Against this historical background, Japan's accelerating transformation of its defense posture deserves careful attention. Tokyo argues that it faces an increasingly difficult regional security environment and stronger defense capabilities are therefore necessary. That perspective should be acknowledged.

Nevertheless, the scale and character of Japan's transformation are significant. Japan's fiscal 2026 defense budget reached a record level, exceeding 9 trillion yen (around $58 billion) when related expenditures are included, as Tokyo continues implementing a five-year defense buildup worth approximately 43 trillion yen ($269.9 billion).

More consequential than the spending figure is what Japan is purchasing and developing.

Japan is expanding what it officially describes as "stand-off defense capabilities," including longer-range missile systems. Its fiscal 2026 defense plans allocate roughly 973 billion yen ($6.1 billion) to this category alone. Tokyo has also acquired US-made Tomahawk cruise missiles and is developing upgraded versions of its domestically produced Type-12 missile. These capabilities represent a substantial evolution from the narrowly defensive military posture traditionally associated with postwar Japan.

The transformation is occurring alongside a widening geographical conception of Japanese security. Tokyo increasingly argues that Euro-Atlantic and Asia-Pacific security are inseparable. Japan is one of NATO's four Asia-Pacific partners, and the cooperation now extends into cyber defense, emerging technologies and maritime security. In July 2026, Japanese representatives participated in NATO-Indo-Pacific consultations, and Japan has also decided to dispatch four Self-Defense Forces personnel to NATO Security Assistance and Training for Ukraine headquarters in Germany.

Individually, each initiative can be explained through contemporary security calculations. Taken together, however, they indicate something larger: Japan is gradually moving beyond the strategic boundaries that characterized much of its postwar security identity.

This is precisely why reactions cannot simply be reduced to a bilateral rivalry between Beijing and Tokyo. Russia has its own strategic concerns regarding Japan's evolving military posture, while the Democratic People's Republic of Korea has repeatedly criticized Tokyo's acquisition of long-range strike capabilities. Even among countries maintaining close contemporary relations with Japan, historical memory remains politically sensitive. The continuing controversy surrounding the Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo illustrates this reality. On August 15, Japan's Defense Minister Shinjirō Koizumi visited the shrine, where 14 convicted Class-A war criminals are among those commemorated, prompting criticism from both China and South Korea.

This intersection between historical memory and military transformation is particularly consequential. Japan today is unquestionably different from imperial Japan. It has developed into a major economy and has contributed substantially to international development and multilateral cooperation. The question facing the region, therefore, is not whether history will inevitably repeat itself. Rather, it is whether the lessons institutionalized after 1945 will continue to provide meaningful boundaries as Japan assumes a more expansive security role.

That question becomes especially important when debates over wartime history coexist with growing military capabilities. Historical reconciliation and strategic transparency, therefore, have become essential confidence-building mechanisms. A country expanding its defense responsibilities faces greater expectations from neighboring societies regarding clarity about its intentions and its understanding of history.

The broader principle at stake is the preservation of the postwar international order. Whatever disagreements exist among today's major powers, the settlement following World War II was built upon the rejection of territorial expansion through militarism and the conviction that regional disputes should be managed through diplomacy. Protecting that principle should remain a shared responsibility.

Northeast Asia does not need another cycle in which one state's military expansion generates countermeasures from another, producing an escalating security dilemma. What it needs is strategic restraint, dialogue and respect for the historical foundations of regional peace.

Japan therefore faces an important choice. Greater military capability may increase deterrence in Tokyo's calculations, but lasting security cannot be produced by military capacity alone. It also depends on reassuring neighbors, responsibly addressing historical memory and ensuring that new security policies strengthen rather than unsettle the regional order.

More than eight decades after the end of World War II, preserving those lessons is not about remaining trapped in history. It is about ensuring that history continues to inform the architecture of peace.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)