I know anti-Japanese propaganda is strong in China, but there is no need to invent conflicts that do not exist to fuel more hate.

EDIT: for that matter Korea doesn't have any stake in this either. I know there is an important territorial dispute between China and Japan (Senkaku islands), and minor conflicts between Japan/Korea and China/Korea. So a conflict around the Spartly islands could spill in this area, but I don't see it starting from Korea or Japan.

Heavy Japan alliance with Phillippines is unlikely (history, empire of japan, blah blah).

It's not about anti-japanese sentiment here but more like japanese fear of revenge from chinese and maybe the right time to make a point.

The more passive-aggressive China is the more likely it's that Korea and Japan will do something about it.

Which islands were you thinking about? Japan has three notable territorial conflicts: the Kuril islands with Russia (controlled by Russia), the Senkaku islands with China (controlled by Japan) and the Takeshima islands (controlled by Korea).

Of these three conflicts the ones with Korea and Russia are largely under the radar: most Japanese people I know aren't even aware of them. Though I think the reverse is not true in Korea... And Japan cannot "push forward and claim" the Senkaku: they are already controlling them.

The Liancourt Rocks case is interesting, because it is so asymmetric: all the Korean people I know feel so strongly about it, but none of the Japanese people I know either know or care about it. If I were in Japan I would try to give up all claims on Dokdo as part of a wider friendship treaty with Korea, and try to prop up the relations between the two countries. But Japanese politicians are questionable at best, and Korean politicians seem to enjoy Japan bashing, so I doubt it will happen in the foreseeable future...

I do not feel that there will ever be any real friendship between these two countries. I would compare it to polish russian relationship.

Koreans have every right to feel strong about it. Every damn right. But this is a discussion for another evening.

And replying to your comments above i was talking about the situation in asia in general. You should also know that Korea donated a war ship to Philippines. Do you think this gesture did not have anything to do with the situation in the area ? I very much doubt so.

The state of Japan bought the islands to prevent promoters from exploiting them, to try to maintain the status quo with China. Obviously it was a failure, and outright buying the islands was not a good solution. But the liberal Japanese government at that time was very inexperienced: I don't think Abe for example -despite being a nationalist- would have done the same mistake.

I am from Europe, and I do not share your pessimism about Asia. The city where I'm born switched between France and Germany at least four times over the last 150 years. Hell, there is not a single border on the continent that makes sense. Peace and "friendship" between states is a political construct, built strictly out of political will, the rest is nationalist bullshit. That's true of Poland and Russia too.

Can you detail your reasoning? If the lessons of West/East Germany are anything to go by, reunification will be followed by an inward looking period in which the work of integration absorbs all resources.

Also the Nork military while large, really wouldn't add anything to the capability of the South - it's poorly equipped, malnourished and badly trained. If it wasn't for the risk of collateral damage to Seoul, any modern military could rout it just as fast as Israel won the Six Day War or the Coalition rolled over Iraq in Gulf War 1.

All true but South is already a regional military powerhouse with the troops from north and 40-60years of work they could really become as strong as the Empire of Japan was.

Ironically tho' if they did achieve their wildest dreams and conquer the South they would be more, not less, vulnerable, because they wouldn't have any Western ally to hold to ransom anymore.