This article summarizes Ryosuke Endo’s Sankei Shimbun column explaining how Chinese state-run media have begun questioning Okinawa’s status as Japanese territory, echoing the same propaganda techniques Russia used in the Donbas before its invasion of Ukraine. By examining the Donbas region’s linguistic, social, and psychological divisions—long exploited by Russian intelligence—Endo warns that Japan must be alert to similar attempts to stir “Ryukyu independence” narratives or collaboration with China. The lesson from Ukraine is clear: information warfare targets the minds of residents, and Japan must not allow any foothold for external manipulation in Okinawa.

Below is an article from today’s Sankei Shimbun opinion section titled “China’s Information Warfare over Okinawa Mirrors Russia’s Methods,” written by Ryosuke Endo, one of the few genuine journalists remaining in today’s media landscape.

Chinese state-run media have been repeatedly publishing commentaries that question Okinawa’s status as part of Japan.
Examples include statements such as, “There have always been historical and legal debates regarding the sovereignty of the Ryukyu Islands” (Global Times, affiliated with People’s Daily), and “Ryukyu has never once in history been part of Japanese territory” (a social media account linked to Beijing Daily).
China is reacting against Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s Diet statement concerning a potential Taiwan emergency, and is likely aiming to unsettle Japan.

Of course, China’s claims are utterly groundless, but this type of information warfare resembles the methods Russia used in its invasion of Ukraine, and Japan must never allow any opening to be exploited.

During the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Russia claimed that Russian speakers in the Donbas region (Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts) were being persecuted, using their “protection” as one of the justifications.
Russia recognized the independence of the “people’s republics” established by pro-Russian armed groups and took the form of exercising collective self-defense on their behalf.
This narrative is utterly unacceptable to the international community, but Russia will surely continue insisting on it in future peace negotiations.
The region mentioned for possible “cession” under the Trump administration’s peace plan is also the Donbas.

I have traveled to the Donbas many times, including before the full-scale invasion, and it is certainly a difficult region.
There are residents who believe they would prefer governance by Russia, or that it does not matter whether the region belongs to Russia or Ukraine.
When I had the opportunity to speak at length with four young people this August in a Ukrainian-controlled area of Donetsk oblast, one said that “both parents are pro-Russian,” while another said “my father is pro-Russian and my mother is pro-Ukrainian.”

Today, many of those remaining in Ukrainian-controlled areas are “pro-Ukraine,” but many pro-Russian residents evacuated to the Russian side due to the war.
Donbas, with its coal mines, underwent industrialization in the late Russian Empire and the Soviet era, attracting people from various regions who became urban residents.
Ethnic roots became diluted, and Russian became the common language.

Ukrainians tend to have a strong sense of “deciding one’s own affairs,” but in Donbas a collective mindset—preferring to follow a boss—remains deeply rooted.
Even after the collapse of the Soviet Union, strong Russian-language content such as television programs and anime continued to pour into Donbas.

When the pro-Russian government collapsed in Kyiv in 2014, President Putin exploited these conditions.
Following the annexation of Crimea, he fueled the “independence movement” in Donbas, staging a “referendum” and using it as the pretext for military intervention.
Putin attempted to restructure Ukraine into a federal state but failed, leading to the full-scale invasion in 2022.

Russia’s actions can never be justified, and without the operations of Russian intelligence and special services, there would have been no “independence movement” in Donbas.
However, if one asks whether independent Ukraine made sufficient efforts to integrate the people of Donbas after the Soviet collapse, the answer is no.
There existed a structure of antagonism between east and west within the country, making Russian propaganda—“anti-central government” and “anti-western Ukraine”—effective.

In war, attention tends to focus on military power, but the consciousness of residents carries just as much weight.

Returning to Okinawa, Japan must be extremely vigilant that even a small number of “Ryukyu independence advocates” do not gain momentum or collaborate with China.
This is an important lesson of the Ukraine invasion.
(Director of the Foreign News Department and Editorial Writer)