Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Japan has aligned its foreign policy with the liberal international order, pledging support for Kyiv in the name of international justice and the rule of law.
This value-based diplomacy, driven more by solidarity with the United States than by a dispassionate assessment of Japan’s bilateral interests with Ukraine, has defined Tokyo’s stance. But as the global order rapidly fractures and U.S. hegemony retreats, Japan must reevaluate whether continuing this path serves its strategic interests or undermines them.
The Kishida administration’s proactive Ukraine policy—ranging from imposing sanctions on Russia to committing to reconstruction aid—was predicated on the assumption that the liberal order, led by the United States, would endure. Yet, this order is unraveling. The resurgence of Donald Trump and the broader return of power politics in American foreign policy threaten the very foundations of the system Japan has long depended on. The result is a stark mismatch between Japan’s idealistic diplomatic posture and a changing geopolitical reality.
What is often overlooked in Tokyo’s discourse is that Ukraine has not been a neutral actor in shaping Japan’s security environment—far from it. Ukraine’s past decisions have arguably undermined Japan’s national security, especially in the context of its fraught relationship with an increasingly assertive China.
The most prominent example dates back to 1998, when Ukraine sold the incomplete Soviet aircraft carrier, Varyag, to a Chinese firm under the pretext of commercial use. In 2002, the ship had reached the Dalian port, and was ultimately transformed into the Liaoning—China’s first operational aircraft carrier. This ship became the model for China’s indigenous carrier program and marked the beginning of the PLA Navy’s blue-water ambitions. It is difficult to overstate the regional ramifications: the Liaoning now regularly patrol near Taiwan and the East and South China Seas―with follow-up aircraft carriers in the near future—, altering the balance of power in ways detrimental to Japanese security. Ukraine’s role in this transformation—even if not malicious—was at best a grave act of negligence.
Second, there is compelling circumstantial evidence that Ukrainian entities, possibly acting with government consent or indifference, transferred rocket engine technology to North Korea. Such technology, derived from the Soviet-era RD-250 engine, would be instrumental in advancing Pyongyang’s missile capabilities, some of which are now pointed toward Japan. Again, this raises critical questions: Why is Japan lavishing aid on a country that has directly contributed to the proliferation of strategic threats in its own neighborhood?
Third, Ukraine’s strategic alignment with China through the Belt and Road Initiative should not be forgotten. By serving as a gateway for Chinese ambitions into Europe, Ukraine enhanced Beijing’s geopolitical influence, undermining the very same U.S.-led order Japan purports to defend. As China continues to challenge regional stability in the Indo-Pacific, its earlier economic cooperation with Ukraine should be considered a relevant factor in shaping Japan’s policy calculus.
Despite this troubling history, Japan in early 2024 committed to leading Ukraine’s postwar economic recovery. The Japan-Ukraine Conference for Promotion of Economic Growth and Reconstruction, hosted by then-Prime Minister Kishida, produced 56 memoranda of cooperation and a symbolic pledge to lead the West in reconstruction efforts. This leadership position made sense when the Biden administration was fully committed to defending liberal values globally. But that world is slipping away.
Donald Trump’s return to the White House, coupled with Europe’s deepening internal divisions, has cast doubt on the durability of collective support for Ukraine. Japan must not anchor its foreign policy to a fading consensus. Instead, Tokyo should begin a strategic recalibration—one grounded in realism and national interest.
This does not mean abandoning Ukraine entirely. It means tempering expectations, reducing unconditional commitments, and tying future support to a rigorous cost-benefit analysis. Aid should be conditioned on accountability and transparency. Economic cooperation must be aligned with Japanese interests, particularly in technology, infrastructure, and defense-related industries.
Furthermore, Japan should redirect diplomatic energy toward strengthening regional coalitions in the Indo-Pacific. As the world transitions toward a multipolar balance-of-power system, where strategic interests often trump ideological alignment, Japan must adopt a “Japan First” approach. This entails prioritizing bilateral relationships and regional initiatives that enhance deterrence, economic resilience, and strategic autonomy.
The current moment offers Japan an opportunity for foreign policy maturity. The age of uncritical alignment with Western values is over. In its place must emerge a diplomacy that recognizes complexity, historical memory, and the need for strategic flexibility.
Japan’s support for Ukraine was never just about Ukraine. It was about standing with the West against aggression and in favor of a rules-based order. But when the guardians of that order begin to waver, it is irresponsible to stay the course blindly. Japan must now chart a path that secures its own future—not one based on outdated assumptions or moral idealism, but on a sober assessment of global realities.
In sum, Japan is at a crossroads. It can continue to invest heavily in a bilateral relationship that has offered little strategic return and, in fact, may have contributed to some of its greatest challenges. Or it can recalibrate, re-prioritize, and reclaim its agency in a world that no longer conforms to the certainties of the past. The choice should be clear.
Author: Masahiro Matsumura – Professor of International Politics and National Security at St. Andrew’s University in Osaka (Momoyama Gakuin Daigaku), Japan.
(The views expressed in this article belong only to the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of World Geostrategic Insights).