After the collapse of the Soviet Union, China has put forward the claim not only to Russia but also to Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan. In the case of all except Kyrgyzstan, the debate culminated in China's favor. Kyrgyzstan tightens negotiations because of chronic internal instability that occurred in the 2000s. It should be noted that the dispute resolution does not mean the complete removal of the Chinese claim to the country. So, after a border conflict with Vietnam that ended not in favor of China, Beijing has begun to emphasize the claim in respect of the Spratly Islands. Approximately the same situation and Sino-Indian disputes: after a series of high-level talks in the 2000s. China announced a strategic partnership with India, while not recognizing the country a state - Arunachal Pradesh.
It is also worth remembering how ended disputes with Britain and Portugal for, respectively, Hong Kong and Macau, which are moved to Beijing.
In the case of the Russian concession to China, the last island on the Amur in 2005 did not lead to a full resolution of disputes: in 2012 there were contradictions around a small area in the Altai Mountains.
So territorial disputes - a kind of "fad" of China. In each he is consistent and adamant. This implements the principle of Chinese policy regarding the fact that the territorial disputes can not give in - it is a sacred land question, which should be settled in favor of China. The Chinese can wait for decades until another country or just does not make concessions, or do not try to exchange a piece of land on preferential treatment in trade, in particular with regard to attracting Chinese investment (that is beneficial and China itself). This was the case with Russia.
With Japan a strategic dispute - for supremacy in the Far East, weighed down by grievances during World War II and the Japanese occupation of China. Here Beijing will not make concessions in principle. Interestingly, and Tokyo did not intend to give in, because they do not want to show weakness in front of "pumping" the economic and military "muscles" neighbor.
It is important to note that on the issue of the Senkaku Washington fully supports Tokyo, speaking guarantor failure of Beijing's military expansion. That is why China has chosen the path of "peaceful conquest" - the direction of fishing vessels.
Japan now reacts by force: Adult threatens military contingent and physical non-admission of the Chinese in their territorial waters. The most logical way to resolve the contradictions - the regular military or semi-military incident, which is a bit sober side and make them, as well as 10 years ago, to sit down at the negotiating table with a view to joint development of resources.
The territorial dispute with Tokyo, Beijing can also be used to put pressure on Japanese companies operating in China. Chinese authorities have used anti-Japanese sentiment that exist in Chinese society at the household level, not to act with their own hands. That's anti-Japanese riots were initiated by the sample of 2012, as well - the "sea militia" of the fishermen. China understands the Senkaku by military means does not return, is directed by the Communist Party "civil protest". However, Japan has the power to find him a symmetrical response. Prior to the "war of the two companies" will not come - not the scale of the conflict. But, remembering the principles of Tokyo on the issue of the South Kuril Islands, we can safely predict that Sino-Japanese relations will be marred by the theme of the Senkaku more than one generation, while Beijing is no longer guided in its foreign policy, the principle of small and constant pressure on their neighbors with the hope that when -nibud they get tired of it and they agree to the conditions of the Chinese game. Such blackmail based on a strong economic potential will continue only as long as this potential will exist.