Jump to content

Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

"War" seems like a bad title (for now)

Since there are zero casualties on either side, calling this the "Russo-Ukrainian War" seems undesirable. The previous title worked well for now - maybe we should hold off on calling it the "Russo-Ukrainian War" until there are actually some shots fired. Kiralexis (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely! It is not a war until many reliable sources refer to it as one. If that ever happens in this particular instance of cross-nation interventions, then conceivably someone ought to PROPOSE a WP:MOVE, and only then, after consensus is achieved, move the article to some different article name. N2e (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Russo-Ukrainian War?

As there is no consensus on what name this page should have, I will stop moving it. I think it should remain "2014 Russian intervention" until fighting breaks out, at which point we would move it to "Russo-Ukrainian War". Does this sound good to everyone? --Daniel the duck (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no inevitability of a "Russian-Ukrainian war". I would suggest that Kiev gets on with it, while it still has 10 neo-nazis and a dog to rely on in the back alleys of Kiev. There appears to be mass defections in the armed forces, the navy being the most notable. War is unlikely. Irondome (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Irondome—please try to avoid making the Talk page into a soapbox, discussing the situation. Instead, please discuss how to make the article a better article without the inevective and inuendo. N2e (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
It is not a war at this time, and this is already being discussed in an earlier section on this Talk page—so let's discuss improving the article there.
It is not a war for purposes of this encyclopedia until many reliable sources refer to it as one. If that ever happens in this particular instance of cross-nation interventions, then conceivably someone ought to PROPOSE a WP:MOVE, and only then, after consensus is achieved, move the article to some different article name. N2e (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
The article needs to revert back to the original title. Then, someone should open a WP:MOVE request. We have to discuss the article title on the talk page before moving it back and forth.--Rurik the Varangian (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
It is definitely not a war. Also second the request to Irondome to stop adding inflammatory comments.Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, it is not groundless claim neither. I agree that there are no statistics on fatalities as of yet. But that is because the Ukrainian side does not want to repeat the Abkhazian scenario when Russia took over parts of Georgia and no one reacted. There were number of covered operations by units of the Russian military intelligence. They already took over several radars and a warehouse with weapons stockpile. There are governments in the world that also see the Russian actions as an act of aggression. How is that not a war? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
War by definition would need violence. The Soviet takeover of Latvia in 1940 was no war but occupation. The Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina was also occupation and annexation with no war. So far we have 2014 Russian invasion of Crimea, nothing more, nothing less.Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
That is true. But the threat is real and Putin has his hands fully untied with the decision by the Federation Council. On the other hand, how do you call events of capturing the Ukrainian military installations and taking over a regional parliament? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Pushkov comparison

Pushkov's comparison additionally proves the fact that Russians invaded Crimea. Yet comparison is stupid as the Yugoslavia never signed the Budapest memorandum with Kosovo. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Russian occupation? NPOV concern

Are there any sources that say this is an occupation by Russia? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87, plenty of sources: British ITV News, CNN, The NY Times and many others. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Title should be occupation, not intervention. Intervention is a Russian POV term which implies they had to come in to 'intervene' in a pre existing conflict. There was no pre-existing conflict, unless you count the Russian troops who occupied Simferopol.--Львівське (говорити) 21:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

″There was no pre-existing conflict, unless you count the Russian troops who occupied Simferopol″ - it's as clear as day that there was pre-existing conflict, it's the direct consequence of the Euromaidan events that led to Yanukovich's overthrow, instability in Crimea and separatist tendencies among the population of Crimea. Russian leadership took advantage of the situation. You just can't hide all this and claim the invasion just came all of a sudden or even that it would have occurred anyway. This would be unwise. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
there was no instability in Crimea until Russian soldiers occupied the airports and parliament. The instability it a result of the occupation. You can't intervene in a situation you created.--Львівське (говорити) 23:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Come on, the whole country was unstable, esp. so Crimea where even before Yanukovich's overthrow 41% supported unification with Russia, by far the largest margin among Ukraine's regions [1]. This is non-negligible part of the population. The biggest party in Crimean parliament was the party of the president who was ousted after bloody street-fighting in Kiev. People who gathered at meetings that started in Crimea around 25 February [2] were no FSB agents, but people who sincerely believed, rightly or wrongly, that the new government was adversial to their interests. To reduce all opposition to the interim government to Russian subversion is tantamount to claiming Euromaidan was some Western conspiracy.Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
41% does not mean there was conflict, that's just a poll. Also bear in mind only 4% voted for the Russian separatist party, showing how low actual separatist sentiment is in the region. It's one thing to say you're okay with it, it's another to actually demand it. Prior to Russian occupation, only 2 protests occurred, big deal, especially since they were staged by Russia to create a false conflict to 'intervene' in. --Львівське (говорити) 00:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
And I would add here that just 4% in Crimean peninsula (for the whole Ukraine it will be much less than 1%), were Russian military claims that they have "total support". It's just Russian propaganda to legitimate a war.--TenaliBorogovy (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


Lokalkosmopolit, if you watched the Russian media, they would have told you during the entire Euromaidan revolution, Crimea and the Eastern Ukrainian regions kept their stability. Now that Russian troops have occupied Crimea, the rhetoric has suddenly changed that their was a conflict that Russian military came to mediate. The Russian government has been creating this problem by using their media (which is watched by Russian-speaking Ukrainians) as propaganda machines to stir up a problem and yet only a few thousand extremists in Crimea came out to support the Russian invasion. This shows that even with such a big effort on the part of Russia to stir up inter-ethnic conflict, their attempts have given almost no results, as no one in Ukraine, apart from a few extremists support this invasion. I agree with Lvivske that this article should be titled either 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine or 2014 Russian occupation of Ukraine. This current title is wrong.--BoguSlav 23:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to stay agnostic on this for now—this is after all only 24 hours after the event occurred—but both posters Bogu and Львівське have a valid point, that is worth thinking about for now, and possibly acting on at some point as the worldwide media sources become more clear. N2e (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I believe with the condemnations Russia is receiving from the world about the invasion and occupation of Crimea that the title must be changed to reflect exactly what it is. Intervention brings a feeling that there was a pre-existing conflict. None was present on the Crimean peninsula during Euromaidan or the week of under the interim government. only when Russia made its presence known with a "military exercise" did the situation escalate. YES to the title of 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine 74.76.57.171 (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Both intervention and invasion are correct. And as for ″Intervention brings a feeling that there was a pre-existing conflict″, see above, Lvivske presented exactly the same argument, however, it doesn't stand any impartial scrutiny. Russia intervened in a pre-existing political conflict, supporting and propping up the radical wing of the pro-Russian forces, that is, the ones who support secession from Ukraine. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

If we're just going to go full on with the Russian newspeak, why not just change it to '2014 Russian military liberation of Ukraine'? --Львівське (говорити) 00:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Straw man arguments won't help your cause, they will rather reveal how partisan/one-sided you are here. Both you and Alexander on one hand as well as Lokii on the other hand represent legitimate opinions, however you are all POVed, too. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 00:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
What are you talking about? The leading paragraph of the section was accusing the article of being one sided by saying that invasion of Crimea by Russians is a normal event. Since when the Russians asked permission to bring force to Crimea? Ukraine is a unitary state. Russians clearly portray complete disrespect towards the new government, dont find it? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 01:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
The invasion was blatantly illegal, regardless of the question of the new government. I see no dispute here (I explicitly omitted Jimmydreads from the list of users whom I characterized as representing legitimate POVs). Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Just to provide some picture on the real situation, Raymond Saint at twitter provided infographic Russian Forces and Movement. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

POV concerns more generally

In order to have more light, less heat, and a better article, let's try this for POV concern discussions on this Talk page:

If there are WP:POV concerns about something specific in the article, please fix it in the article, or tag it with a specific tag near the specific instance you are concerned about, rather than tagging an entire large section, or the article as a whole. And be sure to leave your rationale on the Talk page, or in a hidden text comment nearby the tag, like this: <!-- hidden text ... -->

Specific in-line tags that might be used include: {{POV-statement}} which leaves in the article [neutrality is disputed] or {{lopsided}} which leaves in the article [unbalanced opinion?]. For a fuller list of inline tags related to Neutrality and factual accuracy, see here. Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Good idea, thanks for the templates. KingHiggins (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Objective article

This is an encyclopedia, not a news agency. Do not be part of the information war and news manipulation. I am accepting Wikipedia as relatively independent source of verified information. Changes from the last hour, which is widely relied on manipulated data are not reliable at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itishardtofind (talk • contribs) 21:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Using for almost everything the pro Maidan newspapers is a good idea! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.7.105.112 (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

So fix it, after all, on Wikipedia, anyone can edit, even you. If you don't want to add prose to the article, you may also tag specific instances you see where the article might be improved, as noted in the previous section. N2e (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Now about the article-level POV tag

You can't just add a POV tag to an article simply because you don't like it. You have to give a specific reason for it, and you have to point out exactly what and where is POV, at least when someone requests it (and this is me here making that request). You have to substantiate the tag. And that doesn't mean calling each other "pro-this" or "pro-that" or throwing around accusations of nationalism. Be specific. Else that goes too.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

What is one to suspect when the purpose for creating this article was to insinuate that Russia was entirely to blame for this conflict? I do not want to get into further details, this is not the place for war Wikipedia is not a battleground --Orestes1984 (talk) 09:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Concur with the original poster (Volunteer Marek). It would seem that this article has a legitimate place in Wikipedia, per standard WP policy, and in any case, it's existence as a separate article is being discussed above, in the Proposed Merge section. But a POV allegation, as in the POV tag added at the top of the article, ought to be about something speicific. If specific parts of the text of the article are identified by an editor as POV, and then discussed here on the Talk page openly, then we could all participate in a discussion and attempt to build consensus about the alleged POV issue. N2e (talk)

In the event, it appears that someone has already removed the top-of-the-article POV tag. So that particular issue appears to be  Done. N2e (talk) 11:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

POV tag on the "Russian occupation" section of the article

As the article exists right now, at 12:10 UTC on 3 March 2014, the "Russian occupation" section of the article has a POV tag on it. If that tag is to stay for very long, it will be important that some editor come to the Talk page and articulate the specific issues which are believed to make the article prose non-neutral. Wikipedia can cover controversial topics. Controversy alone does not make an article POV. What is (or are) the specific POV issues you have in mind? N2e (talk) 12:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is one example of the sort of POV injecting going on in this article that I just spotted after a quick scan. Our article said: "The UN Security Council held a special meeting on Russia's aggression against Ukraine." Compare that to what the source cited said: "The UN Security Council convened an emergency meeting Saturday on the escalating crisis". The article only mentions the word "aggression" when quoting the pro-Kiev government. All you guys need to do is take off your POV goggles. It's pretty blatant. LokiiT (talk) 12:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Great example. So that specific chunk of text is what ought to be tagged, not an entire section. And other occurrences (if and as they exist) ought to be similarly identified and fixed by interested editors, rather than vaguely impugning an entire section which helps noone fix what needs to be fixed. N2e (talk) 13:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I have  Fixed the one specific example provided by LokiiT. (I have also put a note on LokiiT's Talk page suggesting that good faith be assumed, and that we concentrate on the content, and not the editor, in this forum so as to best improve the article.) N2e (talk) 13:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Interestingly, you didn't fix the example I provided because I fixed it myself. Between then and when you saw my message, another editor injected more POV into that section, which is what you fixed. Also, to reiterate what I said on my talk page, I do not assume any bad faith here. I do assume emotions clouds people's judgement. Some people might consider leaving notes like that on users talk pages to be on the passive aggressive side. LokiiT (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Since there has been no support here for a broad, section-wide NPOV problem, I have removed the tag at the top of the section. N2e (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

BTW, the particular section has been renamed by some other editor, and is no longer "Russian occupation". Rather, it is currently entitled: "Russian military movements." Relative to this section of the Talk page, I have no opinion on that. However, I did think it worth noting, since this discussion has been about a section that was differently named. N2e (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Map of Crimean peninsula

Is this map the best image which could be used here? Whilst this article is (and is tagged as being) part of the 2014 Crimean Crisis, this article is about Russian intervention in Ukraine. A better image would be of Ukraine, or the wider region. 97rob (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:BOLD. Find a better image, then go ahead and replace it.--Rurik the Varangian (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

UN Security Council

The security council appears to be ruminating on the matter. http://www.un.org/en/sc/meetings/ in 2014 lists a meeting regarding a letter from Ukraine dated Feb 28. The Communiqué from this S/PV.7123 (closed) formal meeting is under EMBARGO. Note that, "The preparatory work for formal meetings is conducted in informal consultations for which no public record exists," so the best sources for what the security council is up to probably won't be official. - 173.16.85.205 (talk) 04:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Article lead section

The description of events in the introduction is badly written and contains a number of elements of opinion. Specifically "Amidst rising tensions ...— Russia felt that it was necessary to occupy Crimea in order to protect its geopolitical interests in the region" is incorrect. That is not a fact, that is Russia's justification - almost certainly false. The "political situation" is unlikely to be "normalized" by a referendum. There may well be a referendum in Crimea on 30 March - but referenda are "held" not "celebrated". The vote will not be whether "Crimea shall annex to Russia or remain as part of Ukraine", that is bad English, and not the question which will be asked. The reference to the international level is also incorrect, it is not "the United States and its allies [which] have condemned Russia's actions", but the United States, other Western countries, and most other countries. To be blunt, there appears to have been a major effort by the FSB to influence what is being written about Crimea, and promote a view held only by Russian political channels.101.98.175.68 (talk) 06:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Relax. I'm the one that wrote all that and I'm an extremely patriotic American (just look at my edit history). I don't even know what the FSB is, I guess you are referring to the Federal'naya Sluzhba Bezopasnosti? Anyway, regarding your concerns: if Russia didn't feel that it was necessary to occupy Crimea to protect Russian interests, then why did it occupy it? What is the exact translation of the question that will be asked on the referendum? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 06:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • OK I found the referendum text on another article and made the proper corrections as you suggested. Is it better now? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 07:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Ahnoneemoos this is a terrible lead for WP. Its blatant POV. Where are the refs. Is it a cut and paste job? If so from where? SaintAviator talk 07:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Translate

Can someone please translate the following text to English:

The plans of the Russian government and the separatists

During the Euromaidan protests, the possible plans to split Ukraine were attributed to Russian President Putin, who is considered as an alter ego of Yanukovych, Medvedchuk or Kliuiev and according to former adviser Andrei Illarionov, Putin has several possible options to control Ukraine (from controlling Ukraine by a person he appoints, to splitting sections of Ukraine into separate regions), and this may be accomplished in subtle ways, for example, by using Ukrainian politicians. [15]

According to Illarionov, the Kremlin considered 4 scenarios of intervention [15]

1. Full control over Ukraine through a person who is trusted in Ukraine (this option has become unlikely);
2. Federalization or confederation of Ukraine, with the purpose to - control eastern and southern Ukraine;
3. Control over some regions of Ukraine;
4. Control over Crimea and Sevastopol.

So according to him, (Putin) this is a historic opportunity for "reunification of Russia", which can be finished in a few weeks, so the decision can not be postponed, - said the former adviser to Putin. [15] According to Acting General Prosecutor of Ukraine Oleg Mahnitskoho, the current situation in Ukraine was prepared in advance by Russia, and in recent years developed by SBU officers of Russian secret service. [16] Rumors of a predetermined military operation were going around even before the Sochi Olympics, according to the Financial Times employees of the Russian Foreign Ministry who stated that the option of using military force against Ukraine was evident before, but the final decision was made in the last few days [17] [18].

This is a rough, but very accurate translation. USchick (talk) 07:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


--Igrek (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Provoking armed clashes

Vladimir Putin was accused earlier of being responsible for organizing the provocation, which resulted in the outbreak of war and military operations (in Chechnya, Georgia). As well as a series of terrorist attacks in Russia in 1999, which caused the outbreak of the Second Chechen War, attributing it to Putin, according to a former FSB employee there is evidence of involvement in the bombings of the Federal Security Service (detained FSB member who organized the terrorist attack in Ryazan) [19], which was led by Putin. A former employee of the FSB, Alexander Litvinenko wrote about this in his book " The FSB is exploding Russia", the killing is associated precisely with the FSB.

On March 3 the media reported that Ukrainian military intercepted conversations between Putin and his commander of military operations in Crimea. According to the report, the President of Russia was asking a high level official why the Ukrainian military did not open fire. Then he was questioning if the Russians are provoking them, and after an affirmative answer, he asked what they say in response. According to the person he was talking to - “they tell us to go to hell.” [20].

Putin was talking to his Russian officer in charge of military operations in Crimea.
Putin asked if the officer was provoking the Ukrainians.
The officer answered in the affirmative.
Putin asked what do they say in response to Russian provocation?
“They tell us to go to hell.” [3]

USchick (talk) 07:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

KIA??

First casualty due to hostile military action is serious event in the current crisis. Please cite source or delete entry. Lugnuthemvar (talk) 09:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Source needed: !Not Russian uniforms

There are several mentions in the text about apparently Russian soldiers wearing uniforms without obvious insignia. I've tried looking at the cited sources, but I cannot find this. -- Ohc ¡digame! 06:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Crimean Leader Says Ukrainian Military Units Are Surrendering by the New York Times. First sentence of the seventh paragraph.--Rurik the Varangian (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Withdrawal of troops

Vladimir Putin orders troops near Ukraine border to return to bases. [4] USchick (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Do we need to discuss it? 24.201.209.74 (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
But Putin denies there are Russian soldiers in the Ukraine, just "pro-Russian self defence forces"...so how can he withdraw? -- Ohc ¡digame! 00:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
He means the ones massed on Ukraine's eastern border.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Correct. The ones in central Crimea are not retiring. But I think we can consider that the invasion has stopped. 24.201.209.74 (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
we can't consider anything. the 'war games' were ended and they were returned to base. for all we know, they were sent back to prepare for deployment. Putin tested an ICBM today...this isn't over--Львівське (говорити) 00:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Wait, how is the ICMB related? NATO does have anti-missile weapons stationed near Russia, but it's hard to tell whether or not the issue is related. Thou I totally agree with you on the fact that the conflict remains unresolved. What I think is that we can include a sentence to 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine saying that the invasion itself has halted. 24.201.209.74 (talk) 00:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
The ICBM test is unrelated. It was scheduled long time in advance and notification was duly served in line with international treaties, but is still viewed by some as provocative. Had it not been, like his "military drill", it would be different. -- Ohc ¡digame! 01:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, let's not crystal-ball here. Just wait and describe what is actually happening/happened.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

South Stream

The South Stream gas pipeline is the route from Russia to Bulgaria through the Black Sea which is meant to bypass Ukraine. Construction of the land sections is well underway, but that of the sea portion is to begin "spring 2014". [5] Originally the plan (as shown in South Stream) was to bypass all parts of Ukraine, going through Turkish waters. (See also File:Black_Sea_relief_location_map_with_exclusive_economic_zones.svg) Now if Crimea is part of Russia, or fully independent and firmly under its control, and with it the lion's share of Black Sea waters, I can picture that route being revised. However, there's still a question in my mind: would Ukraine's sea territory definitely be limited to a little sliver in the far north of the sea, or would it have the grounds to claim a remaining piece running all the way to Turkish waters? I found [6] in relation to the Romanian boundary. Basically, I'm wondering if Russia feels it has to gain control of Odessa Oblast to be confident of control of a full route without any concessions to Turkey. (Though the way the map is drawn, it still would seem to need to pass through a mathematical point of contact between Crimean and Bulgarian waters) Is there any way to relate any of this, or at least, to cite potential effects of annexation on Black Sea control? Wnt (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Totally irrelevant to this article which is about something else altogether.
Nobody's gonna buy Russia's gas if Obama blockades the economy. He was issuing a bill recently at the Congress to overturn economic routes away from Russia, and oil oligarchs seemed very concerned. Because Putin and the East thought that Obama and NATO were going to send forces and invade Ukraine, because that's what Present W. Moron would've done. But seeing as Barack is a guy of Peace, he divided another strategy and Putin got owned. Would be nice to rewrite that encyclopedically and include in the article thou. 24.201.209.74 (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, Europe was already saying that the South Stream project was illegal because it gave Rosneft "100% control" or something like that. I don't really understand how the competition requirement works. Will the sanctions affect Russian sales via Bulgaria to neighboring countries?
(I admit, I don't have proof of relevance at this time and I'm not contemplating adding something about this unless some really interesting sources are suggested) Wnt (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

We are not lawyers

Just a reminder that anything regarding legality must be cited in a reliable source and the claim must be attributed. Simply peppering the world "illegal" around the article, as User:Lvivske did here, is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. LokiiT (talk) 08:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

theres plenty of sources, how else would i know it was illegal?--Львівське (говорити) 09:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I didn't say there were no sources. I said you need to cite those sources and attribute claims of legality. LokiiT (talk) 09:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
There is no basis for saying that the invasion and occupation is legal. It is an act of aggression as defined by UN Resolution 3314. The relevant sections of the resolution are:

“(a) The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof, ...(c) The blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State; ...(e) The use of armed forces of one State which are within the territory of another State with the agreement of the receiving State, in contravention of the conditions provided for in the agreement or any extension of their presence in such territory beyond the termination of the agreement; ...(g) The sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount to the acts listed above, or its substantial involvement therein.”

The invasion is also a violation of the Budapest Memorandum of 1994: "1.The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine. 2. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. 3. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind. 4. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used. 5. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm, in the case of the Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state. 6. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will consult in the event a situation arises which raises a question concerning these commitments."

Russia is committing an act of aggression as defined by the UN; it is breaching its obligations under the UN Charter and the Budapest Memorandum. This is an invasion, and illegal. Bye-the-way I am a lawyer, and have some experience of military and international law.101.98.175.68 (talk) 02:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Other troop movements section

In addition to the reasons given by 64.223.228.205 for his last edit to this section, and with regards as to the George H.W. Bush Carrier Strike Group (CSG 2); boomers (SSBNs) are never deployed as part of a CSG, or a Carrier Battle Group before that. Usually, a CSG may have a hunter-killer (SSN) attached (unlike the old days where it was rare to have a CBG without a SSN attached or nearby). The Bush CSG isn't known to have a SSN attached (though that doesn't mean one hasn't been detached to it in the meantime). The confusion may come from the fact that someone thought (probably incorrectly) that the Bush CSG had one of the Ohio SSGN conversions along with it.

As to 17 vessels in the CSG, the Bush Carrier Strike Group has, as far as is known, currently only five ships, including the George H.W. Bush herself, the rest being 3 destroyers and an Aegis cruiser. A CSG generally is not even a pale shadow, either in numbers or capabilities, of the old CBGs. 83.70.239.147 (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a copyvio from a hoax source. No mainstream source is carrying that story一it was an idea floated by the wsj.-- Ohc ¡digame! 00:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Or simply some people on the internets can't tell their Adriatic Sea from their Black Sea and their Greece from their Turkey (I know!).Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

"Blatant Ukrainian POV?" Seriously?

There is no blatant Ukranian POV in this article. What is blatant are the constant attempts by Irondome and LokiiT to introduce Russian propaganda into it. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources portray a pretty clear picture. Only the Russian state media are presenting a different point of view, and they cannot be considered in any way neutral or reliable on this issue. FungusFromYuggoth (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

What is blatant is the MSMs attempts to portray this western backed coup (which appears to be collapsing in large areas) as some kind of Slavic spring. It aint. Your attempts to portray myself and another editor as somehow errant in consensus is mischevious. Are you challenging my GF? There is much misgiving about developing events, in many eds minds. Stop stirring mate. Irondome (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Stop using the talk page as a soap box. If you have any actual changes to the article in mind, propose it on the talk.--Rurik the Varangian (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Could you please expound on that accusation or give a few examples? I don't believe I've introduced any "Russian propaganda" into any article. I try to stick to verifiable quotes and uncontested events (unlike either side in the media war). You're fooling yourself if you think western media is any less biased than Russian media. LokiiT (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
This article has been toned down since that comment was made. It now is not biased towards one side.Jimmydreads (talk) 08:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

User:LokiiT and User:Irondome, please stop disrupting Wikipedia with your WP:Original research. Your arguments are based around your personal interpretation of the word "invasion" and political rhetoric of the Kremlin (such as "defending the Russian population"). The "Russian population" are in fact Russian-speaking Ukrainians. People adhere to WP:NPOV and constructive editing. Wikipedia is not under the control of a media monopoly. The Russian media can only be reliably used in this article (and other related topics) as showing what Russian propaganda is saying. They have proven to NOT be reliable as a source of news, based on all of the inconsistencies and blatant lies they have been publishing and broadcasting. --BoguSlav 23:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Original research? Could you please point out a single edit I've made in any article regarding this matter that wasn't properly sourced? The irony in citing NPOV while claiming that all Russian media reports are propaganda is astounding to me. This isn't the place to be ranting and raving. LokiiT (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Not ALL Russia media reports are propaganda, of course. For example, the Russian channel Dozhd did not give any propaganda, but they are now shut down under accusations of being foreign agents. The others news outlets that tow the party line stay afloat.(I can give you many other sources about this.) I never claimed that "all Russian media reports are propaganda", but I am not surprised that you choose to distort what I said in order to justify your argument. There is no doubt that Russia is holding a war against Ukraine right now, which includes a war of media propaganda. I just asked you to be unbiased, but I guess it is too much to ask considering that you so quickly chose to distort what I said. As for "ranting and raving", am not the one who brought up "blatant Ukrainian POV".--BoguSlav 23:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
LokiiT, Boguslav is correct. There is a power full information propaganda from Russians who groundlessly accuse the new government in Ukraine as fascist and extremist. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
There are fascist and extremist influences witihin the new government. This is undeniable. See Right Sector. Of course Russian media will play this up, just as western media pretends it doesn't exist and that the coup/revolution was on behalf of the majority of Ukrainians. LokiiT (talk) 01:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Please, check the Euromaidan article for more information. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Please stop pinging me. Some people are trying to gnome on mainspace here. Irondome (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I dont believe this article is neutral. Yet. SaintAviator talk 07:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
There are extremists in the Russian government. Does that justify another country invading Russia? There are (or were) far right wing parties in the governments in Denmark, Austria and Switzerland. Did Russia invade those countries? None of this justifies invasion. The Russian propaganda line is as hollow as the Soviet arguments for invading Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan, etc. This is an invasion, and all other arguments are irrelevant. This article should be entitled Russian Invasion of Crimea.Royalcourtier (talk) 04:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, it does little good to make vague statement about the article as a whole. There is a section on this Talk page, below, entitled "POV concerns more generally" that will provide some constructive ideas of how to identify specific instance of questionable POV or unbalanced material. Things are changing fast, but I'm confident editors will attempt to address any issues of non-neutral coverage of matter in Ukraine. Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Why was Aksyonov + Crimea deleted from Leaders + Commanders + Belligerents?

I added Aksyonov + the Crimean flag to the Russian side in the Infobox. This was reverted by User:Lugnuthemvar without an explanation. I was simply following what seems to be standard practice - see for instance Babrak Karmal and the flag of the 'Democratic Republic of Afghanistan' in the infobox of Soviet War in Afghanistan, which are pretty well the exact equivalent of Aksyonov and the Crimean flag in that war (i.e the local pro-Russian leader and his flag, in both cases).Tlhslobus (talk) 12:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Because he has no significance in the "military intervention". Lugnuthemvar (talk) 12:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
He has as much significance as Karmal had in the Soviet War, perhaps more so (it is to his Crimea that the defecting Ukrainian Navy chief swore allegiance, and that the besieged loyal Ukrainians troops are been called on to swear allegiance 'or else'). And on the same basis all the Ukrainian leaders should also be omitted. And thousands of Wikipedia articles would have to be modified based on subjective assessments of which leaders are and are not 'significant' by some editor or other. We can't change long established Wikipedia standards on that basis.Tlhslobus (talk) 12:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
And 'officially' he is the leader and/or commander-in-chief of all the Russian forces, since 'officially' they're all 'Crimeans'. Tlhslobus (talk) 12:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Officially he has no power over the Ukrainian military or the Russian. Meaning he has no say in the intervention, just like any other leader on Crimean territory. Unless he starts an armed insurgency, he has no significance on this page. Lugnuthemvar (talk) 12:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Personal opinions and hearsay have no bearing here. We follow our policies and reliable sources. You were explained how we have treated similar conflicts in the past. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 13:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. The individual you presented has no military significance. Or if you're opinion is that he does, please cite source where it says he has a significance in the military operation. 13:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Lugnuthemvar (talk)
He is a leader, indeed the local leader, and there are plenty of citations for that. There are also plenty of citations that it is to the entity that he leads that the defecting admiral defected, that the besieged Ukrainians are being told under duress to transfer their allegiance. The column is Leaders and Commanders. This is how Wikipedia has always done this, as already pointed out. Tlhslobus (talk) 14:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
By the way, you are at your 3RR limit.Tlhslobus (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
that called pushing it. You have a POV issue here. you desperately want a local leader. He doesn't belong on the intervention page. He has no political or military contribution 14:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Lugnuthemvar (talk)
Rank/political position or role not specified. Also removing Crimea. Not sovereign state with political agenda. 15:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)NFLjunkie (talk)

Generally speaking, I think such controversial topics should be locked for potential sock puppets and SPAs. Even the Ukrainian Wikipedia mentions separatists as the pro-Russian side. We list Finnish Democratic Republic in the article on Winter War, despite the fact that it was pure puppet government with no support in Finland. We may call Aksyonov and his supporters as mere facade for Russian invasion, however, we can't deny that reliable sources mention them as parties to the conflict. In fact, Aksyonov's plea to Putin preceded the invasion. It's against our policies to remove such notions from the infobox and no, it's not POV to point out this party exists [7], the removal rather. Please, make yourself familiar with Wikipedia policies and only then start revert warring.15:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Lokalkosmopolit (talk)

Regarding NFLjunkie's comment, ranks aren't normally specified in these infoboxes (that's another change by Lugnuthemvar, when he removed flags because they were allegedly unnecessary, which is actually what lead me to think about whether Aksionov should be included, and also the defecting Admiral, though this dispute meant I never got round to him). But his rank is (de facto) Prime Minister of Crimea. His legitimacy is disputed, but that's true of everybody on both sides, including Putin (whose election is seen by many as neither free nor fair), as well as of vast numbers of other belligerents in vast numbers of infoboxes.
Incidentally, on a closely-related subject (since being Prime Minister makes him at least the nominal leader of the pro-Russian militias), I note Lugnuthemvar also reverted somebody else by claiming there are no pro-Russian militias. Yet both the BBC and NBC say there are:
BBC article:
Russia 'demands surrender' of Ukraine's Crimea forces
3 March 2014
Mark Lowen BBC News, Sevastopol
Two large Ukrainian military bases are surrounded, with Russian troops standing alongside local self-defence groups, who demand that the Ukrainian soldiers inside defect from Kiev to Crimea's new pro-Russia government.
Some bases are surrounded by pro-Russia militia and unidentified gunmen.
The naval headquarters remains blockaded and key installations like airports are still occupied. Thousands of newly arrived Russian elite troops far outnumber Ukraine's military presence here.
NBC article:
Ukraine Standoff: Militias Bolster Russian Troops Outside Base
PEREVALNE, Ukraine -- Pro-Russian volunteer militias on Monday bolstered the ranks of Russian troops who surrounded a Ukrainian base in Crimea over the weekend.
As for Lugnuthemvar's claim that 'He has no political or military contribution', common sense suggests that politically he is very likely to be the de facto leader of Crimea for the foreseeable future, but presumably Lugnuthemvar means that he has no political control over Russian troops. That's true, but he appears to be at least the nominal political leader of the local militias. And based on previous cases (such as Karmal, as already mentioned) that would seem to justify including him. And, at least to me, omitting him seems a disservice and unnecessary inconvenience to our readers. Crimea (meaning mainly its leaders, as usual when one speaks of a state's agenda) does have a political agenda, in this case to escape from Kiev's control as far as possible. The fact that Crimea is not a recognised sovereign state doesn't seem particularly relevant either - see for example the 4 non-sovereign flags on the Chechen side in the Infobox on the Second Chechen War, and I expect there are hundreds of similar examples. However I'm not sufficiently interested to waste any more time on this dispute - as mentioned earlier I only got involved as a side-effect of thinking about the removal of the allegedly unnecessary flags, and, fingers crossed (and let's hope I'm not inviting the commentator's curse), the whole non-war may now be quietening down even faster than the Georgian War of 2008 - at any rate I'm pretty bored with the whole thing. So I'm going to leave the above arguments and the above BBC and NBC references about militias in case anybody wants to do anything with them, while I look for better ways of wasting my time elsewhere. All the best to all of you. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

There's no legitimate reason to include the Crimean flag on the "Russian" side in the infobox. The only purpose of such appears to be thinly veiled attempt at POV pushing ("Russia is liberating Crimea" or something). Unless serious sources start describing this conflict as "Russia and Crimea vs Ukraine" we're not going to start doing that ourselves.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

You don't have to list the flags, but the Crimean people in charge of Parliament should definitely be included. They are the ones making decisions on the ground. Only then, the military forces can act.USchick (talk) 23:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

He is in de facto control of Crimea and its government, as well he has declared authority over the army (didnt really take, minus berezovsky). I don't mind using the Crimean flag, even if its not de jure, it's the flag separatists are using and those who support his 'Crimean Republic', whereas unionists use the Ukrainian flag .--Львівське (говорити) 00:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Turchynov is also denounced by some people, but somehow he is listed in the info box with a flag. They are both denouncing each other, that's why it's a conflict. The Crimean leaders need to be reinstated in the Infobox. USchick (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Turchynov is the current President of Ukraine so yes, he belongs in the Infobox. Not sure what your point is. Putting in flags etc is original research at this point. So let's just keep it to Russia and Ukraine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Aksyonov has been added since. This is an old discussion. USchick (talk) 04:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Never mind, wrong info box, I don't really care. Never mind. USchick (talk) 04:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Serious problem with the Reactions section

The "Reactions" section is unbelievably POV. Firstly the titling has everyone else as "reactions" and Russia reaction section is called "Russian informational War?" All the sides have been engaged in informational war, as interested parties do in any geo-political event. And it opens with "The Russian state television continued to spread false statements about situation in Ukraine." Wow. As if every interested party isn't dong so.

Also all the claims in that section are Ukrainian news sources making claims about what is in the Russian news. The one that was a text article referring to a text article I check on Google translate and the Ukrainian news is misrepresenting the Ukrainian news. Moreover since the Ukrainian news contains a lot of false information as well, do we have to call that section "Ukrainian informational warfare." [Special:Contributions/108.18.65.184|108.18.65.184]] (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Now the Russian reaction section starts out with Ukrainian accusations of spreading false information. That doesn't make much sense to me. I've re-added the POV template to the top of the page. Although I've personally fixed quite a few POV issues in this article over the past couple days, there are still glaring issues and I don't have that much time to dedicate to fixing them. LokiiT (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I've just nuked the section. It had nothing to do with any Russian reaction, just part of the propaganda war, and totally one-sided at that. There can be no Russian reaction that I can see for the moment, as they are the protagonists in this. -- Ohc ¡digame! 01:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not supposed to be in the business of determining so dogmatically what are "false statements" necessarily. Some people (not just Russians) believe that Putin has a case for doing what he did (heretical as that notion is to many people who love to make mountains out of arguable mole-hills). But as far as spreading propaganda or distortions? It can be argued that Herman Munster, I mean John Kerry, can be easily said to be spreading exaggerated over-reactions and "false statements", or at least emotional distortions. Over-blowing the supposed dangers or negatives of simply taking back something that is arguably "Russian" already. It's not like Putin sent men to Poland or Sweden or something. Something out of the blue in that sense. But if you were to listen to John Kerry or many in the media, or the US Ambassador to the UN, you'd think Putin did just that. But it was Crimea...(yawn). There is a CONTEXT in Ukraine also...of the removal of a recent president there, and unrest. It can be argued that Russia did not do what it did so willy nilly. Just for random power play moves. Plus it's sanctimonious of the US with its own power play moves throughout history. ("Manifest Destiny" much?) But some could argue that Putin had at least SOME rationale or cause for what he did. Don't tell that to your average American pundit and reactionary though. It's all nonsense to me ultimately anyway. The point though is EVEN IF Russia is spreading "lies" or whatever to some extent, WP is supposed to be a bit more NPOV in wording and tone about that sort of thing. Gabby Merger (talk) 06:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Renaming article to 'Russian occupation of Crimea'

What's everyone's opinion on renaming the article to Russian occupation of Crimea? Here are some sources calling it that way so far:

Thoughts?

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 04:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I prefer 'occupation'. It seems to be the case that the majority of sources use 'occupation' and calling something a military intervention when there has not been a shot fired seems hyperbolic and misleading. KingHiggins (talk) 08:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Occupation is the correct title of this topic. Russia is occupying Ukrainian land with the disapproval of the Ukrainian government. This constitutes an occupation, not an "intervention".--BoguSlav 10:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

To say that "calling something a military intervention when there has not been a shot fired seems hyperbolic and misleading" is simply wrong. A military intervention is just that - it does not require anything more than an "intervention" involving military forces. It is not necessary for shots to be fired. The same applies to invasions. Imagine if Mexico sent 20,000 troops into New Mexico, blocked the border roads, surrounded army bases, and appointed a new Governor at gunpoint, would that be a humanitarian intervention, an intervention or an invasion?101.98.175.68 (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Nobody was appointed at gunpoint in Crimea. And about half of the article is totally pro-Ukrainian (or, more precisely, anti-Russian) POV. It's a shame to see FUD and propaganda instead of facts and neutrality in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.146.52 (talk) 07:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Let's be clear: I very much want you to add sources explaining this point of view. I admit that being in the U.S., reading our English language media written on the far end of the world, I am being influenced by biased information, and so your contributions to this article would be invaluable. Wnt (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Intervention is fine. This is not an invasion, because Yanukovich called for Russian intervention at the time when he was a legitimate president. 38.117.178.7 (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russo-Ukrainian_War/Archive_1&oldid=1092002428"