![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
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)
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)
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)
Are there any sources that say this is an occupation by Russia? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 18:06, 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)
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.--
Bogu
Slav
23:23, 2 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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]
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].
USchick ( talk) 07:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
Vladimir Putin orders troops near Ukraine border to return to bases. [4] USchick ( talk) 23:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
“(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)
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)
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)
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. -- Bogu Slav 23:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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".-- Bogu Slav 10:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
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)
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)
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)
Are there any sources that say this is an occupation by Russia? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 18:06, 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)
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.--
Bogu
Slav
23:23, 2 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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]
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].
USchick ( talk) 07:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
Vladimir Putin orders troops near Ukraine border to return to bases. [4] USchick ( talk) 23:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
“(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)
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)
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)
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. -- Bogu Slav 23:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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".-- Bogu Slav 10:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)