This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Russia鈥揢nited States relations article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources:聽 Google ( books聽路 news聽路 scholar聽路 free images聽路 WP聽refs)聽路 FENS聽路 JSTOR聽路 TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
GallupPoll - http://news.gallup.com/poll/1642/russia.aspx
The Chicago Council - https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/publication/us-and-russia-insecurity-and-mistrust-shape-mutual-perceptions
Book - The Limits of Partnership: U.S.-Russian Relations in the Twenty-First Century
Scholarly Article - US-Russia Relations Rice, CondoleezzaAuthor InformationView Profile. Hampton Roads International Security Quarterly; Portsmouth (Oct 15, 2008): 2533.
Scholarly Article - Warming U.S.-Russia relations Cathleen A. Campbell
Friendly actions of Russian Empire during American Revolutionary War, when Russia and the USA were friends against Britain, are forgotten.
So historically, the US have been in more wars against the British and her commonwealth but was never engaged in a single armed conflict with the Russians (Imperial, Communist)?. -- 60.48.223.13 04:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I hope there's not another Cold War, cos I was born just after it died down and I do NOT want to live in fear of getting blown up here in Europe because America and Russia can't get along.. 82.15.9.10 15:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I share the same sentiments with you, although I'm not too concerned about all the heated rhetoric coming from the Russian side. From what I've read on the news recently, President Putin and President Bush have already discussed the missile defense issue at the ongoing G8 summit, with the former suggesting that American missile bases be established somewhere in Azerbaijan instead of in Poland or the Czech Republic; Bush seemed to find the suggestion "interesting." 99.247.85.241 05:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
During the 1999 NATO bombing of Serbia, Russian leaders repeatedly inferred that if bombing continued or ground troops entered Serbia, it might lead to nuclear war with Russia. A series of quotes, right up until the bombing stopped, illustrate how serious they were. Unfortunately I don't have the rest of the references (mostly Reuters, AP articles) but some are still on line.
鈥淚 told NATO, the Americans, the Germans: Don't push us toward military action. Otherwise there will be a European war for sure and possibly world war. Russian President Boris Yeltsin, April 6, 1999
"In the event that NATO and America start a ground operation in Yugoslavia, they will face a second Vietnam, I do not want to forecast what is going to start then. I cannot rule out a third world war. Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov, April 17, 1999
"If NATO goes from air force to ground force it will be a world catastrophe. (Russia) has never felt such anti-Western, anti-European feelings." First Deputy Russian Prime Minister Anatoly Chubais, April 25, 1999.
鈥淵ou have to understand that if we want to cause you a problem over this, we could. Someone, we don't know who, could send up a missile from a ship or a submarine and detonate a nuclear weapon high over the United States. The EMP (electromagnetic pulse that destroys electronic and computer equipment) would take away all your capability.鈥 Vladimir Lukin, Chairman of the Russian State Duma Foreign Policy Committee, late April, 1999
鈥淛ust let Clinton, a little bit, accidentally, send a missile. We will answer immediately. Such impudence! To unleash a war on a sovereign state. Without Security Council. Without United Nations. It could only be possible in a time of barbarism.鈥 Boris Yeltsin, May 7, 1999
"The world has never in this decade been so close as now to the brink of nuclear war." Viktor Chernomyrdin, May 27, 1999
Carol Moore 01:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC) User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc
I'm not sure whether the Russian proposal for the Gambala Station which was made during the G8 Summit was accidentally or purposely left out.
Russia, U.S. agree on missile defense dialogue-1 鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by Mfosa ( talk 鈥 contribs) 06:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Where have the references gone? Are they hidden somewhere I can't find them, or have they been deleted? Russia and America are likely to start WWIII this year. Brace yourselves! 鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by 142.151.140.81 ( talk) 03:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
It's written there in the Timeline of peace: 2008 Russia invades Georgia. Why then there is no such stuff as 1999 US invades Serbia, 2001 US invades Afqanistan and 2003 US invades Iraq? Don't you think it's a bit boss-eyed? I believe one should either add US invasions (which will go to make up the half of the timeline of "peace"), or remove the Georgia invasion. -- FarShmack ( talk) 06:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}}
The latest developments are part of the new cold war, being strengthened a lot lately by both the two nations.
I use the term "The New Cold War" as still to be implemented on Wiki... I lend this from a book's title 'The new Cold War' by Edward Lucas, journalist for Economist))
following link: Caucasus crisis prelude to war on Iran(be it Iranian Press)
shows some interesting insights in the Georgian affair, namely this section:
In mid-July, Georgian and US troops held a joint military exercise dubbed 'Immediate Response' involving respectively 1,200 US and 800 Georgian troops.
Venezuela, Russia form big oil consortium
Chavez accepts Russian nuclear offer
Russia ratchets up US tensions with arms sales to Iran and Venezuela
A Kremlin official declined to comment on the report, and the Russian ambassador to NATO did not reply to messages left on his cell phone. But the Interfax news agency, citing what it called a military-diplomatic source in Moscow whom it did not identify, reported that Russia is reviewing its 2008 military cooperation plans with NATO.
Norway: Russia to Cut All Military Ties With NATO
Russia Makes New Threats Over U.S.-Poland Missile Deal [1]
I'm sorry I cannot edit/tidy myself now, but I would certainly want to edit the article together, so please contact me if so desired!
(I keep my eyes open these days, things are moving a lot!!)
Olli.vdl ( talk) 01:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Rescue of American Girl
I move to remove the section on the 'Russian Military Rescuing American Girl.' The source has no relevance to the text, and I can't find another source online for the 'rescue.' 鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by Zerodefeks ( talk 鈥 contribs) 00:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Article has been semi-protected to help deal with Koov socks. Those you can see in the edit history are: Rolbn, Rolih, Rolsb, Arado, Citno, Bnni, Jikn and Fsbi. See also Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Koov. EdJohnston ( talk) 03:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
When South Korea decided to go public with its nucular program russia was shocked as well as NK and America. Although Russia is in cahoots with SK they were still rather upset that they wern't kept in the loop. Now when you think about it, America ask/TOLD South Korea they had to shut down there program- - Which they did in a timly matter. When SK's program was shut down they imeditally got in touch with Iran and had asked if they would be interested in buying some documents and facility instructions on how to correcly build and develop warheads. Ironically after Sk program was shut down we hear Iran has a program opening up. Now at this point in time we happen to be waging a war with Iraq/afgahn/iran so on so forth, so this esclated the situation in which iran felt they were obligated to proceed with the making of warheads. Now since America wants to be the only people whom build WMD ( Weapons of mass desctruction ) We told Iran they ahd to shut down there facility in which they rebelled and opened a second nucular program. Now Russia has been allys with Iran/persia since forever long ago they were yet again distasteful with what iran had been doing behind thier back and not conceeding the fact they had programs in which warheads were built. All the meanwhile America sits back and watches as we invade the wrong teritory and fight for democracy over in the middle east when we should be worring about bigger problems, No not health care or welfare or finical aid but war. Yes war, since time and time ago we alwayse try to dictate other 3rd world contries on how to run thier and it seemed to work for some time untill we got our heads fo far up our ass's we didnt realize the real benefactor at hand, which is nucular war. They say the aztecian calander ends on 2012, could that be out WW3? Or could a metor hit the earth, or a nucular war? I am off topic and getting back to the point, To sum it up quickly, SK shut down there program in which was sold to iran, russia wanted more knowledge in which is now rebelling against iran, Iran now hold 2 major nucular facilities in which are alerady being test launced and manufactured ( and im sure being sold to other world leaders whom wants to reek thier own havoc ) This i believe isnt a topic of russia vs the US, but the Us vs Political allies of Russia, and Iran. Russia at the moment have the smartest and most intelligant scientists in the world, yet they cant figure out how to keep in touch with thier own allies and produce a stable ground for them to reech an agreement. Iran used to see eye to eye with russia and the Us at one point in time, but where did this all go wrong? when Senior Bush was in office? Wanting to much oil and rebelled so fire was set to irans oil fields? When Jr. Bush sent troobs into iran afghn to kill dictators of other leaders? To find osama for what he did during 911? No. It was for power, and thats exactly what iran wants is to feel powerful, they dont want to share there knowledge with thier buddies over borders, they dont want to call cnn and say; hey come on down and video tape out nucular warhead launch test, they want the world to be scared, they want the people of the world to fear them and that is what they are thriving to get and are getting right now. All the meanwhile americans are sitting back with our crap economy waiting for somthing to go wrong, waiting to play the blame game to see what will happen next.
Thomas Jefferson I believe, once said that Russia and the United States were the best of friends, or something along those lines. elle v茅cut heureuse 脿 jamais ( be free) 01:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
This article should summarise relations overall from 1776 to the present: see our MoS guidelines on a summary article. elle v茅cut heureuse 脿 jamais ( be free) 01:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Why did russia was so opposed to NATO intervention? 164.67.59.99 ( talk) 01:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm Russian and I don't understand too. In fact, citizenry are not everyone opposed. -- 212.3.159.77 ( talk) 17:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I suppose it's because NATO was created to go to war with Russia? There is no other real reason for NATO; going to Afghanistan, etc, is just minor "make-work" for NATO while waiting to start a real war with Russia. Santamoly ( talk) 03:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
New U.S. Envoy Ruffles Feathers in Moscow by Ellen Barry, published January 23, 2012 99.181.134.88 ( talk) 06:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I made a couple of changes to the organization of the section "Military ties" and included a sub-section on Nato-Russian relations, as I consider that of great importance to US-Russian relations in general. I also took the "Bering strait" sub-section out of "Military ties" as I fail to see the connection. Well, I hope I didn't over-extend my amateur enthusiasm and I expect most disagreements to be related to the rank and organization of this section as the little content I added is well cited, referenced and related (I think). In any case, any feedback would be, of course, greatly appreciated. Cheers. ArticunoWebon ( talk) 15:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Footnote 28 has no relevance to the sentence that it is placed after. Either someone put the wrong number in the wrong place, or it is just a bad link, since the article that it links to has nothing to do with any sort of study it cites. 134.139.237.238 ( talk) 21:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, conceptual error in the opening sentence including mistaking a people for a state (the Slavs and Everyone Else), and for thinking that the history of people equated to a single state of formal governance. 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by 104.172.244.99 ( talk) 06:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
It makes little mention of the marked decline in relations between the US and Russia over the past year or so. It could use more content about the dispute between the two governments over the war in Syria, and should also mention diplomatic disagreements such as those over Edward Snowden and the Illegals Program.
The section titled 'Timeline of peace between the United States and Russia', in particular, could use a rewrite: it seems to be pushing a position that there has been growing relations and strengthening peace between the two countries since the end of the Cold War, and only mentions instances of such cooperation. Such a one-sided list (without an equivalent list of times the US and Russia have been at odds) seems to raise issues with WP:NPOV. Robofish ( talk) 23:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
>> Russia expels US journalist David Satter without explanation( Lihaas ( talk) 09:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)).
I am going to clean up this timeline adding a few good references once in a while. But I am not going to google myself silly; a few citations every 3-6 years should suffice. I always preview my changes or citations, but it's not easy to complete work by people who don't cite their sources. I can't do that in one session, and this will produce different versions. Sorry. ( Osterluzei ( talk) 16:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC))
For the sake of transparency, I think the context behind @ Hahc21:'s recent reversion of a large portion of this article, and suppression due to (alleged) copyright violation, should be mentioned on this talk page. Here is the diff for that reversion (diff is visible to admins).
This is a reversion of material originally added by @ Timothysandole:, then Wikipedian in Residence for the Belfer Center. Specifically, these edits drew heavily from this source, inserting it as a footnote 11 times:
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)The general circumstances were covered in March 2014 in the Wikipedia Signpost.
The copyright status of the excerpts he included was brought up on his talk page.
The two photos I included above (including captions) were also added by Timothy at the same time. I don't know much about US/Russian relations, so I'm not interpreting any of these facts or advocating any specific change to the article; but I think it's important that substantial changes like this should be explained to those who do follow the article. - Pete ( talk) 21:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I've reverted reverted User:Coruscant123's edits to Russia鈥揢nited States relations for a few reasons. First, they removed a significant amount of material without comment. Second, the edits seemed to be written from a strongly pro-Russian point of view. Some of the edits might be fine, but they need to be done with comments or with discussion here. Agtx ( talk) 23:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Russia鈥揢nited States relations. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.鈥 cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Here is a straight-forward scholarly analysis that one editor wants to remove because of his strange claim the coauthors are too ignorant!? It summarizes an article in a major scholarly journal on exactly this article's topic and by Wiki NPOV rules must be included. The editor here seems never to have read the article in question and shows no record of dealing with geography or economics. John Biersack and Shannon O鈥橪ear, "The geopolitics of Russia's annexation of Crimea: narratives, identity, silences, and energy." Eurasian Geography and Economics 55.3 (2014): 247-269. Rjensen ( talk) 07:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Don't confuse POV pushing with just POV. Including two scholars who have absolutely noting to do with the conflict in Ukraine and citing their opinion as one shared by other scholars is POV pushing on your side. Like I already said before there are a million scholars with a million different opinions and including certain ones over others is in fact POV pushing by Wiki editors. If the quote came from someone more relevant to the crisis, then at least it would make some sense to include it, but these specific scholars are very random in this case. Either way, the reference you provided is backed up by only the personal understanding and opinions of those two scholars. Treating that as fact is not neutral. -- Turnless ( talk) 00:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Stop erasing sourced info you dislike. Wiki rule is to include RS covering all sides of the issue. If there is a side not represented it should be ADDED, rather than erase sourced material. You're new at Wikipedia and need to learn the rules. The topic in question is Russian-US relations and not the history of Crimea or Ukraine so we depend on experts on Russia and USA. see wp:DUE Rjensen ( talk) 00:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Turnless: Looking into other's heads is not the role of editors, but it is the role of academics and political experts and, in turn, the role of Wikipedia's editors to reflect well documented, comprehensive analysis. In this case, Russia-US relations may appear to be a far more comprehensive article than other articles on 'country X'-'country Y' relations, but for good reason: the US came out of WWII as the new superpower, while Russia was the central power of the Soviet Union (i.e., all other Soviet states were known as 'satellite states' for a reason) and claimed the crown as the successor state. Consequently, there is an inordinate amount of serious research into the dynamics of the relationship and what makes Russia tick (whether you like it or agree with it). The only comparable political relationship is described in the China鈥揢nited States relations article: an article which also has a lot of scope for development according to the volume of in-depth analysis of the dynamics of the relationship. It is absolutely appropriate that quality scholarship be drawn on to examine the details, even if it means that WP:SPINOFF articles be developed in order to accommodate the scholarship where it is justified WP:CFORK. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 03:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Dear people, by accident I stumbled upon what seems to me to be a vandalized footnote (#22 at this point in time). The footnote purports to link to a White House press release from march 2012, but instead links to a 'news site' that looks more like a Russian government propaganda site. I will in a minute 'vandalize' the footnote a tiny bit more, in order to draw the attention of some editor who is hopefully better capable than me to check this out and (if indeed necessary) repair damage done. (my 'vandalizing' will consist of adding the text: "see talk page!" to the footnote, in the 'edit-summary' I will mention that the footnote was vandalized)
I want to apologize beforehand if this turns out to be a mistake of mine; I do not mean to cause anybody unnecessary work or trouble. Yet it seems to me important enough to bring to you guys' attention, for maybe other links or footnotes are vandalized as well. 77.174.175.230 ( talk) 00:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Ok, my vandalizing has immediately been undone by ClueBot. Of course I won't report a false positive, because it wasn't. But I do hope somebodycan have a look at this (for I am not the right person to do that). Good luck! 77.174.175.230 ( talk) 00:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
RT (TV network) versus Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, a giant and a Lilliput. Xx236 ( talk) 07:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Joint operations and mutual support:
Xx236 ( talk) 08:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
The fact that the CIA and other US intelligence agencies have stated that Russia attempted to elect Trump President is extremely important to US-Russian relations. I would suggest that this revert [ [5]] should be relooked. The article should provide a summation of Russian involvement in the 2016 United States presidential election and a link to the article. Casprings ( talk) 04:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
@ MrX, wrt to your removal of my edit, thx for correction of attribution in your explanation. Given that, though, it would seem not WP:UNDUE to include the quote (鈥淭he aim is to force Trump into enmity with Russia.鈥) from Alexei Pushkov 鈥斅燼 senator who sits on the upper house of parliament鈥檚 defense and security committee 鈥斅燼s a representative expression of Russian perspective. A proper placement could be after "The allegations were dismissed by Putin who said the idea that Russia was favouring Donald Trump was a myth created by the Hillary Clinton campaign.鈥 in the U.S. election of 2016 section. Thoughts? Humanengr ( talk) 02:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
After further discussion, Rjensen and I resolved issues of concern and assembled the following for inclusion:
In January 2017, Alexei Pushkov, a senator on the Russia鈥檚 parliament鈥檚 defense and security committee, said 鈥淭he new hacking allegations against Russia are clearly timed to coincide with the handover of power in the United States, 鈥 The aim is to force Trump into enmity with Russia.鈥 Victoria Zhuravleva, Director of the American Studies Program at Russian State University, who writes analytical papers for the Russian gov't on U.S.-Russia relations, said the current mood in the United States meant Trump would struggle to improve relations with Moscow even if he wanted to. Zhuravleva said 鈥淚f we are realistic we have nothing to wait for,鈥 and went to say that Congress could stymie Trump鈥檚 Russia policies and would probably present him with proposals to hit Moscow with fresh sanctions rather than roll back existing ones. [1]
References
Humanengr ( talk) 20:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I have removed the allies section of the infobox and it must be emphasized that the allies section for BOTH countries have been removed so as to maintain neutrality. It is completely meaningless and just inaccurate information, particularly given the protean and infinite nature of interstate relationships. I am confident that this is a proposal that all editors can agree on irrespective of what we may personally think about the bilateral relationship. Flickotown ( talk) 20:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Under section "Country comparison", the area of the United States is exaggerated. It currently reads "24,033,527 kilometers squared", even when Wikipedia's own list of the largest countries by area conflicts with that number. Perhaps I may be missing something here, but even factoring in all of America's territories, the area would still not add up that high. Correction would be much appreciated. Originally Origins ( talk) 23:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please correct the populations of Moscow and New York cities in the comparison table. Current numbers underestimate Moscow and overestimate New York.
Moscow page says "with 13.2 million residents within the city limits,[12] 17 million within the urban area[13] and 20 million within the metropolitan area."
New York page says "With an estimated 2018 population of 8,398,748[7] distributed over a land area of about 302.6 square miles (784 km2) ... and one of the world's most populous megacities,[16][17] with an estimated 19,979,477 people in its 2018 Metropolitan Statistical Area and 22,679,948 residents in its Combined Statistical Area.".
Probably it makes sense to list 13.2 million residents for Moscow and 8.4 million residents for New York within the city limits. In any case, one should use the same estimate (within city limits or within a metropolitan area). 109.63.180.131 ( talk) 17:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
聽Done The source for the 13.2 million number is from 2015 so I used the most recent number from the Moscow page instead. Alduin2000 ( talk) 20:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
According to this article apparently the Russians have 67,000 tanks, and the Americans have battleships. The military numbers are horribly off and are more comparable to these militaries during World War II military rather than the modern armies. The US only has 2,384 M1 Abrams MBTs in active service, as well as 3.5k in reserve. The equipment numbers aren't even there on the cited website. Russia's tank numbers according to this page are four times the actual total number.
@ SpinnerLaserz: you created the Template:Russia鈥揢nited States proxy conflict, I think here would be a good place to discuss with everyone the point of such a template. Could you provide your reasoning for this template? When should it be applied? I am against its use until the article for Russia鈥揢nited States proxy conflict is rightfully created. -- MaoGo ( talk) 11:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Nothing about RT content. "it has RT America based in Washington, D.C" - quite concise (11 million viewers). Xx236 ( talk) 11:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Do Western readers understand Putin-Medvedev relationship? Xx236 ( talk) 12:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. 鈥 Community Tech bot ( talk) 13:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. 鈥 Community Tech bot ( talk) 09:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
It seems to include countries which are either neutral or have good relations with both, such as Azerbaijan and India. Mexico is not an ally of the USA per the Estrada Doctrine-- 118.211.181.97 ( talk) 14:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
The United State flag and color at the bottom should be on the left side whilst Russia on the right so the image is easier to read/clearer. 166.181.85.158 ( talk) 14:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I see that the country comparison table has been removed from the article. I think it is still nice to retain it so as to compare governance systems and foreign relation networks of the countries (I think it is still informative to know which countries are good with each other and which are not.) What are the opinions of other editors? Lags331 ( talk) 06:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello. I added relations in the 21st century|Second Cold War to the header. thank you. Ironcurtain2 ( talk) 06:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Russia鈥揢nited States relations article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources:聽 Google ( books聽路 news聽路 scholar聽路 free images聽路 WP聽refs)聽路 FENS聽路 JSTOR聽路 TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
GallupPoll - http://news.gallup.com/poll/1642/russia.aspx
The Chicago Council - https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/publication/us-and-russia-insecurity-and-mistrust-shape-mutual-perceptions
Book - The Limits of Partnership: U.S.-Russian Relations in the Twenty-First Century
Scholarly Article - US-Russia Relations Rice, CondoleezzaAuthor InformationView Profile. Hampton Roads International Security Quarterly; Portsmouth (Oct 15, 2008): 2533.
Scholarly Article - Warming U.S.-Russia relations Cathleen A. Campbell
Friendly actions of Russian Empire during American Revolutionary War, when Russia and the USA were friends against Britain, are forgotten.
So historically, the US have been in more wars against the British and her commonwealth but was never engaged in a single armed conflict with the Russians (Imperial, Communist)?. -- 60.48.223.13 04:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I hope there's not another Cold War, cos I was born just after it died down and I do NOT want to live in fear of getting blown up here in Europe because America and Russia can't get along.. 82.15.9.10 15:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I share the same sentiments with you, although I'm not too concerned about all the heated rhetoric coming from the Russian side. From what I've read on the news recently, President Putin and President Bush have already discussed the missile defense issue at the ongoing G8 summit, with the former suggesting that American missile bases be established somewhere in Azerbaijan instead of in Poland or the Czech Republic; Bush seemed to find the suggestion "interesting." 99.247.85.241 05:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
During the 1999 NATO bombing of Serbia, Russian leaders repeatedly inferred that if bombing continued or ground troops entered Serbia, it might lead to nuclear war with Russia. A series of quotes, right up until the bombing stopped, illustrate how serious they were. Unfortunately I don't have the rest of the references (mostly Reuters, AP articles) but some are still on line.
鈥淚 told NATO, the Americans, the Germans: Don't push us toward military action. Otherwise there will be a European war for sure and possibly world war. Russian President Boris Yeltsin, April 6, 1999
"In the event that NATO and America start a ground operation in Yugoslavia, they will face a second Vietnam, I do not want to forecast what is going to start then. I cannot rule out a third world war. Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov, April 17, 1999
"If NATO goes from air force to ground force it will be a world catastrophe. (Russia) has never felt such anti-Western, anti-European feelings." First Deputy Russian Prime Minister Anatoly Chubais, April 25, 1999.
鈥淵ou have to understand that if we want to cause you a problem over this, we could. Someone, we don't know who, could send up a missile from a ship or a submarine and detonate a nuclear weapon high over the United States. The EMP (electromagnetic pulse that destroys electronic and computer equipment) would take away all your capability.鈥 Vladimir Lukin, Chairman of the Russian State Duma Foreign Policy Committee, late April, 1999
鈥淛ust let Clinton, a little bit, accidentally, send a missile. We will answer immediately. Such impudence! To unleash a war on a sovereign state. Without Security Council. Without United Nations. It could only be possible in a time of barbarism.鈥 Boris Yeltsin, May 7, 1999
"The world has never in this decade been so close as now to the brink of nuclear war." Viktor Chernomyrdin, May 27, 1999
Carol Moore 01:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC) User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc
I'm not sure whether the Russian proposal for the Gambala Station which was made during the G8 Summit was accidentally or purposely left out.
Russia, U.S. agree on missile defense dialogue-1 鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by Mfosa ( talk 鈥 contribs) 06:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Where have the references gone? Are they hidden somewhere I can't find them, or have they been deleted? Russia and America are likely to start WWIII this year. Brace yourselves! 鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by 142.151.140.81 ( talk) 03:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
It's written there in the Timeline of peace: 2008 Russia invades Georgia. Why then there is no such stuff as 1999 US invades Serbia, 2001 US invades Afqanistan and 2003 US invades Iraq? Don't you think it's a bit boss-eyed? I believe one should either add US invasions (which will go to make up the half of the timeline of "peace"), or remove the Georgia invasion. -- FarShmack ( talk) 06:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}}
The latest developments are part of the new cold war, being strengthened a lot lately by both the two nations.
I use the term "The New Cold War" as still to be implemented on Wiki... I lend this from a book's title 'The new Cold War' by Edward Lucas, journalist for Economist))
following link: Caucasus crisis prelude to war on Iran(be it Iranian Press)
shows some interesting insights in the Georgian affair, namely this section:
In mid-July, Georgian and US troops held a joint military exercise dubbed 'Immediate Response' involving respectively 1,200 US and 800 Georgian troops.
Venezuela, Russia form big oil consortium
Chavez accepts Russian nuclear offer
Russia ratchets up US tensions with arms sales to Iran and Venezuela
A Kremlin official declined to comment on the report, and the Russian ambassador to NATO did not reply to messages left on his cell phone. But the Interfax news agency, citing what it called a military-diplomatic source in Moscow whom it did not identify, reported that Russia is reviewing its 2008 military cooperation plans with NATO.
Norway: Russia to Cut All Military Ties With NATO
Russia Makes New Threats Over U.S.-Poland Missile Deal [1]
I'm sorry I cannot edit/tidy myself now, but I would certainly want to edit the article together, so please contact me if so desired!
(I keep my eyes open these days, things are moving a lot!!)
Olli.vdl ( talk) 01:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Rescue of American Girl
I move to remove the section on the 'Russian Military Rescuing American Girl.' The source has no relevance to the text, and I can't find another source online for the 'rescue.' 鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by Zerodefeks ( talk 鈥 contribs) 00:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Article has been semi-protected to help deal with Koov socks. Those you can see in the edit history are: Rolbn, Rolih, Rolsb, Arado, Citno, Bnni, Jikn and Fsbi. See also Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Koov. EdJohnston ( talk) 03:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
When South Korea decided to go public with its nucular program russia was shocked as well as NK and America. Although Russia is in cahoots with SK they were still rather upset that they wern't kept in the loop. Now when you think about it, America ask/TOLD South Korea they had to shut down there program- - Which they did in a timly matter. When SK's program was shut down they imeditally got in touch with Iran and had asked if they would be interested in buying some documents and facility instructions on how to correcly build and develop warheads. Ironically after Sk program was shut down we hear Iran has a program opening up. Now at this point in time we happen to be waging a war with Iraq/afgahn/iran so on so forth, so this esclated the situation in which iran felt they were obligated to proceed with the making of warheads. Now since America wants to be the only people whom build WMD ( Weapons of mass desctruction ) We told Iran they ahd to shut down there facility in which they rebelled and opened a second nucular program. Now Russia has been allys with Iran/persia since forever long ago they were yet again distasteful with what iran had been doing behind thier back and not conceeding the fact they had programs in which warheads were built. All the meanwhile America sits back and watches as we invade the wrong teritory and fight for democracy over in the middle east when we should be worring about bigger problems, No not health care or welfare or finical aid but war. Yes war, since time and time ago we alwayse try to dictate other 3rd world contries on how to run thier and it seemed to work for some time untill we got our heads fo far up our ass's we didnt realize the real benefactor at hand, which is nucular war. They say the aztecian calander ends on 2012, could that be out WW3? Or could a metor hit the earth, or a nucular war? I am off topic and getting back to the point, To sum it up quickly, SK shut down there program in which was sold to iran, russia wanted more knowledge in which is now rebelling against iran, Iran now hold 2 major nucular facilities in which are alerady being test launced and manufactured ( and im sure being sold to other world leaders whom wants to reek thier own havoc ) This i believe isnt a topic of russia vs the US, but the Us vs Political allies of Russia, and Iran. Russia at the moment have the smartest and most intelligant scientists in the world, yet they cant figure out how to keep in touch with thier own allies and produce a stable ground for them to reech an agreement. Iran used to see eye to eye with russia and the Us at one point in time, but where did this all go wrong? when Senior Bush was in office? Wanting to much oil and rebelled so fire was set to irans oil fields? When Jr. Bush sent troobs into iran afghn to kill dictators of other leaders? To find osama for what he did during 911? No. It was for power, and thats exactly what iran wants is to feel powerful, they dont want to share there knowledge with thier buddies over borders, they dont want to call cnn and say; hey come on down and video tape out nucular warhead launch test, they want the world to be scared, they want the people of the world to fear them and that is what they are thriving to get and are getting right now. All the meanwhile americans are sitting back with our crap economy waiting for somthing to go wrong, waiting to play the blame game to see what will happen next.
Thomas Jefferson I believe, once said that Russia and the United States were the best of friends, or something along those lines. elle v茅cut heureuse 脿 jamais ( be free) 01:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
This article should summarise relations overall from 1776 to the present: see our MoS guidelines on a summary article. elle v茅cut heureuse 脿 jamais ( be free) 01:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Why did russia was so opposed to NATO intervention? 164.67.59.99 ( talk) 01:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm Russian and I don't understand too. In fact, citizenry are not everyone opposed. -- 212.3.159.77 ( talk) 17:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I suppose it's because NATO was created to go to war with Russia? There is no other real reason for NATO; going to Afghanistan, etc, is just minor "make-work" for NATO while waiting to start a real war with Russia. Santamoly ( talk) 03:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
New U.S. Envoy Ruffles Feathers in Moscow by Ellen Barry, published January 23, 2012 99.181.134.88 ( talk) 06:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I made a couple of changes to the organization of the section "Military ties" and included a sub-section on Nato-Russian relations, as I consider that of great importance to US-Russian relations in general. I also took the "Bering strait" sub-section out of "Military ties" as I fail to see the connection. Well, I hope I didn't over-extend my amateur enthusiasm and I expect most disagreements to be related to the rank and organization of this section as the little content I added is well cited, referenced and related (I think). In any case, any feedback would be, of course, greatly appreciated. Cheers. ArticunoWebon ( talk) 15:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Footnote 28 has no relevance to the sentence that it is placed after. Either someone put the wrong number in the wrong place, or it is just a bad link, since the article that it links to has nothing to do with any sort of study it cites. 134.139.237.238 ( talk) 21:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, conceptual error in the opening sentence including mistaking a people for a state (the Slavs and Everyone Else), and for thinking that the history of people equated to a single state of formal governance. 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by 104.172.244.99 ( talk) 06:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
It makes little mention of the marked decline in relations between the US and Russia over the past year or so. It could use more content about the dispute between the two governments over the war in Syria, and should also mention diplomatic disagreements such as those over Edward Snowden and the Illegals Program.
The section titled 'Timeline of peace between the United States and Russia', in particular, could use a rewrite: it seems to be pushing a position that there has been growing relations and strengthening peace between the two countries since the end of the Cold War, and only mentions instances of such cooperation. Such a one-sided list (without an equivalent list of times the US and Russia have been at odds) seems to raise issues with WP:NPOV. Robofish ( talk) 23:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
>> Russia expels US journalist David Satter without explanation( Lihaas ( talk) 09:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)).
I am going to clean up this timeline adding a few good references once in a while. But I am not going to google myself silly; a few citations every 3-6 years should suffice. I always preview my changes or citations, but it's not easy to complete work by people who don't cite their sources. I can't do that in one session, and this will produce different versions. Sorry. ( Osterluzei ( talk) 16:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC))
For the sake of transparency, I think the context behind @ Hahc21:'s recent reversion of a large portion of this article, and suppression due to (alleged) copyright violation, should be mentioned on this talk page. Here is the diff for that reversion (diff is visible to admins).
This is a reversion of material originally added by @ Timothysandole:, then Wikipedian in Residence for the Belfer Center. Specifically, these edits drew heavily from this source, inserting it as a footnote 11 times:
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)The general circumstances were covered in March 2014 in the Wikipedia Signpost.
The copyright status of the excerpts he included was brought up on his talk page.
The two photos I included above (including captions) were also added by Timothy at the same time. I don't know much about US/Russian relations, so I'm not interpreting any of these facts or advocating any specific change to the article; but I think it's important that substantial changes like this should be explained to those who do follow the article. - Pete ( talk) 21:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I've reverted reverted User:Coruscant123's edits to Russia鈥揢nited States relations for a few reasons. First, they removed a significant amount of material without comment. Second, the edits seemed to be written from a strongly pro-Russian point of view. Some of the edits might be fine, but they need to be done with comments or with discussion here. Agtx ( talk) 23:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Russia鈥揢nited States relations. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.鈥 cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Here is a straight-forward scholarly analysis that one editor wants to remove because of his strange claim the coauthors are too ignorant!? It summarizes an article in a major scholarly journal on exactly this article's topic and by Wiki NPOV rules must be included. The editor here seems never to have read the article in question and shows no record of dealing with geography or economics. John Biersack and Shannon O鈥橪ear, "The geopolitics of Russia's annexation of Crimea: narratives, identity, silences, and energy." Eurasian Geography and Economics 55.3 (2014): 247-269. Rjensen ( talk) 07:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Don't confuse POV pushing with just POV. Including two scholars who have absolutely noting to do with the conflict in Ukraine and citing their opinion as one shared by other scholars is POV pushing on your side. Like I already said before there are a million scholars with a million different opinions and including certain ones over others is in fact POV pushing by Wiki editors. If the quote came from someone more relevant to the crisis, then at least it would make some sense to include it, but these specific scholars are very random in this case. Either way, the reference you provided is backed up by only the personal understanding and opinions of those two scholars. Treating that as fact is not neutral. -- Turnless ( talk) 00:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Stop erasing sourced info you dislike. Wiki rule is to include RS covering all sides of the issue. If there is a side not represented it should be ADDED, rather than erase sourced material. You're new at Wikipedia and need to learn the rules. The topic in question is Russian-US relations and not the history of Crimea or Ukraine so we depend on experts on Russia and USA. see wp:DUE Rjensen ( talk) 00:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Turnless: Looking into other's heads is not the role of editors, but it is the role of academics and political experts and, in turn, the role of Wikipedia's editors to reflect well documented, comprehensive analysis. In this case, Russia-US relations may appear to be a far more comprehensive article than other articles on 'country X'-'country Y' relations, but for good reason: the US came out of WWII as the new superpower, while Russia was the central power of the Soviet Union (i.e., all other Soviet states were known as 'satellite states' for a reason) and claimed the crown as the successor state. Consequently, there is an inordinate amount of serious research into the dynamics of the relationship and what makes Russia tick (whether you like it or agree with it). The only comparable political relationship is described in the China鈥揢nited States relations article: an article which also has a lot of scope for development according to the volume of in-depth analysis of the dynamics of the relationship. It is absolutely appropriate that quality scholarship be drawn on to examine the details, even if it means that WP:SPINOFF articles be developed in order to accommodate the scholarship where it is justified WP:CFORK. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 03:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Dear people, by accident I stumbled upon what seems to me to be a vandalized footnote (#22 at this point in time). The footnote purports to link to a White House press release from march 2012, but instead links to a 'news site' that looks more like a Russian government propaganda site. I will in a minute 'vandalize' the footnote a tiny bit more, in order to draw the attention of some editor who is hopefully better capable than me to check this out and (if indeed necessary) repair damage done. (my 'vandalizing' will consist of adding the text: "see talk page!" to the footnote, in the 'edit-summary' I will mention that the footnote was vandalized)
I want to apologize beforehand if this turns out to be a mistake of mine; I do not mean to cause anybody unnecessary work or trouble. Yet it seems to me important enough to bring to you guys' attention, for maybe other links or footnotes are vandalized as well. 77.174.175.230 ( talk) 00:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Ok, my vandalizing has immediately been undone by ClueBot. Of course I won't report a false positive, because it wasn't. But I do hope somebodycan have a look at this (for I am not the right person to do that). Good luck! 77.174.175.230 ( talk) 00:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
RT (TV network) versus Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, a giant and a Lilliput. Xx236 ( talk) 07:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Joint operations and mutual support:
Xx236 ( talk) 08:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
The fact that the CIA and other US intelligence agencies have stated that Russia attempted to elect Trump President is extremely important to US-Russian relations. I would suggest that this revert [ [5]] should be relooked. The article should provide a summation of Russian involvement in the 2016 United States presidential election and a link to the article. Casprings ( talk) 04:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
@ MrX, wrt to your removal of my edit, thx for correction of attribution in your explanation. Given that, though, it would seem not WP:UNDUE to include the quote (鈥淭he aim is to force Trump into enmity with Russia.鈥) from Alexei Pushkov 鈥斅燼 senator who sits on the upper house of parliament鈥檚 defense and security committee 鈥斅燼s a representative expression of Russian perspective. A proper placement could be after "The allegations were dismissed by Putin who said the idea that Russia was favouring Donald Trump was a myth created by the Hillary Clinton campaign.鈥 in the U.S. election of 2016 section. Thoughts? Humanengr ( talk) 02:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
After further discussion, Rjensen and I resolved issues of concern and assembled the following for inclusion:
In January 2017, Alexei Pushkov, a senator on the Russia鈥檚 parliament鈥檚 defense and security committee, said 鈥淭he new hacking allegations against Russia are clearly timed to coincide with the handover of power in the United States, 鈥 The aim is to force Trump into enmity with Russia.鈥 Victoria Zhuravleva, Director of the American Studies Program at Russian State University, who writes analytical papers for the Russian gov't on U.S.-Russia relations, said the current mood in the United States meant Trump would struggle to improve relations with Moscow even if he wanted to. Zhuravleva said 鈥淚f we are realistic we have nothing to wait for,鈥 and went to say that Congress could stymie Trump鈥檚 Russia policies and would probably present him with proposals to hit Moscow with fresh sanctions rather than roll back existing ones. [1]
References
Humanengr ( talk) 20:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I have removed the allies section of the infobox and it must be emphasized that the allies section for BOTH countries have been removed so as to maintain neutrality. It is completely meaningless and just inaccurate information, particularly given the protean and infinite nature of interstate relationships. I am confident that this is a proposal that all editors can agree on irrespective of what we may personally think about the bilateral relationship. Flickotown ( talk) 20:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Under section "Country comparison", the area of the United States is exaggerated. It currently reads "24,033,527 kilometers squared", even when Wikipedia's own list of the largest countries by area conflicts with that number. Perhaps I may be missing something here, but even factoring in all of America's territories, the area would still not add up that high. Correction would be much appreciated. Originally Origins ( talk) 23:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please correct the populations of Moscow and New York cities in the comparison table. Current numbers underestimate Moscow and overestimate New York.
Moscow page says "with 13.2 million residents within the city limits,[12] 17 million within the urban area[13] and 20 million within the metropolitan area."
New York page says "With an estimated 2018 population of 8,398,748[7] distributed over a land area of about 302.6 square miles (784 km2) ... and one of the world's most populous megacities,[16][17] with an estimated 19,979,477 people in its 2018 Metropolitan Statistical Area and 22,679,948 residents in its Combined Statistical Area.".
Probably it makes sense to list 13.2 million residents for Moscow and 8.4 million residents for New York within the city limits. In any case, one should use the same estimate (within city limits or within a metropolitan area). 109.63.180.131 ( talk) 17:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
聽Done The source for the 13.2 million number is from 2015 so I used the most recent number from the Moscow page instead. Alduin2000 ( talk) 20:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
According to this article apparently the Russians have 67,000 tanks, and the Americans have battleships. The military numbers are horribly off and are more comparable to these militaries during World War II military rather than the modern armies. The US only has 2,384 M1 Abrams MBTs in active service, as well as 3.5k in reserve. The equipment numbers aren't even there on the cited website. Russia's tank numbers according to this page are four times the actual total number.
@ SpinnerLaserz: you created the Template:Russia鈥揢nited States proxy conflict, I think here would be a good place to discuss with everyone the point of such a template. Could you provide your reasoning for this template? When should it be applied? I am against its use until the article for Russia鈥揢nited States proxy conflict is rightfully created. -- MaoGo ( talk) 11:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Nothing about RT content. "it has RT America based in Washington, D.C" - quite concise (11 million viewers). Xx236 ( talk) 11:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Do Western readers understand Putin-Medvedev relationship? Xx236 ( talk) 12:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. 鈥 Community Tech bot ( talk) 13:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. 鈥 Community Tech bot ( talk) 09:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
It seems to include countries which are either neutral or have good relations with both, such as Azerbaijan and India. Mexico is not an ally of the USA per the Estrada Doctrine-- 118.211.181.97 ( talk) 14:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
The United State flag and color at the bottom should be on the left side whilst Russia on the right so the image is easier to read/clearer. 166.181.85.158 ( talk) 14:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I see that the country comparison table has been removed from the article. I think it is still nice to retain it so as to compare governance systems and foreign relation networks of the countries (I think it is still informative to know which countries are good with each other and which are not.) What are the opinions of other editors? Lags331 ( talk) 06:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello. I added relations in the 21st century|Second Cold War to the header. thank you. Ironcurtain2 ( talk) 06:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)