Talk:Russia

Template:FAOL An event mentioned in this article is a June 12 selected anniversary

---

• talk page /archive

Russia owns territory deeper in Europe?

If you zoom in on the world map, you’ll see Russia highlighted green and some other tiny country deeper in Europe, not connected with Russia. What country is that?

You're probably talking about Kaliningradskaya Oblast'. It's a part of Russia, and yes, it is disconnected from the mainland (just as, say, Alaska or Hawaii is disconnected from US mainland). Azov 20:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, an exclave. It seems it has a bright future... just hope Russia doesn't lose it. Dont worry sooner sun stpos shining than russia let herself loose any part of its territory...

"Maritime border"

Is there an accepted definition of "maritime border"? I don't see how Russia can be said to have a maritime border with Canada (presumably across the Arctic Ocean) but not with, say Sweden (from Kaliningrad Oblast across the Baltic Sea), Bulgaria and Turkey (across the Black Sea), Iran and Turkmenistan (across the Caspian Sea), and Greenland (also across the Arctic Ocean). Until someone can define "maritime border" I'm recasting the sentence and excluding Canada. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 09:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Angr, your correction makes total sense to me, I think yours is a very good way to put it in the main article. May be listing of all those borders, which you made out quite accurately (oh, only perhaps need to add in Finland, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Germany?) - may be such list belongs to Geography of Russia rather? As for the definition of "maritime border", before we get a hold of a mariner or a coastguard or a diplomat :) - might it simply be part of the border which runs the coastline or extends into the sea waters :) (the tricky part of course, all those demarkations, customs, different statuses, brrr-br) - Introvert ^talk 06:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I excluded Finland, Estonia, Lithuania, and Poland because they're already mentioned as countries having a land border with Russia. I know how I would define "maritime border" if it were up to me: according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, a country's territorial waters extended 22 kilometers from the shore; therefore two countries could be said to share a "maritime border" if they are separated by less than 44 kilometers of water. But that's my made-up definition, not an established one AFAIK. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 12:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes it'd be interesting to find out, thanks for clarifying. I previously thought that in the intro, it was okay to have used "maritime border" á la common sense because to a layman (like me) it'd simply state that this country faces another over sea waters. In the special "borders" section or article, an accurate definition would be used. You did both - avoided loose usage and made the intro even more clear - Introvert ^talk 03:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm a layman in such matters too, and my common sense said I can see how Russia can be said to share a "maritime border" with the U.S. and Japan, but not Canada. That would be like saying the U.S. shares a "maritime border" with Portugal and Morocco, which strikes me as just silly. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I am having a hard time seeing how Russia can be said to have close borders with the United States (Alaska, I presume), but not Canada. Russia and Canada basically face each other across the ice over the pole, and are quite contiguous, thank you. It's just that people aren't used of thinking of the polar projection when seeing a map of the Earth. I'm putting Canada back into the list, and if anyone wants to contest this, we can discuss it on this page.32.97.110.142 19:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

unclear paragraph

In Russia#Spatial extent, the following is not clear:

It is also often mentioned that the Russian federation spans eleven time zones. However, this is confusing because the points which are furthest separated in longitude are "only" 6,600 km (4,100 mi) apart along a geodesic.

I'd say it requires an explanation of why it is confusing.--Imz 19:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Privyet, and...

To any Russians who may be editing this page, this caught my eye:

"Putin's presidency has brought stability, and won endorsement from Western governments by Putin's commitment to fighting Islamic terrorism."

I should mention to the person above that Putin has made a few communist endorsing statements. One statement he made was the the fall of the Soviet Union was a tragedy. 07:44 January 31 2006 (UTC)

Is this an exaggerated portrayal of modern Russia, or is it a propagandistic portrayal? It sounds like something they show on the public (ie Kremlin) channels all day, but I know it's not true - I've been visiting Russia over the past few years and lived there for a year very recently. Anyone care to discuss and change this statement? -- Simonides 01:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Privet, and thanks! what an embarrassment. It's this edit from 12:20, 15 October 2005; isn't that what they call "fell through the cracks"...

I gave it a try; and even though a mention about terrorism, as I think, would have been quite in place, but I removed the reference to "Islamic terrorism" altogether because that article just didn't seem like proper reference to me. Please edit me down (or out) further as you see fit. Please keep up good watch :) - Introvert ^talk 08:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes, the Putin govt does keep vowing to fight terrorism, but whether they've actually "brought stability" or "won endorsement" for basically tightening censorship and other so-called security measures is questionable. :) -- Simonides 03:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Demographics Confusion

"Judaism is very uncommon among non-Jews"...is that really necessary?

Russian "Names"

What was the point of putting in this information? Sure, other people want to know, but is there any point? If anything, please at least make that longer. That is a stud that needs serious work. Thanks.

"That is a stud that needs serious work." That's what she said! WHOO! --The Amazing Superking 21:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Objectivity

Was looking over the article, and I came across this paragraph:

"Like in the Balkans and Asia Minor long-lasting nomadic rule retarded the country's economic and social development. Asian autocratic influences degraded many of the country's democratic institutions and affected its culture and economy in a very negative way."

Isn'this a bit non-objective? It also seems very euro-centric and disrespectful for Asian people all over. I'll watch this page and see if it's changed, and what the discussion is. What does everyone think?

Danil, Russia: I think it's true. The Mongol Yoke that lasted for 300 years left a huge and very negative legacy. Mongols didn't directly impose their wild asian lifeslyle. But they did one thing - they brought Muscovy to power. And Muscovy, which was a very backwards and agressive Russian dukedom, took over all the rest Russian more developed dukedoms and killed Russia's European features.

I don't think it's objective and the above statement is just reflective of the bias within Russia or in Western commentators on Russia. -- Simonides 04:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Emphasis markers in transliterations

Hello. I keep discovering acute accents placed systematically on the letter following the stressed vowel transliterations from cyrillic script, and not the vowel itself. Please participate in this discussion — as yet, only my humble opinion has been voiced). //Big Adamsky 23:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Barbarossa

There is an error in this text. It says that Germany and it allies invaded Russia. Germany attacked Russia, but Finland was attacked by Russia. Yet it says Finland invades Russia. Finland must be removed from that or add something to make it more clear.

Russia invaded Finland in the Winter War in 1940. Later, when Germany invaded Russia in 1941, Finland participated (although it's not like they had a real choice). The text is correct. Toby Douglass 14:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

No its not correct since Finland actually didnt invade what is considered as russian soil but what is considered as finnish soil. finland didnt invade what is considered to be russian, it was a counter-offensive to win back land that finland lost during the winter war. atleast thats what i have been taught, i may be wrong but i find it more likely that a scandinavian nows more about his peoples history then a american/english or whatever nation the name Toby Douglass derives from. /Oskar

Finland occupied East Karelia during GPW, including its capital Petrozavodsk (Petroskoi or Äänislinna in Finnish). It has never been a part of Finland (neither Duchy, nor Republic). 85.94.45.106 15:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The winter war began in 1939 with the Soviet attack on Finland, not in 1940. Finland indeed did not begin the offensive on Soviet Union during Barbarossa. When the German offensive on Soviet Union began, the Soviets also bombed Finland who had minor troop movement and presence of German troops in Finnish Lapland (military access). Not that the Finnish intention was NOT to regain those areas, it just gave them a better excuse for mobilization at that point (and joining the Axis)

Check out this link to clear things up: Continuation War --Illythr 20:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Name

"See wiktionary: Russia for the name in various languages. Main article: Etymology of Rus and derivatives. The name of the country derives from the name of the Rus' people. The origin of the people itself and of their name is a matter of controversy."

No this is not a matter of controversy in the west its fully accepted and considered as a fact that the rus people came from sweden, "the matter of controversy" only exist in Russia mostly amongst russian nationalist that simple cant accept the fact that sweden actually did have some influence in russia (what was to become russia) when are russian nationalists going to give up this silly issue? my question is since theres no evidence what so ever that the rus peoples origin derives from elsewhere then Sweden, is it ok for me to make some minor edits maybe even delete? /Oskar

Trade with china

I will add this info

Trade volume between China and Russia reached $29.1 billion in 2005, an on-year surge of 37.1 percent

China is now Russia’s fourth largest trade partner, and Russia is China’s eighth largest trade partner

In the first 11 months of 2005, China’s export of machinery and electronic goods to Russia grew 70 percent, accounting for 24 percent of China’s total export to Russia. During the 11 months, China’s export of high-tech products to Russia grew 58 percent, accounting for 7 percent of China’s total exports to Russia. Most of China’s exports to Russia remain apparel and footwear.

In the first nine months of 2005, China’s contracted investment in Russia totaled $368 million, twice that in 2004. China now has over 750 investment projects in Russia, involving $1.05 billion.

During the January-November period of 2005, border trade between the two countries reached $5.13 billion, growing 35 percent and accounting for nearly 20 percent of the total trade.

Russia’s exports to China are mainly those of energy sources, such as crude oil, which is mostly transported by rail, and electricity exports from neighboring Siberian and Far Eastern regions. In the near future, exports of both of these commodities are set to increase, as Russia is building a giant pipeline to Pacific Ocean with a branch to Chinese border, and Russian power grid monopoly UES is building some of its hydropower stations with a view of future exports to China.

Feel free to help me re write it so that it sounds difrently then the article

Which i got from here

http://www.mosnews.com/money/2006/01/12/chinesetrade.shtml

Cuba Crisis

The Russians didn't build Nuclear Silo's at Cuba, it was the paranoia of the USA which made everyone think that and the Russians played on this and got the USA to withdraw its nuclear silos from Turkey in the process. Overal, thanks to paranoia of the Americans, Russians made themselves safer.

       Of course. The u.s. establishes nukes in Turkey --> Russia 
       established nukes in Cuba. Only fair.
       -G
            Curse my typo*  Russian nuclear silos are either classed as a myth to get USA to withdraw theirs from turkey, or the pending danger stopped within 13 seconds by a russian submarine commander who had to decide either or not cuba should fire the silos.

The Russians didn't have nuclear silos, but they did have nukes pointing at the US in Cuba. They were just mobile missile launchers. The movie "13 Days" does a good job portraying this crisis.

Tsar of Russia

There seems an inconsistency here, the page stated that Ivan III was the first to assume the title Tsar. However, officially it seems Ivan IV is the first Tsar of Russia.

A few general issues

Alright, I made a grammar/syntax sweep of the page and noted a few odd things on the way. The changes I did were strictly non-political, so I'm posting the trickier stuff in hopes of advice from the regulars here:

• "In October 1991, as Russia was on the verge of independence"

I’d rather say "...as the Soviet Union was on the verge of collapse" – Great Britain doesn’t celebrate its “independence” from the US, after all...

Soviet Union was the multinational state. It is not necessary to represent its colonial empire only because the capital was in Moscow. Stalin as is known was the Georgian, and Khruschev was the Ukrainian. Imagine the hindu - the prime minister of the Great Britain? --82.147.64.113 06:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, an incorrect example. Still, I don't think the last remaining state in a union can really declare its independence from said union.

• Russia has taken up the responsibility for settling the USSR's external debts, although its population is 50% of the population of the USSR.

But the decisions were made in Moscow at the time, weren't they?

• In late 2005, Russia increased the price of gas to the Ukraine from $50 to $230 per 1,000 cubic meters of gas.

I think this needs a clarification, that $230 is, in fact, the market price for the gas, so that the sentence doesn’t make Russia look like an extortionist monster almost quintupling the price just like that.

Illythr 23:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed the finished stuff --Illythr 13:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Soviet Union successor

What does it mean that Russia is "usually" considered the successor state to the Soviet Union? Is this to suggest that anyone who doesn't think Russia is the successor state thinks that there is no successor? Or is there some crazy loon out there suggesting that Uzbekistan is the real heir to the Soviet Union's geopolitical prescence?

Some people might consider Russia as the same political entity as the USSR,they do not recognize the Russian Federation,or believe that The Russian Federation and the USSR are separate existing entities. Dudtz 2/22/06 9:00 PM EST

Huh? What do you reckon the difference between "Russia" and "Russian Federation" is?—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 02:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)