Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War

Irondomes immediate reaction on reading this, 21 hours ago.

This entire article needs to be drastically re-written. At the moment it stinks. totally Ukrainian dominated POV, with no insight into the Crimeas effectively Gibraltar like status. Its almost exclusively ethnically Russian, so self determination issues come in here too. You cannot invade when your military is already there. I would suggest NPOV input. A renaming to Russian reinforcement of Crimean military bases is NPOV. Invasion is laden with issues. Irondome (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Irondome since when Crimea has a Gibraltar like status? Only half of population in Crimea is Russian, so stop your false remarks. There are heavily armed Russian soldiers without clear identifications who are trying to disarm the Ukrainian military. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 13:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Irondome, Crimea is more like Cornwall in England. Ukraine is an unitary state see the Constitution of Ukraine. There is a limit how much Russians may keep number of troops in Crimea which they over exceeded. Any "reinforcement" that you call it prohibited. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 13:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Irondome, in Crimea cannot be any military units other than Russian or Ukrainian. Plus, it is prohibited in Ukraine for private individuals to carry arms. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 13:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Even if your military already has a presence by using a port in another country, it doesn't mean you can occupy its government institutions. There's a difference between that and just being there. --Article editor (talk) 02:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, there are issues with the legitimacy of that local administration. Is it Ukrainian colonial or is it accountable to the Crimean population. In elections, I doubt they would survive anyway. Its Russia. Irondome (talk) 02:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Its Russia. . Um... no. Let's have some fun. Find a source for that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no "fun" in an issue where lives are being lost. But quite literally, in terms of facts on the ground, it is. Im sure sources backing that would roll in BTW, but lets keep it civil and on point. Ok VM? I respect you as a WP stalwart, so lets keep it cool. Irondome (talk) 02:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Call it "dark humor". Now, can you find a reliable source which states that Crimea is part of Russia? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Doubts have evaporated

Whatever doubts about a real/actual Russian military intervention in the Crimea that may have existed when this article was created 20 hours ago, have pretty much evaporated now with multiple worldwide major media reliable sources covering the matter, and numerous nation-state governments commenting on it and responding to it.

So I think this particular Talk page section entitled What????, may not be the best place to continue discussing article improvement. I would think that many other sections below, or added to this section after this time, will shed more light and less heat. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Invasion?

None of the sources cited in this article call this an invasion and not a shot has been fired. What's stopping someone from starting 2014 Liberation of Crimea? This article needs to be merged with 2014 Crimean crisis. LokiiT (talk) 02:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

While there are some sources available that are referring to this crisis as an invasion, they are not included in this article. A few examples are the statement from the US government here: (CNN), "Putin ready to invade Ukraine" here: (Reuters), and the statement from NATO suggesting that Russia "must respect Ukraine's sovereignty" here: (Turkish Press). Regardless, there is definitely a "military intervention". I am not sure what the criteria is before we can call it an "invasion", but a variety of media outlets seem to be beginning to refer to it as one. If this does not meet the criteria, then the article should be moved to 2014 Crimean crisis.--The Morphix (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I broadly agree with that Irondome (talk) 04:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

[1].Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

That certainly deserves a LOL, but there are certain facts and indeed law, that can be marshalled. Is it legal under international law to abolish a languge by a state where a significant group speak it? Are the ethnic Russian population intimidated by aggressive Ujrainian nationalist sentiment? What is the role of neo=nazi groups in the centre of govt, and what role did they play in spearheading the revolts? There is interesting stuff here VM. that I just think we are not covering clearly yet. Irondome (talk) 04:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

This article isn't about the "legality under international law" of "abolishing a languge" - which hasn't happened, and I don't think that is covered under "international law". It's also not an article about "the role of neo=nazi groups in the centre of govt", which is also bunk. All that is irrelevant. It's an article about the invasion - the intrusion of non-Ukrainian troops onto Ukrainian territory.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The Russian military has clearly intervened in the Crimea of Ukraine, and done so militarily: with force or threat of force. Force doesn't occur only when shots are fired.

That being said, if you want to propose the article be renamed, and "moved" to another/better title, possibly without the word invasion, I would recommend you make that proposal below, and let editors begin to weigh in on that with policy-based rationales. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

What invasion?

This is blatant Ukrainian propaganda. There is no-way this is an invasion. Troops already stationed in The Crimea didn't invade anything. To be completely unbiased, they are occupying certain areas. Russia did not authorise an invasion, they authorised deployment of troops to protect Ethnic Russians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmydreads (talk • contribs) 06:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

" Russia did not authorise an invasion, they authorised deployment of troops to protect Ethnic Russians." Have you ever heard of the term doublespeak? Limestoneforest (talk) 08:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

An invasion with no resistance and no shots fired, with troops being welcomed by locals? It's not nearly as clear cut as you'd like to think, especially considering that half the country doesn't even recognize the current "official government". LokiiT (talk) 08:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

"An invasion with no resistance and no shots fired, with troops being welcomed by locals?" Two problems: the fact that an invasion was met with no resistance and no shots fired does not mean that an invasion did not occur. Also, that Russian troops were being welcomed by locals does not mean that the locals of all of Crimea welcomed them. (e.g. Crimean Tatars) Limestoneforest (talk) 10:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Ukrainian military tries to avoid conflict and solve this at diplomatic level, however, there were incidents that clearly identify soldiers without identification that roam Crimea as Russian troops. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 14:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that the only people who have problems with this article are those who have some sort of bias in favor of Russia. Is this an invasion? Um, yeah. There is a clearly defined border between Ukraine and Russia. The fact that Russia sent its military across that border makes this an invasion. What else would you call it? "The population of Crimea is Russian." So? The population of the Southern United States is overwhelmingly of British decent. So if the British army invades Savannah, Georgia, by that logic, it would be legitimate. Furthermore, Russia gave Crimea to Ukraine. Even Russia recognizes the right of Ukraine to control and administer the area. I will fight this article's deletion if it is deleted. Sbrianhicks (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Most major media outlets, with the exception of Russian propaganda outlets like RT, are calling it an invasion. "Spell out the consequences for Russia's invasion of Ukraine" by the Washington Post, "Crimea invasion: Russia blasted by world leaders" by the Associated Press, "Ukraine Tells Russia Invasion Means War as Putin Makes Plans" by Bloomberg News, and these are just some of the top search results. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and if the sources call it an invasion, then so should Wikipedia.--Rurik the Varangian (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

In order for more light and less heat, and in the interest of civil discourse, I would recommend that if someone wants to propose the article be renamed, and "moved" to another/better title, possibly without the word invasion, it might be best to make an explit proposal to that end, below and in a new section, and then allow editors to weigh in on that with policy-based rationales. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

—==Russian occupation? NPOV concern==

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

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

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

″There was no pre-existing conflict, unless you count the Russian troops who occupied Simferopol″ - it's as clear as day that there was pre-existing conflict, it's the direct consequence of the Euromaidan events that led to Yanukovich's overthrow, instability in Crimea and separatist tendencies among the population of Crimea. Russian leadership took advantage of the situation. You just can't hide all this and claim the invasion just came all of a sudden or even that it would have occurred anyway. This would be unwise. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

there was no instability in Crimea until Russian soldiers occupied the airports and parliament. The instability it a result of the occupation. You can't intervene in a situation you created.--Львівське (говорити) 23:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Come on, the whole country was unstable, esp. so Crimea where even before Yanukovich's overthrow 41% supported unification with Russia, by far the largest margin among Ukraine's regions [2]. This is non-negligible part of the population. The biggest party in Crimean parliament was the party of the president who was ousted after bloody street-fighting in Kiev. People who gathered at meetings that started in Crimea around 25 February [3] were no FSB agents, but people who sincerely believed, rightly or wrongly, that the new government was adversial to their interests. To reduce all opposition to the interim government to Russian subversion is tantamount to claiming Euromaidan was some Western conspiracy.Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

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

I'm going to stay agnostic on this for now—this is after all only 24 hours after the event occurred—but both posters Bogu and Львівське have a valid point, that is worth thinking about for now, and possibly acting on at some point as the worldwide media sources become more clear. N2e (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe with the condemnations Russia is receiving from the world about the invasion and occupation of Crimea that the title must be changed to reflect exactly what it is. Intervention brings a feeling that there was a pre-existing conflict. None was present on the Crimean peninsula during Euromaidan or the week of under the interim government. only when Russia made its presence known with a "military exercise" did the situation escalate. YES to the title of 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine 74.76.57.171 (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

"Blatant Ukrainian POV?" Seriously?

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

What is blatant is the MSMs attempts to portray this western backed coup (which appears to be collapsing in large areas) as some kind of Slavic spring. It aint. Your attempts to portray myself and another editor as somehow errant in consensus is mischevious. Are you challenging my GF? There is much misgiving about developing events, in many eds minds. Stop stirring mate. Irondome (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Stop using the talk page as a soap box. If you have any actual changes to the article in mind, propose it on the talk.--Rurik the Varangian (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Could you please expound on that accusation or give a few examples? I don't believe I've introduced any "Russian propaganda" into any article. I try to stick to verifiable quotes and uncontested events (unlike either side in the media war). You're fooling yourself if you think western media is any less biased than Russian media. LokiiT (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Original research? Could you please point out a single edit I've made in any article regarding this matter that wasn't properly sourced? The irony in citing NPOV while claiming that all Russian media reports are propaganda is astounding to me. This isn't the place to be ranting and raving. LokiiT (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Not ALL Russia media reports are propaganda, of course. For example, the Russian channel Dozhd did not give any propaganda, but they are now shut down under accusations of being foreign agents. The others news outlets that tow the party line stay afloat.(I can give you many other sources about this.) I never claimed that "all Russian media reports are propaganda", but I am not surprised that you choose to distort what I said in order to justify your argument. There is no doubt that Russia is holding a war against Ukraine right now, which includes a war of media propaganda. I just asked you to be unbiased, but I guess it is too much to ask considering that you so quickly chose to distort what I said. As for "ranting and raving", am not the one who brought up "blatant Ukrainian POV".--BoguSlav 23:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

LokiiT, Boguslav is correct. There is a power full information propaganda from Russians who groundlessly accuse the new government in Ukraine as fascist and extremist. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Please, check the Euromaidan article for more information. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Please stop pinging me. Some people are trying to gnome on mainspace here. Irondome (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Russo-Ukrainian War?

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

There is no inevitability of a "Russian-Ukrainian war". I would suggest that Kiev gets on with it, while it still has 10 neo-nazis and a dog to rely on in the back alleys of Kiev. There appears to be mass defections in the armed forces, the navy being the most notable. War is unlikely. Irondome (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Irondome—please try to avoid making the Talk page into a soapbox, discussing the situation. Instead, please discuss how to make the article a better article without the inevective and inuendo. N2e (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It is not a war at this time, and this is already being discussed in an earlier section on this Talk page—so let's discuss improving the article there.

It is not a war for purposes of this encyclopedia until many reliable sources refer to it as one. If that ever happens in this particular instance of cross-nation interventions, then conceivably someone ought to PROPOSE a WP:MOVE, and only then, after consensus is achieved, move the article to some different article name. N2e (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The article needs to revert back to the original title. Then, someone should open a WP:MOVE request. We have to discuss the article title on the talk page before moving it back and forth.--Rurik the Varangian (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It is definitely not a war. Also second the request to Irondome to stop adding inflammatory comments.Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)