Talk:Timeline of geopolitical changes (1900–1999)

Inclusion of Khmeimim Air Base

I'm not sure that the Khmeimim Air Base should be included. From what I can tell, this is just another case of extraterritoriality and if this was included we should include many other military bases, embassy creations, etc. Is there something different about this military base that I am not seeing? --Pithon314 (talk) 02:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

It was leased to Russia until at least 2066. I think such leased territories/foreign concessions that are the subject of special treaties should be distinguished from normal military bases and the like, which could in theory be terminated at any time. Many such cases are already included on the timeline, though others from the 19th and early 20th century are still missing — even Hong Kong falls within this group, though it is the most extreme example. There is a public conception, both historically and in the present, that countries cede control over their territory through such concessions in ways that goes beyond normal, more limited and conditional agreements of extraterritorial rights; China again and the Ottoman Empire were the infamous examples of this historically, and across the Middle East today much of the public views the Syrian Government's concessions to Russia at Khmeimim (and Tartus) as a return to that practice. Sladnick (talk) 08:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Such examples definitely do not transfer the sovereignty from the host country to the foreign country. At least under the current intro, I don't believe they could count. Right now the listed territory changes we have are: "such as the annexation, cession, or secession of land." The land is definitely not being changed here, just control. Maybe we should amend it to include the examples in the special cases section of the extraterritoriality page. I would be okay with this change because I agree that they at least involve a transfer of control over a piece of land. --Pithon314 (talk) 06:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

What do you think of changing the second sentence of the intro to: "It includes dates of declarations of independence, changes in country name, changes of capital city or name, and changes in territory such as the annexation, cession, or secession of land, as well as international leases and concessions."? I'm the deleting the entry on China's lease of Gwadar, because it doesn't reach the level of a direct state-to-state transfer of (temporary) sovereignty, even though many are afraid it could become that de facto. Sladnick (talk) 13:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm changing my proposal for the second sentence to: "It includes dates of declarations of independence, changes in country name, changes of capital city or name, and changes in territory such as the annexation, cession, concession, occupation, or secession of land." Sladnick (talk) 22:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Leases aren't changes to sovereignty. A military base, even with a lease, is nothing like British Hong Kong. I've been intending on removing any military bases from the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Sladnick, how do you disagree with removing military bases from this article? Surely you can't think this article can list every military base in history. More to the point though, they aren't any different as sovereign territory. This seems like it's just to include Russian bases in Syria. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, this isn't a timeline of changes of sovereignty, but of geopolitical changes. In that regard an argument could even be made for the inclusion of all military bases. Yet I am only arguing for the inclusion of the small percent of military bases (and bases for other uses like Baikonur) in which there is a treaty to transfer sovereign rights (as distinct from the principal of sovereignty) over the land on which these are based. I was not the first to add such sovereign lease territories to this timeline, and the cases are not limited to Russia's two recent agreements with Syria: you removed Thule for example, which is a perpetual lease, and Guantanamo Bay is another with the same status. Since not many people are active here, and it will be hard to form a real consensus, I will try to seek out some actual literature on the topic rather than just digging in my heals based on opinion. Sladnick (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware these include perpetual leases. As a matter of law, these military installations remain on the sovereign territory of the hosting country, and the arrangement is subject to the laws of that country. Thule remains entirely within the sovereignty of Denmark and Guantanamo Bay remains entirely within the sovereignty of Cuba. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

That's the theory, that the lessee remains entirely sovereign, but of course the reality has been different since this means of acquiring control over territory was first devised. It seems to me treaties transferring sovereign rights over land were an important part of the global geopolitical order before the Second World War, remained an important part of the US's hemispheric order, and has reemerged as an increasingly significant part of the global order since the end of the Cold War. But as I said, I will try to inform myself more on the matter ASAP. Sladnick (talk) 21:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

That's highly Wikipedia:Original research. They aren't transferring any rights of sovereignty, so they don't belong in this article. Russia does not have sovereign territory or territory with sovereign rights in Syria. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

That's the opposite of Wikipedia:Original research. I'm specifically saying I will try to find how leased territories are treated or not treated as geopolitical entities by reliable, published sources such as in the fields of academia and jurisprudence dealing with international law, the UN, encyclopedias, etc. And again, this isn't an article on changes of sovereignty. Do you propose to make it one? In that case a lot more needs to be taken out. Sladnick (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I was considering the first two sentences to be original research, but I acknowledge what you have said about doing further research. The only justification for including military bases was changes to sovereignty and sovereignty rights, but those aren't relevant to military bases. Unless there is some other way that military bases are similar to the other items in the list, they can't be considered relevant here. Leased territories could certainly belong in this article, but that does not include military bases. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Confusion understood, and I appreciate your clarifying. But on that point the same distinction I drew between practical jurisdiction and technical sovereignty was made by L. F. L. Oppenheim, often regarded as the father of the discipline of international law, in whose most influential text, "International Law: A Treatise", the distinction is clearly drawn that while the territory legally remained the property of the leasing state, the lessee state might treat the leased territory as its own territory and a lease might resemble cession. I will wait at least until tomorrow before adding more, to have time to more carefully gather sources (trying not to unduly prejudice my starting position). Again, my intention in doing this is to help identify some objective foothold for this debate, so that it is not just a clash of opinions among a handful of people about what should count as geopolitical changes. Sladnick (talk) 01:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

It would be untenable to decide if a certain military base should be included in the list based on how the tenant regards the lease. These leases can be overturned by the lessor according to its domestic law, unlike territorial cessations which can constitute leases like British Hong Kong. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

That is simply not true in the cases we (or at least I) am discussing, which is the specific reason why I presumed the list included leased territories to the exclusion of military bases in general — a criteria which has nothing at all to do with their use as a base, but is entirely about the status of the underlying territory. Oppenheim, for example, insisted that until a lease expires ”it is the lease-holder who exercises sovereignty over the territory concerned,” and that it would be a violation of international law for the lessor state to unilaterally abrogate the lease. I encourage you to take the time, as I am trying to do, to take a step back and place your case on as solid of foundations as you can. Sladnick (talk) 01:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

That's not the case for military bases though, or the land of these military bases, which is what I'm discussing. They are not in any way overseas territories of the lessee. I am interested to see the material you are reading, but it's clear they don't belong in this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Please provide some reference for your claim that military bases cannot function as a lease in which "it is the lease-holder who exercises sovereignty over the territory concerned". I am not disputing that most military bases in the world do not meet that criteria. For example the US's major base in Bahrain is leased through a simple agreement between the two governments, not through a treaty which would hold any weight in international law.[1] But the type of lease agreement involved in Russia's base at Tartus, for example (please study the full text for yourself [2]) has a completely different legal basis: it is an international treaty ratified by the parliaments of both countries, binding on both even in the event of a change in their government structure (Article 4), in force for a period of no less than 49 years years even at the end of which Syria can reclaim the lease only if it has filed through the proper diplomatic channels for termination at least one year before the expiration date, otherwise the lease is automatically extended (Article 25). This is not a case unique to a few of Russia's bases: Denmark cannot abrogate the treaty underlying the lease at Thule Base [3] or Cuba cannot unilaterally reclaim Guantanamo Bay [4] without violating international law. Sladnick (talk) 10:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

It is not a function of any kind of military base, but it's always possible that a military base can be on territory that has sovereignty transferred. Thank you for providing me with the text of the agreement, but can you direct me to which part of this makes a claim that sovereignty has been transferred from Syria to Russia? American sovereignty is simply not claimed to have been transferred from Cuba or Denmark. Instead of what is undoubtedly considered original research, and I do respect the research element of this, we need something that says sovereignty was transferred from X to Y. We can't just read into it based on agreements and academic understandings of the implications of those agreements. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

It spells out a process Syria has to go through to ever get this territory back. I cited an authoritative interpretation from the discipline of international law that such treaties should be recognized as a transfer of the exercise/jurisdiction of sovereignty. This is not original research. I could cite a dozen other authorities on international law that give the same interpretation, but in this entire exchange you have yet to provide any evidence to support your claims, and instead just keep repeating your opinion (which you are entitled to) and making technical accusations that don't stick (which I don't appreciate). Sladnick (talk) 23:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

We would need reliable sources on international law which describe this particular agreement as a transfer of sovereignty, not simply reliable sources which describe these kinds of agreements as a transfer of sovereignty. To the extent that you are doing the latter, that is a WP:SYNTHESIS which is a form of original research, which I say in no way as a personal reflection on you, it just describes what that would be. I don't think I can be expected to find sources which say that something which is not a transfer of sovereignty is not a transfer of sovereignty. You're making an argument applying reliably sourced legal principles to a particular case, but as a talk page participant I cannot make an assessment on whether that is a correct application, nor can anybody else who participates here. I mean absolutely no discord here, it's just a matter of having the sources say explicitly what you propose this article says. If indeed a reliable source does explicitly say this, then I would have absolutely no issue including it in the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Deutsche Welle says Russia was transferred sovereignty over the territory the base is on. [5] On the other stuff sorry if I took it personally, but the main point in all that I said above is sovereignty is not an established criteria for inclusion of entries on this timeline — half the entries already don't meet that. Sladnick (talk) 00:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I would not object to removing the most recent entry on the expansion of Khmeimim, since the reporting on it is too vague to tell if this was done through an amendment to the existing concession treaty or is just an adjacent lease that may have completely different terms. Sladnick (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

To your point that sovereignty is not the only criteria for this article, that is true, but it's the only criteria that could apply to military bases, unless you have another criteria that this would be relevant. I wouldn't have thought there was another, since you have been putting forth the case that these are matters of sovereignty. The Deutsche Welle source is interesting and may be sufficient, but would this be enough to consider the area as Russian territory on other articles? Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I have been replying to the point on sovereignty in general (you originally said leases can't be considered a change to sovereignty), and in particular on whether leases can be considered to transfer sovereignty even if they're just used as military bases (you also said if they're nothing like Hong Kong they don't count) because you insisted that sovereignty was the only acceptable criteria — and since this talk page is not active at the moment and I didn't think it would be productive to just keep arguing on the level of conflicting opinions. Sladnick (talk) 01:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not reflecting on your conduct at all in this discussion. I just assumed your only proposed justification for including military bases here was that there was a change in sovereignty. I probably could have been clearer earlier in saying that the military base lease itself isn't a transfer of sovereignty or relevant to this article, but a lease of territory in which sovereignty is transferred is likely relevant, which may happen to include a military base. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Recent move

Stadnick,

why the recent move has been done? Did it have a discussion/consensus (I don't see such)? So it should be reverted, many important information were lost.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:50, 30 October 2020 (UTC))

It was a good split of a very large article and I thank Sladnick for it. I don't see any information being lost, can you provide an example? I would only remind that the edit summary for the new article should include a reference to the original article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Any information before 1900, important geopolitical changes. What new article are you referring? However, for such move and harsh trimming the article without consensus is not viable. I'll wait one reply from Stadnick, but after the earlier status will be restored.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC))

Timeline of geopolitical changes (before 1900). Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

KIENGIR There was a consensus to split it six months ago. [6]. Sladnick (talk) 23:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

That consensus was not for this, but an other splitting. However, since Onetwothreeip let me know nothing is lost, I tend to accept if others won't object.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC))

Day-to-day military movements in Ukraine

I can't see this being either useful or maintainable. They were bold, I reverted, they decided to revert again and I have no patience for that nonsense anymore. But, I'll try to do more than they did and discuss. --Golbez (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

So, the discussion brought up by Golbez has two parts, "Useful" and "maintainable". I am commenting on the "maintainable" aspect, as I believe it is very easy to maintain this. Only the completed battles/attacks of the war are documented here, and that only means ones Russia wins is documented here (As when Russia wins, territory changes). I have been working on the Weather of 2022 timelines and charts, and those are a lot more complex and harder to maintain than this would be, so I strongly believe this would be easy to maintain. I feel the discussion should be about it being useful instead. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

"When Russia wins, territory changes" Are you saying that if I published a map today, it would be inaccurate unless I drew Chernobyl as being part of Russia, despite Russia not claiming it? --Golbez (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

No, but you are taking it out of context. For example, according to the chart, 1940, July 1, "The Bailiwick of Jersey is occupied by Nazi Germany". The argument you used could be the exact same for that, if you were to draw a map for July 2, 1940, would you say Jersey is Germany? No. They just occupied the territory. Same thing for these. Russia hasn't annexed anything, they just militarily occupy it. Actually based on that example listed there, not including these new territorial occupations would mean all the WWII things in 1940 would need to have notability questioned unless they were directly annexed. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Fair - not everything has to be claimed to be noted. But I would argue that the whole political unit of Jersey was part of a wartime occupation, and had to be administered as such, and that sets it apart from simple troop movements. Like, we don't have each town the allies took in Italy along the way, and I would argue we have way too much detail in wartime movements anyway. And you are arguing for including something as miniscule as an airport, an uninhabited region, and an island with no civilian population. This is way too much detail, and way too recent. --Golbez (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Detail is the name of this section basically. I assume you mean the uninhabited region for the Chernobyl entry, for one, that is hugely significant with radiation alerts being send out about that and Europe going to DEFCON 2 (Invasion article). Also, uninhabited entries are listed like November 24, 2009 (US uninhabited island note). The airport houses the worlds aircraft. The island, assuming you mean Snake Island, did have a “population”, if you count the 13 soldiers who died during the Russian attack. If you read the attack’s article, you would notice that it was an insignificant battle that became significant due to media attention. I think it is good to question the entries, but with some very insignificant entries already listed (in years past), I would say some detail is ok. Also, modern wars are fought one of two ways. Guerrilla warfare, meaning almost no territory changes, or invasion style, like the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine or Allied invasion of France/Germany in WWII, where territory will change rapidly. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The intro paragraph says, "Territorial conquests as a result of war are included on the timeline at the conclusion of military campaigns, but changes in the course of specific battles and day-to-day operations are generally not included." Thought this was relevant, the word generally means it still is up to debate but this is usually not included. --Pithon314 (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree in principle, BUT I would still suggest continuing to add the day-to-day changes while the war is ongoing (for present usability and to easily show how the territory has been changing), and then collate any and all eventual "fixed" (using the term loosely) changes once we're sure the war has ended (for now). DrWhoFanJ (talk) 19:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Possible middle ground could be to include only battles with wikipedia pages of their own? Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Minor correction... Recent reports have demonstrated that the 13 Ukrainian soldiers in the Snake Island battle did not die but were instead taken captive by the Russian military and were subsequently released. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

This issue seems to be still ongoing. In my opinion, it is strange that the conflict in Ukraine has day-to-day documentation of every sub-conflict that occurs within it (i.e. battles), whereas all of the other conflicts on this page just have a single blanket statement for the entire conflict. For example, the collapse of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and its subsequent takeover by the Taliban (Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan) only has a single entry in this list. So, why does Ukraine have dozens of entries? It should really just be one big entry for the "Russian Invasion of Ukraine", with everything else listed within that entry. All of these sub-conflicts are obviously related to one another and don't warrant separate entries for each and every one of them. 159.196.168.62 (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

^The above comment was made by me when I was logged out. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Another comment... Bear in mind that this entire article is about "geopolitical changes". It's not just about wars. For example, there are numerous entries about border (including maritime) demarcations, which don't necessarily involve conflict. And there are entries about countries changing their official names, which usually doesn't involve conflict either. Entries about Ukraine are only useful to the extent that they describe the war/invasion as a whole. Taken in the context of the entire article, it is a case of Wikipedia:UNDUE to mention every battle within the entire conflict. It is only useful to mention sub-conflicts of the war when they involved distinct but related situations. For example, the recognition of Donetsk and Luhansk by Russia deserves to have a separate entry even though it is heavily connected to the Russian Invasion of Ukraine and occurred only a few days beforehand. But, for another example, the situations in Mariupol, Kyiv, Chernobyl, and Kherson all belong together because these cities are all wholly included within the territory of Ukraine, rather than being distinctive regions. Subdivisions of Ukraine should not be given separate entries. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Israel green-lights Red Sea islands transfer (from Egypt to Saudi Arabia)

Is this event significant enough to be written about in this Wikipedia list? The original transfer of the islands (between Egypt and Saudi Arabia) took place in 2017, but it was only finalised in July 2022 when Israel agreed to the terms surrounding the transfer. This final act might not constitute a geopolitical change in and of itself, but it might be relevant to mention as an addendum in the original 2017 entry in this list. Saudi-Israel normalization Red Sea deal | Jargo Nautilus (talk) 08:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

20th Century vs 21st Century

We're 22 years into the 21st century and this article is exhausting to scroll through. I think everything after 2000 should go onto its own page 74.64.122.27 (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2022 (UTC)