Jump to content

Talk:Threatening statements in the Russo-Ukrainian War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Reading Beans (talk | contribs) at 02:36, 9 December 2024 (Relisted requested move using Move+). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Are those Russia's redlines or newspapers redlines?

Are those Russia's redlines or newspapers redlines? I am under impression that those red lines are imagined mostly by newspapers, not draw by Russia. If my impression is correct it has two bad consequences

  • The articles is not 'encyclopedia article' but war propaganda done by side of the conflict
  • Even if we would accept fact that Wikipedia stops being encyclopedia, then convincing people that we are crossing redlines makes a very dangerous situation. When one side make a true red line then this article will make easier for politicians to convince people that crossing such red line is something normal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.28.84.20 (talk) 18:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely right.
This whole wiki is a useless embarrassment and could only be characterized as war-time propaganda.
The "red lines" listed in the table are not "red lines" at all. Checking the links to the articles, many which are far from impartial most glaringly "euromaidan", show that it is simply any Russian official making a threat. This is not at all what "red line" means.
The whole article should be either removed or any reference to "red line" removed and replaced with "threat" except where explicitly proven. I can only think of a few, for example NATO membership, where the actual words "red line" have been stated or even implied.
The purpose of these kind of articles is simple. They are to show that "Russian red lines are empty threats" and to help justifying constant escalations. Bluikkso (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

I've just re-assessed this article as Start-class and tagged it as it contains original research. The claims about Storm Shaddow missiles are not supported by the source, and other material seems similar. I'd suggest focusing on analytic articles as sources rather than news stories. Nick-D (talk) 02:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments - I've added a number of extra citations and a new section regarding 3rd party countries and I will keep looking out for analytic articles.Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 09:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 August 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks 19:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Red Lines in the Russo-Ukrainian War → Red lines in the Russo-Ukrainian War – lowercase “red lines,” which is not a proper noun.  —Michael Z. 19:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is about "Red Line" as a boundary line, I know it is not physical, but a "Red Line" is an object whereas a "red line" is part of a drawing with a crayon..... Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide evidence that that might be true? G.B. Ngram shows that the capitalized version is very little used in reliable sources.[1]  —Michael Z. 15:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Searches for some recent examples in books seem to indicate lowercase is used.[2][3]  —Michael Z. 17:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And a red line is not an object at all, but an abstract concept expressed figuratively. It is not even a boundary on a map, but a limit in behaviour that triggers a response if exceeded.  —Michael Z. 16:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, Red line (phrase) which is linked in the page itself does not capitalize the L in the title. Exobiotic 💬 ✒️ 20:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'Red Line' makes sense to define it as a specific noun or phenomena, but it is simply not actually used and as stated, is not used even in Wikipedia's own example so it should likely be changed to lowercase. Samus Rox (talk) 17:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy move per nom. No reason why it should be capitalized. HappyWith (talk) 05:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arrest Warrants a "Western Consequence"?

Labeling the abductions as a "Western Red Line" with the consequence being that the ICC issued arrest warrants, depending on how you look at it, seems like it is either tangential or it is a statement that the ICC exists as a Western tool for NATO diplomatic ends, or that it is being used as such by NATO. I may be missing some context or relevant information. But regardless, this framing of both the abductions and the actions of an international body that exists ostensibly by virtue of over 100 member states of the Rome statute for the purpose of prosecuting things like war crimes and crimes against humanity, as being a mechanism for upholding NATO specific geopolitical agendas seems very poor at best.

Am I the only one who thought this was strange? Goldscurvy (talk) 14:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The abducting children crossed a red line in may countries opinions .... it has nothing to do with NATO.... many countries signed up to the ICC, including Russia. The ICC simply sees this as a crime, that is why they can issue an arrest warrant. Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ânes-pur-sàng Sure, but the item is listed in a table labeled "Western Red Lines". That's why I am mentioning it in connection to NATO. In this context, "The West" is pretty much synonymous with NATO, which is tacitly acknowledged by the article in its usage of the words.
The questionable thing to me is specifically where this item is being listed and whether it is relevant and clear. Goldscurvy (talk) 12:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The cited source[4] seems to imply that the crime crosses a legal and moral red line that turns a dictator into a fugitive war criminal and his régime into an international pariah. (I would go further and say that his publicly confessing to committing one of the potentially genocidal acts—against children—in the Genocide Convention, while publicly inciting genocide, crossed red lines of humanity, and red lines of a court investigation whose mandate includes genocide.)
But I don’t think it means to say that this was a red line that was explicitly set by Western states saying “Russia, don’t kidnap Ukrainian children, or else.”
Not sure if that means it should be included here or not  —Michael Z. 23:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mzajac That does make significantly more sense. Although "red lines of humanity", and "red lines of the International Criminal Court" are both distinct from each other, and each are individually distinct from a "Western Red Line". A "Western Red Line" is more political and diplomatic in nature, while the ICC red line (ideally) carries stronger legal connotations which exist independently of any specific geopolitical or diplomatic agenda of any Western country, and technically independent of any direct control by any Western country.
Which would make inclusion fairly misleading, at best. Goldscurvy (talk) 12:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, arguably all three of the above categories are the red lines of international law and the post-WWII order, intended to serve as a check on rogue, criminal régimes that would defy it and undo it.  —Michael Z. 12:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unprofessional Reading

This page is full of paragraphs that are really unprofessionally written. To begin with, when referring to figures, even if you have no respect for them, we should still at the very least refer to them by their full name. Preferably we also mention their position. Furthermore, when refering to states we should refer to them by their proper name. Stating "China said X" may lead to confussion over which China. Furthermore, we should mention if it was an official government statement or said by someone in a speech.



Varjagen (talk) 12:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also forgot to mention that the use of "the west" should be limited as is it an undefined vague geopolitical block. Preferably we should instead mention the specific statements or organisations that back the mention up. Varjagen (talk) 12:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged vs real consequences

The Consequences column in the table contains a mix of Putin's claims (presented as reality) and things that happened around that time, but not proven to be consequences.

For example, it's Putin who claims that war in Ukraine is a consequence NATO not being withdrawn to 1997 position. It's an allegation, a claim. We don't know if it's a real consequence. Another example, "New targets hit by Russian missiles" after supply of long-range missiles to Ukraine. Well, new targets were being hit before the red line was broken, and after. We don't know if this really was a consequence, or just a continuation of the war efforts.

Also there's various comments (some are not marked as comments like "Supplied MiG's will be destroyed"). Given that comments are non-material, they probably shouldn't be in the Consequences column? YouAreNotYourThoughts (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Febuary First 2024 attack of Crimea with Scalp and Storm Shadow Missiles

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2024/feb/01/russia-ukraine-war-live-latest-news-updates

This would lead one to believe that at least Crimea was attacked by western made, nato rockest. As the Storm Shadow is UK, and Scalp is French.

Of course I am not sure, in what sense Russia meant Crimea is its own territory, maybe this is just noise to shift this red line in the near future. Kvothe356 (talk) 11:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New article

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-red-lines-united-states-long-range-missiles-ukraine-1948786 ꧁Zanahary꧂ 14:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested attribution for "To some experts"

From a Brooking's institute article this past May:

Putin did escalate his nuclear rhetoric in the last weeks of his reelection campaign, even if there was obviously no need for such grandstanding in order to ensure the result, which was effectively produced by unprecedented fraud.
[...]
Putin’s nuclear messaging impressed some experts in Beijing but, contrary to his intentions, prompted European policymakers to rally. Germany’s reservations were downplayed as Chancellor Olaf Scholz and Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk held a meeting with Macron and confirmed that support for Ukraine would be expanded.

These and other statements in the article suggest that the author could be cited as an expert who would support the statement that "the number of red lines that have been crossed reveal the inability of belligerents involved in the war to project power internationally." ☠MarkAHershberger☢(talk)☣ 20:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 November 2024

Red lines in the Russo-Ukrainian War → Threatening statements in the Russo-Ukrainian War – The name of this article and the use of "red lines" elsewhere in this article is misleading and a personal feeling of the article creator.

Looking at Red lines in the Russo-Ukrainian War#Russian red lines the table includes 24 supposed "red lines" with links to sources included. The sources for these 24 "red lines" do not at all support the claim that the 24 items are "red lines": they are simply "threats", "demands" or other statements from Russian officials, and the term "red line" is not even mentioned by Russian officials. The article begins by an explanation of the term "red line" but then it goes on to list any "threat" or other "demand" as a "red line" without any support for the claim that it is a "red line". It is as if any news article that included the words "red line" is used as a source. A correct source would include a direct quote from a Russian official that includes the words "red line" -- otherwise it is just a "threat", "demand", or other statement, etc.

Along with the article name all the "red lines" not supported by primary sources, direct quotes from officials, etc. should be changed to "threats" or other more accurate words.

Examples of misleading use of term "red line":

  • Note 46:
    • Used as a source for "red line": "Not to supply Patriot Missile system"
    • The source does not support the claim of a "red line" at all, not even a simple threat, it only includes a statement from Russian official. All it includes is:
"Former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev warned NATO against providing Ukraine with Patriots and denounced the Atlantic alliance as a “criminal entity” for delivering arms to what he called “Ukrainian fanatics.”"

"If longer-range missiles are supplied, "we will strike at those targets which we have not yet been hitting," Putin told the Rossiya-1 state television channel in an interview."

"On August 3, Russia said it considered North Macedonia's donation of T-72 tanks to Ukraine "a major mistake that will only help the criminal actions of the Kyiv regime.""

"Russia’s deputy foreign minister has warned Western countries of “enormous risks” if Ukraine is provided with F-16 fighter jets, Russian state media TASS reported Saturday."

"Putin has issued three key demands to Western powers, marking his red lines in negotiations. First, he demanded that Ukraine should never be allowed to join NATO. Second, the organisation should halt its eastward expansion and roll back to its position in 1997."

There are many more similar sources that do not support the claims in this article.

If these listed "red lines" are supposed to be "red lines" based on the sources cited then any simple threat, demand, etc would be a "red line". It is as if this article is trying to conflate "red lines" and any threatening statement from a Russian official. Bluikkso (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 04:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 02:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should this move request be approved I would also edit the article to use more appropriate words in the content. Bluikkso (talk) 19:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: No comments yet ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 04:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Threatening_statements_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War&oldid=1262002089"