Talk:International sanctions during 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 Mzajac (talk | contribs) at 16:19, 28 January 2022 (→‎Requested move 27 January 2022: clarify article subject, not canonical referent of the title). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Update

Good job. But lets also set some more for specific losses. Ireland announcede about 100m in lost exports. Also Russia called on brazil, israel etc to fill the void. (and liebberman probs has a better relations there than the usa)Lihaas (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We need an "economic impact" section. RGloucester — ☎ 19:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These are details which anyone can add to the article. Articles like this are always going to be slightly behind the latest news and there's no need for a tag. Formerip (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with both. also no need to put a giant one, thee is a mni expand one thats game on other articles.Lihaas (talk) 13:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Entities sanctioned

I'm missing a section (or separate list) about what entities (mostly companies I suppose) have been subjected to sanctions by the various actors here, and what these sanctions mean. Yakikaki (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Yakikaki: See List of individuals sanctioned during the 2013–15 Ukrainian crisis. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Iryna Harpy! However, this list only includes individuals, not entities. Yakikaki (talk) 08:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Yakikaki: Indeed, it's extremely frustrating. There are so many articles talking 'sanctions, sanctions, sanctions'; documentation describing forms of sanctions; individuals sanctioned... but I'm having difficulty finding any information regarding actual companies/corporations/businesses being sanctioned, much less whether the 'sanctions' have actually been acted on in any realistic form. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Yakikaki: I just created an account to direct you to a good source of information, I have no idea how to format or do anything in Wikipedia so I apologize if my format is wrong or I'm doing this wrong. Here's the url for a Department of State page that has a load of resources/links to the actual documents with the lists of entities. On 4/28/2015 a list of 17 entities were announced and are listed here. Hope you can use this for something. @Iryna Harpy: For your awareness (as I'm assuming putting this here will send you a note, but I could be wrong).

Balance

Another problem with the article is it's balance. Right now it consists mainly of a list of dates and a section on criticism, but quite little about why the sanctions were put in place and, crucially, upheld. The article reports on Western politicians and business leaders who have criticised the sanctions, but much less about those many who have argued for sanctions. There should be a balance here. After all, the sanctions are still in place, and have only expanded. None have been removed. It would be interesting to know why this is after all so, despite the criticism noted in the article. The pro-sanctions side has also been quite active explaining why they're in place´and upheld, after all. Yakikaki (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It appears that the article is being used prominently for WP:GEVAL. As you've noted, per WP:BALASPS there has been far more in the way of information about the sanctions and why they've been put in place. The fact that a few articles can be found discussing criticisms (which, in themselves, have for more complex political and economic rationales behind them than are represented here) strikes me as WP:UNDUE. In total they add up as SYNTH implying some form of global disdain for them which, per RS, doesn't exist to the level a reader would come away with after reading this article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sanctions - it is a tool the United States and NATO against Russia. You do not understand it? How, then, did you do this an article? You should bring real facts, not mere allegations! 178.206.175.39 (talk) 08:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked users can not edit Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeа! But if users not blocked they can to write anything and not to give people the facts? It is democracy? 178.206.23.133 (talk) 10:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article is biased against Russia. If Wikipedia is to provide a balanced take on things, then it should be based on facts - not opinion. Statement about "annexation", "aggression", and so forth are regurgitation of a political narrative against Russia. There is no evidence of annexation or aggression, and therefore the impression from reading the article should be in the same key. What is factual is a violent coup led by ultra-nationalists which violated the constitution; then Crimeans (who are mostly Russian) organized against the takeover by ultra-nationalists; they were protected by soldiers who were stationed there (which did not exceed the allowable number of Russian contingent), thereby allowing people to express their opinion - democratically - in peace, despite various provocations from ultra-nationalists; then Russian government united Crimean autonomous region with Russia. And the war in Donbas is in nothing more than shelling by Kiev of residential areas, where Russian speaking majority rejected the illegal coup and the new government. That is the reality for Donbas residents. More than 10,000 people have been killed by the indiscriminate shelling of residential areas. And there is no Russian military...otherwise we would see satellite imagery and all sorts of evidence from the US. Wikipedia needs to clean up its act...otherwise it's just a propaganda channel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factafterfact (talk • contribs) 21:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you do not see evidence for annexation and aggression, you are in a wrong place. I am sure there are a lot of platforms which will happily share and support your views, but not this one.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your response is limited to only one mentioned error, and it makes no sense. It also proves that you're biased, and that your opinion, whether by design or not, is formed based on false perceptions and limited information. You can write a blog, if you like, but Wikipedia is allegedly operating under high standards. And, as stated above, your incompetence leads to misinformation on Wikipedia, which is supposed to be based on FACTS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factafterfact (talk • contribs) 14:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on International sanctions during the Ukrainian crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Passages about Swiss Economics Minister and Bow Group

Hi, I wanted to ask you what's wrong with this edit. This is not "POV-pushing", the info is directly from the two reliable sources. Regards, --S. Roix (talk) 09:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's WP:UNDUE at the least. Please read the discussions above regarding the content of the article. The Bow Group is not a significant international entity, nor is an article conflating sanctions specifically targetting the RF over the Ukrainian crisis with the new rounds of punitive actions over the 2016 elections and Syria anything other than WP:SYNTH. There is already a synthy addendum regarding the 2017 rounds of sanctions in that section. If anything, the 2017 sanctions should be either a spin-off article or a stand alone article. The article is not intended as an exhaustive list of complaints about the sanctions. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that information about sanctions over Syria and 2016 election should be somehow split off, but the Swissinfo article is specifically about the sanctions imposed over the Ukrainian crisis and says nothing about Syria and US election interference. --S. Roix (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@S. Roix: Yes, I agree that Schneider-Ammann's opinion just cuts it as WP:DUE given his position, and that the statement is explicitly about the prolongation of the sanctions imposed as the result of RF intervention in Ukraine. Ultimately, with all of the recent rounds of sanctions on the RF for various reasons, I still think that an umbrella article would better serve the reader. Sigh, another for my wishlist. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this stuff is UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I got Iryna's point on why the Bow Group report is undue, but what's wrong with Schneider-Ammann? --S. Roix (talk) 06:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's cherry picked.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How do you conclude whether or not it falls under WP:CHERRY? This is a statement made by a high-level Western country official, quoted by an RS, and he's far from being alone on this (i. e. it's not a minority viewpoint). --S. Roix (talk) 07:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would restore the comments by Schneider-Ammann. This was a big deal in Switzerland. Note to S. Roix: Switzerland is not part of the EU, see Switzerland–European Union relations. — JFG talk 07:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A bunch of Italian, German and French politicians have also expressed discomfort with the ever-prolonged sanctions. The French Parliament even voted to cancel them but the country can't do that unilaterally. So, yes, criticism of sanctions from various European countries is DUE. — JFG talk 07:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You'd need RS to qualify this 'bunch'. Other than the one article, all I've seen is reactions to various sanctions against the RF, not over the Crimean sanctions specifically. As I expressed earlier, an article specifically on the recent rounds of sanctions against the RF may be deemed an appropriate article, but this is not the article to address the subject matter in. Using an article because it exists where an appropriate article does not is WP:COATRACK and WP:SYNTH. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The statements I mentioned applied to sanctions over Crimea, not the latest round. I see that some of those were already mentioned in the article. — JFG talk 23:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, if you go through those references only the Schneider-Ammann article talks specifically about Crimea. While it exists, I tend to go with VM's appraisal of this being CHERRY. It's being forced into the article in order to resuscitate the controversy. No artificial resuscitation, please. There probably should be an umbrella article for the various sanctions, but it needs to be written. Frankly, I'm surprised that no one has made any form of attempt to create such an article... possibly/probably because most editors are focussed on the Trump stuff. When/if an umbrella article is created, there's plenty of fodder for content provided that it doesn't contravene NOR or RECENTISM. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

S. Roix, you are now edit warring undue content into the article. Please desist and read WP:VNOTSUFF. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I do not see why this particular guy is WP:CHERRY. How is he worse than anyone else mentioned in the "Criticism" section? He's not fringe, and he does not represent a minority viewpoint. --S. Roix (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Schneider-Ammann is a member of the Swiss Federal Council (7-people government), in charge of the economy. Swiss press covered his stance towards Russia in January[1] and in June–July as he led a mission to Russia.[2] Notable enough to include. — JFG talk 20:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a matter of better or worse, more or less 'important', etc. It's a matter of digging around to find more complaints about economic impact (not whether it is considered deserved) to pad out the section every time there's a mention anywhere (see WP:RECENTISM). Hmm, perhaps we should start a section on reactions from various leaders who think that the sanctions are a terrific idea and would have/would like to have seen far more than just a few punitive measures implemented and feature their opinions (i.e., emblazon them across the article)? Would you consider that DUE? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it would be fine to show that some uninvolved world leaders still profess strong support for the sanctions three years after their initial implementation. Do you have sources for this? On the other hand, dissenting voices have grown, not so much politically but rather economically, and this shift deserves to be represented in the article. I'm absolutely against knee-jerk lets-copy-the-latest-news recentism but I also believe that we shouldn't leave the article frozen at the 2015 status quo. — JFG talk 23:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with JFG. Before discussing whether we should include opinions in favor of sanctions we need to determine whether there are sources that summarize pro-sanctions sentiment in EU, like there are for anti-sanctions sentiment. And disdain over sanctions was really growing since autumn 2014, culminating after the 24.07.17 bill; the article should reflect this. --S. Roix (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This still leads us back to creating a tie-in article. The unrest over sanctions is essentially a cumulative effect over the duration and multiple rounds of sanctions over more than just the Ukrainian crisis. I do think that this particular article has reached a standstill serving as historical documentation as to the background to the initial sanctions. Adding more to it without context (that is, 'a lot of other stuff has happened since then') is veering WP:OFFTOPIC. Finding the occasional sound byte in the news is WP:SYNTHy as it only adds to a list as if, by your own admission, this is all taking place in a vacuum. As to developing a section on who liked it, it really was a tongue-in-cheek suggestion as I'm seriously against WP:EXCESSDETAIL. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you were only joking about adding a review of current support for sanctions? Fine, although I thought that was a useful suggestion. I don't think the article should be considered "historical documentation" yet. We will reach that point if/when the Ukrainian crisis is resolved; hopefully that takes fewer decades than the Palestine situation…[haha, only serious] — JFG talk 00:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was a kinda-sorta joke. It's fairly standard for articles of this nature to present a broader overview as to international reactions. If the section is added, it needs to be kept to major responses. With regards it being an ongoing issue, the title is 'during the Ukrainian crisis', and the event known as that encompasses actually encompasses a series of events now all but forgotten in the public eye (or mixed in with subsequent events). In that sense, it documents a period in history which triggered off an escalated RF profile in other areas of the world and, consequently, an escalation of anti-RF sentiment and rounds of sanctions, so I would favour an umbrella article as a venue in which to explore the bigger picture (more like the Cold War II article). Yeah, it will be resolved some time around when pigs learn to fly, or the global revolution happens. Superpowers, eh... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem, so you say we should make no more additions to the "Opposition within Europe" section until an umbrella article is created? --S. Roix (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, yes... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't get your point. An umbrella article would surely be better, but since no one has written it yet, so what? Do you really think it would be better to "freeze" the section as it is and censor out any new updates? --S. Roix (talk) 10:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting off-topic and undue content

The '3rd round of sanctions' sections has now turned into a hefty piece of WP:SYNTH using WP:UNDUE and WP:OFFTOPIC content about sanctions against the RF for other events after the 'Crimean crisis'. I will repeat that this article is specifically about "International sanctions during the Ukrainian crisis" - per WP:TITLE - specifically, not a catch-all because no one wants to write a spin-off article on sanctions against the RF over the last few years. Everything stated in the section above still stands. The fact that an editor just doesn't like it is irrelevant. Wrong article: write a dedicated article because, yes, this article does stay 'frozen' where it is being used as a WP:COATRACK. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Generally I agree, but the statements I was trying to add to the article (i. e. those by Peter Szijjartov and Schneider-Ammann) specifically refer to the sanctions that were imposed due to situation in Ukraine. So I don't see how censoring them out would help. --S. Roix (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 January 2022

– Sanctions were introduced due to Russian intervention, so Russia should be in the title. Heanor (talk) 10:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support  This is overdue. The Ukrainian crisis article is about events starting with the protests in Ukraine from November 2013, and does not include the war. International sanctions were introduced March 2014, in response to Russian international aggression that constitutes the Russo-Ukrainian war, February 2014 to the present, and continue to be updated and added to this day. —Michael Z. 16:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_sanctions_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War&oldid=1068474418"