Jump to content

Talk:Peace negotiations in the Russian invasion of Ukraine

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Super Dromaeosaurus (talk | contribs) at 10:45, 1 June 2023 (→‎Requested move 30 May 2023). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

April negotiations

Kleinpecan, what are the problems with the sources I used here? Foreign Affairs is a well-known media outlet and one of the authors of the article is Fiona Hill (presidential advisor). The second source I've used (Ukrainska Pravda) might be biased towards the Ukrainian side but isn't known for fakes either. When you wrote "Does not fully represent reliable sources" did you mean that I misinterpreted the sources or that they are not reliable? If it's the former you need to explain your reasoning. Alaexis¿question? 17:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As has already been explained by Ermenrich in the discussion I linked to in my edit summary (Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#"Boris Johnson prevented peace"), the problem is that the addition attributes the cessation of peace talks only to Boris Johnson's visit, even though the Ukrainska Pravda article clearly says that "The first thing was the revelation of the atrocities, rapes, murders, massacres, looting, indiscriminate bombings and hundreds and thousands of other war crimes committed by Russian troops in the temporarily occupied Ukrainian territories". Kleinpecan (talk) 17:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added this as the first reason according to Ukrainska Pravda. Once we have more reports we'll know which of these reasons was stronger. Alaexis¿question? 19:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is important to mention the second reason also, because the UK was to provide a security guarantee under the proposed agreement, and Johnson was withholding it under the circumstances. The English version mistranslates the original article in Ukrainian on this key point. I will try to rewrite the section later. IntrepidContributor (talk) 00:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Reuters piece - Putin had a deal and rejected it

This should go in the article: https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/exclusive-war-began-putin-rejected-ukraine-peace-deal-recommended-by-his-aide-2022-09-14/?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=twitter

- Vladimir Putin's chief envoy on Ukraine told the Russian leader as the war began that he had struck a provisional deal with Kyiv that would satisfy Russia's demand that Ukraine stay out of NATO, but Putin rejected it and pressed ahead with his military campaign, according to three people close to the Russian leadership.

Two of the three sources said a push to get the deal finalized occurred immediately after Russia's Feb. 24 invasion. Within days, Kozak believed he had Ukraine's agreement to the main terms Russia had been seeking and recommended to Putin that he sign an agreement, the sources said.

It says Putin rejected the deal because he had decided to annex parts of Ukraine. Kremlin denies it of course. —Ermenrich (talk) 10:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article name currently contains year of initial invasion

Now that the war has dragged on well into 2023, and peace negotiations continue sporadically, the title: "2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations" is no longer accurate. Any suggestions for something better? Yadsalohcin (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 May 2023

2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiationsRussia–Ukraine peace negotiations – This article includes information about the Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations that did not occur in 2022, but rather in 2023. I would also support a move to 2022–present Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations OR Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations (2022–present) if disambiguation is needed in this article's title to differentiate it from previous Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations, such as the Minsk agreements. However, I do believe that Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations is the ideal title, seeing as it's parent article, Russian invasion of Ukraine, does not have disambiguation to differentiate it from previous Russian invasions of Ukraine. Treetoes023 (talk) 19:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. What negotiations in 2023?
That said, Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations (2022–present) could be acceptable, but why not Peace negotiations in the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Specifying the context is necessary in light of over seven years of Minsk agreements negotiations. Ignoring their existence is recentism, regardless of WP:otherstuff.  —Michael Z. 15:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mzajac: I would support a move to Peace negotiations in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the reason I didn't suggest it is because it never occurred to me lol.

What negotiations in 2023?

The information I was referring to was the stuff in these sections: § January 2023, § March 2023, § April 2023, § May 2023, and § Chinese peace proposal. – Treetoes023 (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, those sections mention no actual negotiations between the warring parties. It is all about “negotiation-adjacent” statements and posturing, and they don’t make me think the article needs to be renamed.  —Michael Z. 01:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article 1918 Russia–Ukraine negotiations exists. The proposed title cannot be a plausible option. Support either "Peace negotiations in (or rather during) the Russian invasion of Ukraine" and if not, "Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations (2022–present)". Super Ψ Dro 10:45, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]