Talk:Red lines in the Russo-Ukrainian War

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Military history: European / Russian & Soviet / Post-Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	European military history task force
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

Russia: Military / Politics and law

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force.
	This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force.

Ukraine

	Ukraine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Countries

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry articles

WikiProject Countries to-do list:

edit
history
watch
purge

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy.
Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries
Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region.
Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess.

On 18 August 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Red Lines in the Russo-Ukrainian War to Red lines in the Russo-Ukrainian War. The result of the discussion was moved.

Original research[edit]

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[edit]

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) – Material Works 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"?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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]