Talk:Russia–Ukraine relations

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

IM SORRY, BUT THIS ARTICLE IS MOSTLY BULLSHIT.[edit]

This article has obviously been very selectively edited by some pro-Russian jingoists. Between claiming that "Ukraine was part of Russia" which is about as correct as saying that "All of France was part of Nazi Germany during WW2" - simply not true. Somebody cherrypicked nonsense like a random Der Spiegel article to make a particular point on a very contentious subject (the oil and gas disputes). In short, this article reads like a screed, and I'm going to recommend it for deletion as it is not encyclopedic in tone or content. Furthermore, blanket statements about Yanukovich and/or Yuschenko government relations with Russia are so oversimplified as to be, well, wrong.

YES, an article about Russia Ukraine relations can be written, but this is not it. This is childish nonsense that does not reach the standard of wikipedia. The "talk" page here and the flame wars going on here simply reinforce this view.

The article should be scrapped in its entirety. It's one of the worst, qualitywise, that I have ever seen in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.12.110 (talk) 09:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who is this idiot that denies that the Ukraine and Russia were once one nation. Has he ever heard of the Mongol invasions?
Not sure what impact the Mongol invasions would have on the ethnicity of Ukrainians and Great Russians - two separate slavic nationalities. Strange comment. 50.111.6.33 (talk) 03:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article is indeed very poor. It is a gloss and neglects significant and traumatic episodes in Russo-Ukrainian relations which have been developed well in other Wiki articles. The most obvious omission is any discussion of the fate of the Kulaks during collectivisation, or of the "Holodomor" or famine of 1932 which devastated much of Ukrainian agriculture (see the Wikis for those events, they contain full reading suggestions). To imagine that these events have left no trace on current Ukrainian identity is silly. The attitudes of Ukrainians in WW2 were thus highly complex. Some were overt supporters of the Germans and to understand why this was the case requires a serious and scholarly article. An approach dominated by considerations of energy and economic dependency will not suffice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlad the implorer (talk • contribs) 23:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine was part of Russia for more than 300 years. Before becoming a part of Russia, Ukraine didn't exist. By 1653 the most parts of the territories, that make Ukraine these days, had been parts of other countries for hundreds of years. Only Cossacks lived in Zaporozhye - they joined Russian Empire in 1653 and inside Russian Empire and then USSR the territory of modern Ukraine was formed. It became independent only in 1991. Kramatorskaya (talk) 18:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This editor’s first and only edit is right out of the Kremlin’s “Ukrainians are a fake nation” narrative being used to justify war and incite genocide. —Michael Z. 19:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How about some sources?[edit]

I see there is another experiment in either original research or free writing from someone's personal experience is going on. Shouldn't any article start from a compilation of sources to be used and then content built upon them? This seems to be the other way around - first original research and free writing then looking for sources to support someone's view of history and events. This is the very wrong way to start an article and is very discouraging as to the content that is going to be invented eventually. --Hillock65 (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The entire 2000s section looks like POV. It implies that the dislike of a "potential national union" is caused by anti-Russian sentiment, which our article identifies as a "phobia" or an irrational mental disorder. Ostap 03:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's find consensus[edit]

It seems nobody has a problem whith the text (ok needs sources) till the 2000 section. My first atempt to rewrite that section has resulted in my own POV writing (I strongly dislike the current rulling politicians in Russia). So I am asking for help from fellow wikipedians, the problems I see are:

  • 1 Gazprom says the rising gas prices are not political motivated and therefor can not be linked to the orange revolution, an atempt to do that looks verry OR in my opinion
  • 2 Isn't the NATO membership seen by Russians as a sign of hostility and drop of Ukraine's perception, has Ukrainian EU membership anything to do with that? That would be new to me...
  • 3 Can anybody please find a good source for the rise of rise in Anti-Russian Sentiment in Western Ukraine. Can anybody come up with a good source atall for Anti-Russian Sentiment in Western Ukraine! Don't they investigate this sort of things in Ukraine? The only source for Anti-Russian Sentiment in Western Ukraine I saw on wikipedia is a poster by a political party who got 0,15% the last general election.... All the refs/links at Anti-Russian sentiment#Ukraine are dead! Besides I live in Holland and a lot of people here don't like Germans and Americans, but the diplomatic relations with those country's in excelent.... Some people from Novorossiya tell me people in Lviv will not answer if spoken to in Russian and others tell me that is is a myth. A lady told me there was proof for the fact Lvivians will not answer if spoken to in Russian on the internet, if that proof is wikipedia then wikipedia is frigthing Novorossiyans that can't be our task....
  • 4 How can internal policies fuel the dislike of Ukraine in Russia when Yulia and Yuchenko are constantly appeasing Russia?
  • 5 Is it not statments by the Russian Foreign Ministry and the Mayor of Moscow and other Russian politicians who fuel the dislike? or is that OR on my part?
  • 6 Does the Russian in the street realy gives a fu## if or if not Russian becomes the second language in Ukraine?
Please come up with sources and not with OR (in the cause of Anti-Russian Sentiment in Western Ukraine it seems to depend on who you speak how bad it is, you can't base an article on that imo), ok we can do this Mariah-Yulia (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the fundamental problem is that this article is being written backwards - first OR-laden text is written and then people are asked to look for sources. I understand that some may have done this out of lack of experience and being new to Wikipedia, but why some other experienced editors with regalia and rewards on their personal pages wrote whole sections without any sources is beyond explanation. That's where all problems with POV and everything else come up. I suggest we start compiling sources section before doing anything else. I added interwiki to Ukrainian version of the same article. Although it is a very complicated topic and that article is just as bad, some sources may still be used. The compiled sources will help determine what needs to be in the article and what is unnecessary - sources and only sources will determine the structure of the article. Let's go one step at a time. --Hillock65 (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem here is that some people want to offer assistance and put some ideas into the article, in hope that others would then base on it. There is no such thing as final stage, as this is one of those articles that lives with the current events. The problem is that some people would make a small effort while others would only sprawl tags, reverts and then bitch on the talk pages on how bad the other party is because they made an effort to start the article off. Put it this way had I left it as a stub, it would still remain one sentence long right now. At least I can take credit for encouraging others to give this article attention, and hopefully write it out. Maybe I should give myself another award for doing so eh Hillock, or would you like to do that yourself? --Kuban Cossack 15:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that spamming WP with OR and POV deserves another award - go ahead. This is not your first day in WP you should have known better, in fact I bet you did, you just chose not to care. And you know as well as I do that this is not the first time you are spamming articles with WP:OR. I would rather prefer that this article remained a stub that someone without bias and with sources could have expanded. It is way better to write afresh then correcting someone's OR and POV-ish mess. --Hillock65 (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could reply to this, but I find Feeding trollish entries disruptive so instead I would focus on questions adressed by Maria-Yulia instead (PS: What exactly of the Danubian Sich article did you not like?)
  1. Yes, it is true that Gazprom's relation has been purely economic and not political, but the ricochet that this dicision caused has been as political as they come
  2. Well the Russian government has clearly stated that they are opposed to NATO expansion, and the fact that Yuschenko is constantly re-assuring them definetly belongs here. EU is a bit more further afield, as it is clear that in the next decade there will not be any enlargement.
  3. Well recent discision such as these are unlikely to have a positive reaction in Russia.
  4. Statements by Luzhkov are as bad as those by Tarasyuk or Lutsenko, in fact both Russian and Ukrainian politicians take credit for souring relations
  1. Remember this is not Russko-Ukrainskiye relations but Rossiysko-Ukrainskiye. At that point it really does not matter what a Russian on the street would think. --Kuban Cossack 07:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course. This is article about state-to-state relations, not about relations between two peoples. Therefore, I removed the irrelevant segment.Biophys (talk) 02:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, prior to 1768 there was diplomatic provision for Ukraine. Little Russian collegium? I think its important to add that Ukrainians held high positions in Russian society as a trade for their land being absorbed by Russia. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 13:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kiev says tries with Russia to solve refinery feud[edit]

Found another problem in this article [1], not sure if it's wort mentioning, but if so we have a ref alreaddy! Mariah-Yulia (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Text from Wall Street Journal article[edit]

Although this text might be too suggestive, it is relevant to the current state of Russia-Ukrainian relations, and this is not OR. If you think it has "undue weight", please balance this by adding more sourced views on the subject, instead of deleting text that you do not like. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC) Remember, articles should be not only informative but interesting.Biophys (talk) 21:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it because of wiki-rule WP:NOTCRYSTAL, adding Putin's statment next to it ("Russia has no imperial ambitions"[2]) still makes it WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have also deleted it, for the same reasons Mariah, so you have my support with that. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 19:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People, please read WP:NOTCRYSTAL policy. To the contrary, this policy tells the following: "

It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments ... whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analysis.

It also tells that whole articles about anticipated events may or may not be appropriate: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred."

Clearly, this is not a separate article, and claim is verifiable per WP:Verifiability.Biophys (talk) 02:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made it clear that this 'potential coup' is something discussed in an American newspaper. I am really not sure that it belongs in this article at all though. This 'story' in the American newspaper is probably nothing to do with Ukraina. If the 'story' has something to do with Ukraina, perhaps you could find some reliable sources such as Ukrainian newspapers.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC) I have reduced the American speculation to one sentence, and put the rest in the footnote. Otherwise we have something that is to do with the PR efforts of the Georgian Government being given undue weight in the article.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need Quote?[edit]

Windyhead, the reference and the article on the 2008 Political crises state the obvious, what exactly else do you require in the article? --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 08:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide quotes for "relations between Ukraine and Russia soured, due to President Viktor Yushchenko's support for Georgian position" and for "it in turn provoked the 2008 Ukrainian political crisis" --windyhead (talk) 08:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quotes from what? Wikipedia is written from Secondary sources not primary. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 09:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What those sentences are based on? Please provide quotes supporting them. --windyhead (talk) 09:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are based on the material in the sources and also qouted from the first sentence in this article. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 10:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, please also quote sources you base those sentences on in this article. --windyhead (talk) 10:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once again the secondary source from a non Russian or a Ukrainian origin is sufficient, I still dont't understand what exactly do you require. Had a peek through the basic MOS, SOURCE and OR policies, and nothing sufficient changed in the six weeks I was away for regarding quotes. So please enlighten me or provide an example of what exactly you require regarding the sourced sentences in the article. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 11:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, please provide a direct quote from the sources, confirming those sentences. --windyhead (talk) 11:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a requirement of any wiki policy. Quotes are necessary when dealing with primary sources, i.e. if I was to refrence Yushchenko directly I would link it to his website and quote him, but in presence of secondary sources, quotes are unnecessary. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 11:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, since you rejected to provide verification quotes for sentences you added to the article, they were marked as needed verification --windyhead (talk) 11:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is nonsense, I provided an easy accessable source and per WP:COMMONSENSE one can easily look up the information. You failed to specify exactly what is required of me. For your information adding direct quotes from sources as you would expect in a news bullitin is forbidden per point 5 here (there is wikinews for that). Exception would primary sources, my sources are secondary. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 12:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I checked sources you provided and there is no info confirming sentences added into article by you. If you think sources do confirm sentences, please provide confirming quotes from sources. Please avoid removing quote requests and verification requests from the article until the issue is resolved. What is exactly required from you: please provide quotes from sources confirming sentences in question. --windyhead (talk) 12:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not distort sources[edit]

I noticed that certain users distort sources according to their POV. The author Zakaria does not even mention Yuschenko, but Ukraine. So, please do not substite one for the other, stay true to the source, to what the author says. As well, if the author claims that SO war was a diplomatic disaster for Russia, so do not edit it out. It is important for this article about relations between countries. This is contrary to WP:V and most of all this is dishonest and disruptive. --Hillock65 (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but the fact that the SO war was a diplomatic disaster for Russia (or not) doesn't fall in the scope of this article, I removed it. I don't see a dramatic more pro-west course suddenly in Ukraine (other then Zakaria personal opinion (just to put his opinion in the article would be WP:SOAP)). Mariah-Yulia (talk) 20:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, an opinion of a specialist in the area is a valuable point of view and deserves its place. It is not yours or mine POV but one of a specialist from a credible source (WP:V, WP:SOURCE) and cannot be excluded because some don't like it. It is very relevant to Russia-Ukraine relationship and I restored it. Please look up what WP:SOAP means, it has nothing to do with Mr. Zakaria, his political views are not stated or known. It helps to know what a policy actually means before quoting it. --Hillock65 (talk) 01:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The quote talks more about Poland then Ukraine.... My concern was that somebody would use the quote to start wp:soap and wp:weasel and both you and Kuban Cossack seem to have done that with the quote... (by the way this is article about state-to-state relations, not about relations between two peoples so that 60% union stuff makes no sense here). Mariah-Yulia (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shaken, not stirred[edit]

Hee people let's not put things in this controversial article that look like WP:OR or guesswork by authors/journalists/news media. It's very romantic to believe that Yuschenko blew his cabinet up for Georgia and very 007 to think a coup is about to break out in Sevastopol but there is no smoking gun for both claims. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 20:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the article desperately needs some balance- mostly in minds of editors:) And the article also needs some structure.FeelSunny (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other source[edit]

Volodymyr A. Potulnytskyi "The Image of Ukraine and the Ukrainians in Russian Political Thought (1860-1945)" ACTA SLAVICA IAPONICA Volume 16 (1998)

I found this source, but am unsure where it could best be put to use. Perhaps it can be used to expand this article, or in a further reading section.--Stor stark7 Speak 17:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a (sort of) similar note, shouldn't the Valuev Circular and Ems Ukaz and the fact that Taras Shevchenko got punished for promoting Ukrainian be mentioned in the article? This might be controversial so I ask here first. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 23:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I were you, I would really consider confining myself to explaining relations of the two independent states within this article. I.e. relations of Ukraine and Russia (since the first date of existence of both states and during periods of mutual existence), not parts of Russian empire, or republics of USSR, or Ukrainian and Russian peoples, or Russian government and Ukrainian people. Otherwise, we should call this article Oppression of ethnic Ukrainians in the Tsarist Russia, or Transition of Crimea to Ukraine or Soviet/ tsarist language policy or something like that.
This is about diplomacy and mutual relations. And there can be no mutual relationship if there are no two actors. Explaining why Ukrainians are good and what Russian government did wrong is of no use in this article.FeelSunny (talk) 22:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also found this poll, but I'm not sure what to make of it... 63.9% of Ukrainians would like to see Ukraine and Russia as independent, but friendly states and 27.4 percent believe Russia is a "friendly state and strategic partner". The poll seems misleading if only 1 answer was possible... — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yuschenko Advocating Maximum Improvement Of Ukraine-Russia Relations[edit]

Should this info be put in the article or is it just non-noticable PR talk? — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 15:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainians opinions don't matter?[edit]

I just read an interesting article which shows survey results on how Ukrainians feel about Russia. I also noticed that in this article there's virtually nothing on relations between the peoples of the two countries. It's all just history and political disputes. I think some of the figures in that article should be mentioned to put things in better context.

  • the number of Ukrainians rooting for “reunification” (with Russia) has risen over the last year, from 20 percent to 23 percent, and the number of Russians in favor has fallen from 19 percent to 12 percent.
  • R&B’s survey found that 35 percent of Ukrainians would like to see Ukraine united with Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan, compared to 22 percent who wish to join the EU and ten percent who wanted to restore the Soviet Union.
  • While only a quarter of Ukrainian respondents want full unification with Russia, 68 percent want an EU-style border-free regime with Russia, with Russia and Ukraine being “independent but friendly states” without a visa regime or custom controls.
  • Opinion poll results published in May indicate that 58 percent of Ukrainians have a positive attitude toward Vladimir Putin, and 56 percent approve of the current Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. Twenty-one percent take a neutral stance, and 16 percent think of them negatively—25 percent disapprove of Putin and 14 percent of Medvedev.
  • The pro-Russian head of the opposition Party of Regions Viktor Yanukovych currently enjoys a 25 percent approval rating, Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko—14 percent, and the new face, Arsenyi Yatsenyuk, 13 percent. Only two percent of Ukrainians would vote for President Viktor Yushchenko, the most anti-Russian top Ukrainian official, in the upcoming elections in January of 2010.

This all seems relevant doesn't it? LokiiT (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked a simulair question above and got then the answers:

Remember this is not Russko-Ukrainskiye relations but Rossiysko-Ukrainskiye. At that point it really does not matter what a Russian on the street would think by Kuban kazak and This is article about state-to-state relations, not about relations between two peoples by Biophys on 24 July 2008.

So I would put your (I think interesting) info in a new chapter in the article called Relations between Russian and Ukrainian citizens. I would try to make it NPOV info so would only give the numbers and no interpretation of them. I'm not sure the info about the popularity Yanukovych says much about the relationship between Russians and Ukrainians because I don't know what Yatsenyuk says about Russia, if he says the same as Tymoshenko then there opinion is that of the Ukrainians voters (the 2 combined are more popular then Yanukovych)???? Nor are we sure if Ukrainian voters choose there candidate on the basis of her/his Russian policy... — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 21:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just moved details to the footnotes[edit]

I moved some details from section 1.2.1 ("Recent years") to the footnotes, the article became too long in my opinion. No info was deleted. No bears and Cossacks harmed in the process. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 13:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference[edit]

Putin: Russia wishes integration with Ukrainian machine builders, shipyards. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 17:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relations between the two nations have improved?[edit]

The article currently claims in the lead: "Since the election of Viktor Yanukovych as Ukrainian President in early 2010 the relations between the two nations have improved". However ordinary Russians seem to disagree with this and I personally think that after the improvement in relations in 2010 we are now back at the state of relations of 2009. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

relations[edit]

relations still hostile — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trosu (talk • contribs) 02:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The oligarchs[edit]

http://www.rferl.org/content/ukraine-russia-relations-depend-on-oligarchic-interests/24747089.html

Why aren't the oligarchs mentioned? Hcobb (talk) 00:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Current Situation[edit]

Should the current situation in Ukraine be added? It seems like Russia-Ukraine Relations are important to it... Local Mafia Boss (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I rather wait till it is clear what is happening now... It is not clear to me... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern/Western Ukraine[edit]

This article omits a split of over 100 years' duration between Eastern and Western Ukraine as well as the area's being conquered and reconquered, reunited and split depending on which empire controlled which area(s) of Ukraine. This affects Russia's relationship with modern Ukraine since modern Ukraine was only reunited in the 20th century after having been split between or fought over by the western empires and Imperial Russia for so long. Stalin (who, you will recall, was not Russian but Georgian) essentially created the current borders of Ukraine after 1939 with the Nazi invasion of Poland; he combined areas long separated but, in parts, known post-1918 as the Western Ukrainian Socialist Republic (part of Poland at that time) and the Ukrainian Socialist Republic (the latter being part of Imperial Russia at that time) - 2 different entities with different cultural histories and characteristics by the time Stalin re-created a single Ukraine. Also, the cultural split was deepened when the western Ukrainian militias arrived with the Germans in eastern Ukraine during the initial Nazi invasion of the USSR; the western nationalist cooperation with the Germans in occupying eastern Ukraine, particularly their behavior in Kiev, did not impress eastern Ukrainians well at the time (today's nationalists claim that this is merely Soviet propaganda, but this is their attempt to overcome today's generations' disgust at such behavior, and the competing claims depend on which particular nationalist and/or incident one is considering). This point is quite relevant to the current political split in Ukraine as pro-Russian eastern Ukrainians are not necessarily ethnic Russians nor the "victims" of Soviet-era propaganda but, if old enough, witnesses to active-collaborationist nationalist behavior during WWII, or, if not old enough, those witnesses' children and/or grandchildren, and it - combined with the local knowledge that leading nationalists prior to the Revolution were Marxists who, when part of the Politburo, supported the collectivization at the root of the eastern Ukrainian famine or, if anti-Soviet, colluded with the Germans during WWII - turned them against the idea of creating a "Ukrainian nation" and predisposed them to re-adopting an Imperial Russian identity along with their local/ethnic identity. Certainly that is what happened with many eastern Ukrainians who ended up in the West after the war - they avoided the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and chose either the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia or Orthodox Church of America and identified themselves as both Russian and Ukrainian based on their particular experiences despite having ancient roots in, for example, the Kievan region.

Also currently important is the number of Ukrainians who work in Russia, providing up to 12% of Ukraine's GDP through their Russian earnings.

I'm not sure of cites for various things, but if someone else wants to improve the article, in addition to citations referencing other wikipedia entries, I would suggest searching for key terms on ".edu" sites. The different pieces of cultural history are going to show up in different academic articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kievandaughter (talk • contribs) 10:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Russia–Ukraine relations[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Russia–Ukraine relations's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "MT21410":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Russia–Ukraine relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Russia–Ukraine relations. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 22:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Russia–Ukraine relations. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 01:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Russia–Ukraine relations. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

not verfied but a sobering development[edit]

Associated Press story: https://www.foxnews.com/world/ukraine-cites-massive-buildup-of-russian-forces-along-border . 50.111.6.33 (talk) 03:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@50.111.6.33 it's true. I was there 2604:CA00:1CC:CBF1:0:0:1261:AABA (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History section[edit]

Recently a new "history" section was created[3] into which the lead was dumped. I think it should either be reintegrated in more concise manner back into the lead/article or deleted as it essentially covers the same thing the rest of the article does and would create confusion. --Jakey222 (talk) 14:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a relevant template that can be used to mark the section to avoid confusion? --Jakey222 (talk) 14:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the lead "rewrite" leftover, which duplicate the info in the article. Here is the edit for ease of access if anyone wish to integrate parts of it into the lead or the main articles. --Jakey222 (talk) 14:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2020s[edit]

Hello, I've added a small section regarding the development of relations in the 2020s. Could someone please copyedit/proofread it & make any necessary modifications? Appreciate it. Obama gaming (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Country comparison & recent edits[edit]

@Drmies: regarding you recent changes to the article, I do not understand your rationale to these edits. The country comparison is merely there for a reader to gauge what the countries are like, & since this is part of a series on the Russo-Ukrainian War, that is why military details are included. Things like largest city, why not? It does no harm. As for your claims of recentism, I find that dubious as wikipedia's own article on recentism states that "Chronocentrism is the assumption that certain time periods (typically the present) are better, more important, or a more significant frame of reference than other time periods, either past or future". Whilst there is indeed a lack of information pertaining to the century-long relations to the two countries, no one has added it yet. I would find that if it were really a case of chronocentrism it would actually violate WP:BIAS. Perhaps you can ask for someone with a large knowledge of medieval Russo-Ukrainian relations to contribute to the article with appropriate sources. Like I also mentioned in a previous edit summary, if you are make these changes to this article you should also apply to other articles such as Cross-Strait relations. I do not wish to revert your edit again, so I hope you can contribute to this discussion. @Rjensen: please, if you have anything to add as well, do so. Looking forward to your replies Obama gaming (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • A huge section full of current data in an article that discusses relations between states/countries over many, many years is indeed recentist, since it directs the main focus (as the first full section in the article) on the contemporary situation. No, I'm not going to ask for some specialist to something that I already find burdensome and inappropriate. As for your OTHERSTUFF argument, that's not very valid. Drmies (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But how is it unreasonable to have current statistics of both countries involved in a article about bilateral relations? It's not like the two countries are defunct or anything, and also, yes it directs the main focus on the contemporary situation but it does not emphasize that they "are better, more important, or a more significant frame of reference than other time periods". I can't really inference through the article anyone purporting it to be more important, it's not really UNDUE either since it's facts, not an expression of opinion. Also I thought OTHERSTUFF only applied for AfD, not editing within articles. Why do you find the article burdensome & inappropriate? Perhaps you could ask a copyeditor with experience in politics to review the article? I don't really know where to reach out for that sort of stuff Obama gaming (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"recentist" is not a flaw when people come to Wikipedia looking for good information on a major crisis underway in 2021 between Russia and Ukraine. the dats covers not this week but recent years --If someone wants to add more historical statistical data then please do so.Rjensen (talk) 04:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention the supposed "historic" bilateral relations of Ukraine as a sovereign state only really goes back to the beginning of the 20th century, the Crimean Khanate's relations with the Russian Empire primarily revolved around the Crimean Khanate's annexation into the Russian Empire, and then from then on the extent of Russo-Ukrainian relations largely revolved around wars, like the Russian revolutions, the Soviet-Ukrainian war, until the establishment of Soviet Ukraine then the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Ukraine, by itself, really hasn't existed other than fractions of other conqueror's empires for a large part of its history. There are details regarding it's past, but as with many other events predating the 18th-17th centuries details are sketchy & sparse. It would only be logical for articles to contain information that has been well-documented as recording technologies improved, no? The 2000s section alone is far more massive than the 2020s and 1990s sections combined. Obama gaming (talk) 08:07, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article warrants a history section going back at least to 1654. —Michael Z. 18:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Do current statistics belong in bilateral relations articles such as this one? Obama gaming (talk) 08:14, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose I'm interpreting the "statistics" to refer to something like this edit. The current crisis is definitely real, like the Cuban Missile Crisis, and clearly deserves a full, separate article - it would not quite be a sub-article, because the issue is not just Russia-Ukraine relations, it's Russia-NATO relations. An NPOV article on the crisis would be very useful: Russian authorities have a strong track record of blatant lying, but they don't have a monopoly on national/supranational authorities making false or misleading statements or statements that oppose well-established international humanitarian law. If there's a WP:RS that considers these sorts of statistics to be relevant to the current crisis, then that would make sense in the particular article on the crisis. Maybe there already is an article on the crisis? which is what I came here to ask about... Back to the question: I don't see how such a list of current statistics would make sense in this overview article (as it is right now as the first section, dominating the rest of the article; it should at least be shifted to late in the article while debate goes on here). It might make sense in an article on the current crisis, which, like the Cuban Missile Crisis, is at great risk of amplifying (see positive feedback loop) if people do not have access to NPOVed info on the crisis and just trust their governments.
    TL;DR: The current article (without the 'statistics' section) has a fair chance of developing into a historical overview article; current statistical info of this sort might be acceptable in a specific article on the current crisis, but in this article, its effect is to make long-term article development more difficult. Boud (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, perhaps do you think the statistics would fit better in War in Donbas? As that's an ongoing conflict and like you said, it's statistics relevant to the current crisis, the war in the Donbas. Appreciate your input. Obama gaming (talk) 07:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a Specific Enough Question to Answer - It depends on what statistics. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Assuming that this is about the comparison table (this edit), we are not doing it for other articles and no justification has been presented why we need it here. Alaexis¿question? 13:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, obviously--the "country comparison" is trivial, favors contemporary data in what are by definition historical articles, and suggest a one-size fits all approach for these articles. They are misplaced, their position as the first section making them even more UNDUE, and the coat of arms and trivia like that is just completely unencyclopedic. Relations between countries are not "comparisons". Drmies (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Indeed, such Table is rather unusual for pages about inter-country relations. However, in this particular context (of Russo-Ukrainian war) I think it its interesting. So, I think some data from this Table might be kept in some form. My very best wishes (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Might be appropriate to put some very basic stats in an infobox. So add some fields to Template:Infobox bilateral relations, but not in a big fat table before the article body. —Michael Z. 03:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that.My very best wishes (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Themes (?)[edit]

The themes of colonialism, decolonization and national identity are implicit in the history since 1654 (and its interpretation all the way back to medieval Rus), but sort of missing any clear description in this article. Putin’s July article is an important inclusion.

The intro oddly synthesizes an argument that Russia–Ukraine hostility started when an EU–Ukraine trade agreement was cancelled, or months later when the Rada fired a fleeing president. In reality, Ukraine had openly and officially worked for EU integration since 1992: every president including Yanukovych. Hostility was evident in Putin’s pressuring Yanukovych to abruptly cancel the signing, but also earlier, for example in Medvedev congratulating the FSB for defeating Ukrainian acceptance into NATO before 2009, and several disputes over territories, military assets in Ukraine, Russian military presence in Ukraine, and gas disputes. Open aggression actually began with the 2014 invasion. —Michael Z. 15:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crisis article[edit]

There is currently a crisis similar to the Cuban Missile Crisis ongoing. Do we currently have a specialist article on that? If not, then here are suggestions for a title. Some of the content would start as a split from the current section Russia–Ukraine relations#2020s, which has three out of four paragraphs talking about the first half of December 2021. Please give arguments for and against the following (or better) suggestions:

  1. 2021 Russia–NATO crisis
    • descriptive, but omits the Ukrainian context
    Support, I suppose that despite the involvement of Ukrainian factions within it, the issue itself largely revolves around Russia having an issue with NATO presence in Eastern Europe, and the buildup of troops on the Ukrainian border is merely an expression of Russia's distaste. Include the Belarus migrant crisis too, perhaps? As many know, Lukashenko has very close ties to Putin. Obama gaming (talk) 07:52, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 2021 Russian threat to invade Ukraine
    • violates NPOV, because Russia considers the promise of Ukraine joining NATO as a threat to Russia, and it's Western/Ukrainian interpretations of Russian troop movements that establish the threat, not an overt threat by Russia (Russia never even admitted poisoning dissidents; these were criminal actions, not threats)
  3. plan for Ukraine to join NATO and Russian threat to invade Ukraine
    • possibly NPOV per the WP:RS, but much too long and cumbersome as a title, and the objections in the previous point might still be a problem - "threat" could be seen as an interpretation rather than an uncontroversial fact
  4. 2021 Russia–Ukraine–NATO crisis
    • descriptive, concise, but might be interpreted as Russia+Ukraine vs NATO
  5. 2021 Russia–NATO Ukraine crisis
    • descriptive, concise, the en dash is meant to imply that the context of the conflict is Russia vs NATO, with Ukraine being the specific issue geographically and politico-militarily in the middle; later update to 2021–2022 unless this finishes quickly

(If you edit within this list, please do it briefly with your signature ~~~~ to show who is presenting which argument and when; longer text should better be in new comments below.) Boud (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It’s inappropriate to mention NATO and omit Ukraine. “Threat to invade,” although accurate, would be criticized as presumptive or NPOV, so maybe better to write “military buildup.” “Plan” is odd, because since 2008 NATO has declined to initiate a membership action plan. This new article would be an expansion of Russo-Ukrainian war#2021 Russian military buildups, so it could take that article and section title as a cue. —Michael Z. 14:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think this is ripe for a page. When they invade Ukraine, this is going to be an important page. Right now this is more like a propaganda stunt by Putin to implicate NATO as a side responsible for the future invasion by Russia. This can be just mentioned on that and other pages. My very best wishes (talk) 03:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone started 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis. —Michael Z. 04:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sure, this becomes more and more notable every day. My very best wishes (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should we change to a de facto map in the introduction?[edit]

The introduction map shows that Ukraine controls Crimea despite the annexation by Russia since 2014. Anyone else agree that this is ridiculous? Fijipedia (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It shows the internationally recognized borders of these states. We could discuss changes in rendering, but someone will have to find or create a map. It is not that simple, because Crimea is occupied and claimed by the RF, while the eastern Donbas is controlled by Russian proxies but not claimed. —Michael Z. 00:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And if so, do we start adding disputed territories in Moldova, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and elsewhere for consistency? —Michael Z. 01:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed before and I believe the current map is the consensus. Volunteer Marek 02:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What section in the talk page has this been discussed before? Fijipedia (talk) 00:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

De facto map

I've put the de facto map here for convenience. Crimea is in black. We could display a note stating that while Crimea is de facto controlled by Russia, the international community still regards it as a part of Ukraine. Fijipedia (talk) 00:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A map’s contents should be based on its function.

It’s a locator map, showing the internationally recognized borders of the two states on the scale of the globe or extended region, consistent with, e.g., the maps at the top of Armenia–Azerbaijan relations, Georgia–Russia relations, and Moldova–Russia relations. Do any other relations articles show disputed territories? India–Pakistan relations does not.

If we want to add a situation map, then it would show disputed Crimea and also the line of contact in the eastern Donbas, the Azov Sea and Kerch Strait internal waters, Black Sea coastal waters, NOTAMed flight information regions, and perhaps features of dispute like the Crimean bridge and canal. For consistent context, it would also shade nearby disputed territories in Georgia and Moldova, and perhaps Putin’s aspirational “New Russia” (Novorossiia). If it’s detailed enough, then major cities could be included, crossings of the LOC, and major conflict sites of the current conflict. For timeliness and detail, it could indicate concentrations of Russian forces in and around Ukraine.

Individual thematic maps could include military actions or gas transmission networks.

Since there is a history of relations section, one or more relevant maps could be included there, too. —Michael Z. 14:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did they annex Donbas? No, they didn't. It's just separatist states and Ukraine who control it. Also, does anyone show sea control in articles about relations between 2 countries? I don't think so. Just because articles have a normal pattern doesn't mean anyone has to comply to it. Fijipedia (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’m suggesting the lead image is a locator map, and should not show any of these things. Some of them can be shown in additional maps, if appropriate.
The status of Crimea is internationally recognized by the UNGA as an “attempted annexation” and “temporary occupation.” Did they annex it? That is in dispute. That independent “separatist states” control Donbas isn’t even recognized by the RF. It’s all details about disputed territories, and we needn’t debate how to present it in a locator map of Ukraine and the Russian Federation. —Michael Z. 02:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about international recognition, it's about the de facto situation, Russia controls Crimea and literally signed treaties with Crimean leaders to officially annex it. It's about Russia-Ukraine relations, so we can "give" Ukraine those disputed territories in Donbas but show the annexation of Crimea. Fijipedia (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it was about the de facto situation then it should show all the territories that are de facto not controlled by the de jure governments of the respective states, including the eastern Donbas, Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh, parts of Syria and Iraq, etcetera. But this argument is self-contradictory, because it delves into legal concepts of some “treaty” and some “leaders”: but Crimea wasn’t a state that could sign a legal treaty, because its leader was de-facto illegally installed, literally at the muzzles of occupying Russian soldiers’ assault rifles. Anyway, it is a locator map with the boundaries of states, as they are recognized. —Michael Z. 04:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is about Russo-Ukranian relations. Why would we show a map of all of those other disputed territories in other parts of the world? Fijipedia (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think we wouldn’t. That is my point. —Michael Z. 22:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is the best map we have and I think it's good enough. This is an article about Russo-Ukrainian relations and Russia does not claim those territories in eastern Ukraine that they invaded years ago. Fijipedia (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current map is better, and the rationale for using it is more sound. —Michael Z. 00:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can make a compromise. You can keep the current map as the lead image, but I can put the "de facto" map in another section as I see fit. Fijipedia (talk) 01:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am open to the idea of another map that supports the article. Make a proposal or be bold. —Michael Z. 02:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I can't find a good place to put the "de facto" map in another section. I think this discussion should be closed. Fijipedia (talk) 14:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Lead is biased[edit]

  • 'Relations between the two countries have been hostile'

There was no symmetry, Ukraine has not invided Russia.

  • 'elected president Viktor Yanukovych'
Is it so obvious? There were fraud accusations. Xx236 (talk) 09:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Despite this, Russia has repeatedly denied having plans to invade Ukraine.' - I have removed the phrase.
Russia has denied thousands of informations during its history.
This is a recent opinion, not appropriate for the lead.
There are quite different opinions, eg. US citizens should leave Ukraine.Xx236 (talk) 09:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. “Elected president” is redundant because president is literally “elected head of a republic.” This is verging on POV, because the undue emphasis echoes Russian talking points, while omitting that Ukrainians protested because he about-faced on a deal, but they decided to oust him after he passed unconstitutional laws that made him an authoritarian, and oversaw violence against the public.
I don’t have a problem with mentioning Kremlin denial that its unprecedented military buildup is a threat of major escalated aggression. —Michael Z. 16:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You understand the context, the majority of readers do not. I have included below an another version of Russian position. Xx236 (talk) 11:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"This is a recent opinion, not appropriate for the lead." How is this not appropriate? It's relevant for the situation and gives extra insight to the page. Also, another user has stated that he/she believes that mentioning Russian denial in the lead is not a problem. Fijipedia (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'extra insight'?
The Wikipedia should inform about facts rather than about comments. Deployment of 120 000 soldiers costs billions. Comments change everyday and their value is none. "We shit on your sanctions." [4] Xx236 (talk) 11:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Normandy Format, Minsk Protocol not linked.Xx236 (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a relevant and established fact that Russia has denied having intentions to invade Ukraine. Fijipedia (talk) 13:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't believe in news that are not denied."Xx236 (talk) 13:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am personally very careful, when I meet here a new (less than two months) editor. Xx236 (talk) 13:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny how you're proud of how long you've been on Wikipedia. Real veterans don't brag about something as meaningless as that. Wikipedia needs noobs to keep improving. On top of that, the facts are that Russia has denied having intentions to invade Ukraine. What you believe in is not very important here. Fijipedia (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not find the war and Russian propaganda funny.Xx236 (talk) 07:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do any inviders inform about their plans?

Xx236 (talk) 07:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Recentism "Edit warring over whether to change an article's well-established title, abbreviation, date and numbering format, national variety of English and spelling, or wording in the lead section or article body on the basis of those used on breaking news sources."Xx236 (talk) 08:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Russian military buildup on the border of Ukraine'[edit]

The same on the Belarus-Ukrainian border, not mentioned in the text. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russia-troops-belarus-ukraine-border-senkivka-vladimir-putin-nato-rcna14709 Xx236 (talk) 09:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring Russian troops in Belarus is extremely biased.Xx236 (talk) 08:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relations between the two countries have been hostile[edit]

Please name Ukrainian hostilities. Xx236 (talk) 08:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's about relations between the two countries, not hostilities committed by either government. Fijipedia (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A raper and a raped person have hostile relations. Stand up, yes. Wikipedia, not.Xx236 (talk) 07:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"A raper and a raped person have hostile relations" proves my point further. Fijipedia (talk) 14:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain you opnion to victims of crimes. Xx236 (talk) 07:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the same situation. Fijipedia (talk) 14:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Any two situations are not the same.Xx236 (talk) 07:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Despite this, Russia has repeatedly denied having plans to invade Ukraine[edit]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/21/ukraine-putin-decide-recognition-breakaway-states-today Xx236 (talk) 07:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC) 'Putin ordered the deployment of troops to territory held by the LPR and the DPR' Do I understand you - deployment is not an invasion and LPR and DPR are not Ukraine?Xx236 (talk) 07:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confident it means that. Fijipedia (talk) 14:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not confident what you mean. My English is very poor, so I need simple explanation. Is Russia right and Ukraine wrong according to you?Xx236 (talk) 06:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I try to put my political views onto Wikipedia? Fijipedia (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Xx236: DPR & LPR are quasi-states, both are internationally recognized (with the exception of Russia) as territory of Ukraine. However, we will keep that sentence there as it is right; Russia has indeed deployed troops to the Ukraine. Since it is like a record of events, the sentence after that it is also correct, Russia has indeed invaded Ukraine. In Putin's view, it is a deployment to demilitarise the Ukraine, but objectively speaking it is an invasion, and you can see that has been mentioned below. If that doesn't make sense, I'll simplify it further. The article is written in order of what happened first, and I'll list out the events in the order they happened.
  • Before 21st February, Russia repeatedly denies invading Ukraine
  • 21st February, Luhansk and Donetsk announce independence, the same day Putin orders (in his own words) deployment of troops. That's why we write it as that, because we quote Putin's words.
  • 24th February, the troops that Putin said were to be deployed arrive on Ukrainian territory, and that is now become objectively an invasion.
So you can see in the article, it is written in order of events that happened. I hope this answers your question. Obama gaming (talk) 07:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is just a misunderstanding - Russia did deny any intention to invade, but then did indeed invade - and not just in the DPR/LPR regions. I've merged the relevant sentences to make this clear and hopefully resolve this conflict. Tobus (talk) 09:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The edit I made saying "Russia has repeatedly denied having plans to invade Ukraine" was before the invasion. Just a note for other editors who see this discussion. Fijipedia (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2022[edit]

Change : By early 2022 the Russo-Ukrainian War had killed more than 13,000 people, and brought some Western sanctions on Russia.[2]

To: By early 2014 the Russo-Ukrainian War had killed more than 13,000 people, and brought some Western sanctions on Russia.[2] FITZGGP (talk) 18:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gregg Fitzgerald FITZGGP (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


The article used as a source is from 2020, so the text should say "by early 2020" - 2014 is when the war *began*, so it would have to say "Since 2014...", not "By early 2014". I think the latter is more flexibly and allows future updates without having to change the year, so I've gone ahead and made that edit instead of the requested one. I also changed the rest of the sentence slightly to avoid potential WP:COPYVIO Tobus (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (edit request?)[edit]

Russia is invading Ukraine to be able to survive because Russia is running out of resources and Ukraine has lots and Russia is also trying to stop Ukraine from going into NATO which is a group that contains countries such as; united kingdom ,poland Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway and Portugal.Conflict began in February 2014 following the Revolution of Dignity, and focused on the status of Crimea and parts of the Donbas, internationally recognised as part of Ukraine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unkown account2 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your first assertion is wrong, Russia is surviving quite nicely however your second assertion is correct, Russia indeed is trying to stop Ukraine from entering NATO. However, what are you exactly suggesting? We're not a place for political commentary. Obama gaming (talk) 00:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:FORUM. Wikipedia is not a place for political opinions. Fijipedia (talk) 23:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2022[edit]

Russian time zone is given 9 instead of 11 2409:4063:4D05:F539:0:0:7048:4905 (talk) 21:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Tobus (talk) 00:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Popular opinion In Russia[edit]

The beginning is unsourced, does not define when the pools were made and does not inform about recent propaganda - denazification, deukrainisation and deeuropeisation.

The alleged UPA cult is not so important under Zelensky.

Xx236 (talk) 11:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Крымнаш[edit]

Crimnash or Krymnash, should be mentioned.Xx236 (talk) 11:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/400504 Xx236 (talk) 12:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2022[edit]

Please change spelling of Kiev to Kyiv 89.186.118.242 (talk) 11:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Terasail[✉️] 19:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 June 2022[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: Not Moved (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 04:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russia–Ukraine relations → Russian–Ukrainian relations – Per WP:CRITERIA; the proposed name is the natural (or WP:COMMONNAME) title, with ngrams showing four times as much use for the proposed name as the current name, and Google Scholar shows five times as much use [5][6]. The two titles are equally recognizable, precise, and concise, while WP:CONSISTENT prefers the proposed title; nine articles on interactions between Russia and Ukraine use "Russia-Ukraine" or "Ukraine-Russia", while nineteen articles use "Russian-Ukrainian" or "Russo-Ukrainian". The argument that WP:CONSISTENT supports the current title due to similarity to other articles on bilateral relations is very weak, as there is no consensus for that format. BilledMammal (talk) 08:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose  The WP:CRITERION of consistency says we should consider all of the other articles in Category:Bilateral relations of Ukraine and Category:Bilateral relations of Russia. And four times as much is wrong.[7] —Michael Z. 16:15, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Your ngrams has a small mistake; by using parenthesis, you are subtracting the number of results for "Ukraine relations" from the number of results for "Russia"; see this ngrams which demonstrates that. For the correct ngrams, see my nomination. BilledMammal (talk) 01:06, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, thanks user:BilledMammal. Here’s a correct Ngram chart. I stand by my assessment. —Michael Z. 13:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (STRONGLY) per WP:CONSISTENT. If this page was moved to the proposed title, it would be literally the ONLY Bilateral Relations page that doesn't follow the established pattern of the other Bilateral Relations page titles. (And secondly, it's not the relations between "those who are Russian" and "those who are Ukrainian", it's about the relations between the countries of Russia and Ukraine themselves.) (And thirdly, if this page is moved to the proposed title, it'd open up a messy can of worms of similar page moves, which gets even messier for the countries without widely-known demonyms.) Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As I mentioned in the nom, WP:CONSISTENT is a very weak argument here, as the wider community did not find a consensus to make this the consistent format - in the absence of such a consensus, we cannot use a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to make it the consistent format. In addition, WP:CONSISTENT is only one aspect of WP:CRITERIA, and a weaker one than WP:NATURAL. Do you dispute that the proposed title is the WP:COMMONNAME? BilledMammal (talk) 00:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not only per consistency, but also per topic. This is about states, not people or languages. Suggestion is not an improvement, but quite the contrary. Walrasiad (talk)
  • Oppose: Literally have not seen a single bilateral relations article with the naming scheme you've proposed. Don't know why you're changing the status quo. There's nothing within good reason to change it either. As it would stand, you are suggesting we rename all the articles in the bilateral relations section to your proposal. X-750 Rust In Peace... Polaris 20:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If we read the RfC closing statement more precisely, it indicated that consistency can factor into the equation, as one of many considerations. I think the argument for consistency is strengthened by the fact that this would be the only exception to a de facto pattern for both of these two countries. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:10, 24 June 2022 (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.

State of war[edit]

The lead currently states “The two countries have been in a de facto state of war since 24 February 2022, although Russia has invaded Ukrainian Crimea and Donbas regions in February 2014.”

But the Russo-Ukrainian War started in 2014 when Russia committed aggression against Ukraine, , and courts have found that a state of international conflict existed in Crimea in February 2014 and in eastern Ukraine by mid-May 2014. Appropriate references are already cited in other articles.

it should say “since 2014, after Russia invaded Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula in February and had overall control of militants in the Donbas region in May.”  —Michael Z. 15:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Putin Nuclear deal with 2023 Belarus[edit]

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-says-moscow-has-deal-with-belarus-station-nuclear-weapons-there-tass-2023-03-25/

https://apnews.com/article/russia-belarus-nuclear-weapons-2d9584534da25c00c56dbf7b14694e0e


https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-belarus-tactical-nuclear-weapons-3aed32661ae3c218c59117d1ce593777

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-security-chief-says-basing-russian-nuclear-weapons-belarus-will-2023-03-26/


Note this 2023 Nuclear Weapons Deal Between Belarus and Russia in question escalates fear of a Nuclear War happening in Ukraine. Also Nato and Ukraine Condemn the deal in question.2601:640:C682:8870:8BCF:AA77:4645:9A52 (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is better suited for the Russia-Belarus relations article. X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 19:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"De facto state of war"[edit]

"De facto state of war" is not since 2022, it is since 1993, the first post-Soviet Crimean crisis. Before 2014 there were at least two Crimean crisis and in 2014 the Russian President came out with idea about a joke story of drunken Nikita Khruschev. Direct hostilities with military use against the Ukrainian Armed Forces and territory of Ukraine started in 2014. In 1997-2014 there also existed so called "Great Friendship Treaty" which Russian broke unilaterally. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 08:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. De jure international armed conflict since February 2014. Needs references.  —Michael Z. 13:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Current map is incorrect[edit]

The map shown at the start of this article should show annexed and disputed territories in a proper way, as is done in the articles of "Russia" and "Ukraine". Using a map of the region as interpreted by the Ukrainian gouvernment, as is currently the case, is not an objective way of presenting information. Schutsheer des Vaderlands (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s also the way the two countries are interpreted by the United Nations and pretty much every reference giving locator maps of them, so it’s arguably more objective. See for example Britannica,[8][9] the World Factbook,[10][11] etcetera.
This article’s text and its locator map represent the consensus global and academic view throughout the 31-year immediate history and the previous history into the past, and not the latest whim of the Kremlin represented in its propaganda promoting the illegal and aspirational Russian imperial POV after March 2014, September 2022, or any other period.  —Michael Z. 16:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russia–Ukraine_relations&oldid=1211868963"