Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation

Putin's words stated in WikiVoice?

The article now says: "On 22–23 February, Russian President Vladimir Putin convened an all-night meeting with security services chiefs to discuss extrication of the deposed Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanukovych, and at the end of that meeting Putin had remarked that "we must start working on returning Crimea to Russia"." However, this statement is only based on the words of Putin who is not a reliable source and is heavily biased. Both the existence of the meeting, its date and the topics discussed are questionable. The cited references also directly state that these are Putin's words from the trailer for the upcoming propaganda movie Crimea. The Way Home. This statement should be reworded according to WP:VOICE and moved to some other section like "Putin's justifications for annexation", or maybe just moved to the article about the movie. Kammerer55 (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

That would not make sense, because the controversy still needs to be addressed where the date is, rather than in a separate section to avoid confusion. Antny08 (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

It should be attributed, because Ukraine dates the invasion operation as starting earlier (as did the Russian MOD in inscribing the Crimea medal). Putin does have an incentive to say he only decided to invade Ukraine after Yanukovych fled and was relieved of responsibility by the Rada.  —Michael Z. 02:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Well yes I absolutely agree with you, but looking at its transparently, Ukraine has even less of a free press than Russia, so you really cannot trust what Ukraine says either. So it should be listed as disputed until a true date can be found. Antny08 (talk) 11:58, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

That is a wrong opinion. World Press Freedom Index: Ukraine 79th/180, Russia 164th/180 and falling.

If you disagree with the date in the infobox, which has been discussed before and has a detailed note describing the issues, please start a separate discussion.

Anyway, we seem to all agree the statement by the unreliable and mendacious Russian government should be treated as such.  —Michael Z. 16:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Your message seems very biased. Please keep discussion unbiased. But yes, you are correct. However, that is still not a high amount. Antny08 (talk) 16:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Not biased. Very much evidence-based and factual. Russia’s press freedom is objectively much worse than Ukraine’s according to RSF’s index. The Russian government is not a WP:RS according to our policies, and I could cite countless reliable sources on its barefaced lies and violations of treaties and international law. To deny this is biased. Please keep the discussion unbiased.  —Michael Z. 20:22, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

"This group of Ukrainian ultra-nationalists editors who push pro-Ukrainian POV, with the ultimate aim of turning English Wikipedia into a Kyiv-pedia." Ah yes, very unbiased. I can see you are totally taken this from an unbiased standpoint. While the Russian press is not free, the Ukraine press is also not anywhere near being free. Both governments are corrupt. Antny08 (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Mua ha ha ha!  —Michael Z. 15:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

The decision-making about Crimea took place behind the scenes and largely involved only a handful of Putin’s closest (and typically most hawkish) confidants. On February 20, 2014, two days before Yanukovych fled the country, the decision appears to have been made to take the peninsula. Vremya cha – zero hour – was set for February 27, 2014.

• Galeotti, Mark (2019). Armies of Russia's War in Ukraine. Elite 228. Oxford: Osprey Publishing. ISBN 9781472833440.: 7.

Nonetheless by 18 February, when Yanukovych effectively introduced a state of emergency in Ukraine, these [contingency plans for taking Crimea that dated back to the 1990s] were already being revisited, and Russian forces in Crimea and some intervention units such as the 45th Independent Guards Special Designation Regiment of the Air Assault Troops (VDV) were being brought to full readiness. At this stage, it may simply again have been prudent contingency work by the GOU [Main Operations Directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation], but by the time Putin made his comment about ‘working on returning Crimea to Russia’ at 7am on the morning of 23 February, at least a preliminary political decision had already been made. That seems likely to have been on 20 February, even before the Yanukovych regime had fallen. (pp 21–22)

Through 20 February, the planning cell within the GOU which had been working on an operational plan for the past couple of days began to firm up the details, while cutting orders for the various units with would be involved. . . .

By the end of 21 February, preparations moved from discussion to mobilization. Several elite intervention units began to be mobilized, under the cover of a wider series of military exercises that would at the same time worry and distract Kyiv. On the peninsula itself, BSF bases quietly moved to a higher state of readiness, and forces began to be brought in, again under the pretext of regular force rotations – even though, had anyone been paying attention, they would have noted that while new troops were arriving, none seemed to be leaving. (23–24)

• Galeotti, Mark (2023). Putin Takes Crimea 2014: Grey-zone warfare opens the Russia–Ukraine conflict. Raid 59. Oxford: Osprey Publishing. ISBN 9781472853844.: 23–24.

 —Michael Z. 20:58, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Expanded quotation. —Michael Z. 00:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no way to prove that this is true, so it should be marked as disputed. Antny08 (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:Verifiability, not truth. Which reliable sources dispute it? —Michael Z. 15:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@Antny08, the name-calling is a WP:personal attack. When you linked to a joke page about cabals above, I thought you were joking. I see now that you are serious. Take it back and strike or delete the comment.  —Michael Z. 16:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

That was not meant as an insult. Your user page literally states that you are a Ukrainian nationalist. It is not name-calling or an insult, it is literally what you have written. Antny08 (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

What are you talking about? No, it doesn’t. I have never stated that I am a nationalist. I have never written anything about my personal politics on Wikipedia, except to ask other editors to stop making unfounded assumptions or accusations about me. Please stop saying that and strike your statements  —Michael Z. 18:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

You literally wrote on your user page that you are a member of the Ukraine Cabal, which it states is a group of ultra-nationalist Ukrainians. Antny08 (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I literally wrote “Definitely not a member of any Ukrainian Cabal.” And it’s an effing joke linking to a joke page. Arguing about what you think I wrote because you refuse to actually read every word, even if you still can’t get the joke, is disruptive.

@Antny08, please strike or delete your personal attack, even if it’s a mistake. You have no right to make up and publish things about my supposed politics. Just do it, because I’m done with this discussion.  —Michael Z. 19:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I will remove the message, but it is obvious you have a strong bias of Ukraine over Russia anyway. But I will remove it. Antny08 (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Use of American English?

Hello, I have just became an extended-protected editor, and I am wondering why this article is supposed to be written with American English? This subject is on a European conflict, and mainly has to do with Europeans. I think this should be changed. Antny08 (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

"When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Retaining_the_existing_variety

Strong national ties to the UK are missing, since Crimea is Ukrainian land. Bevidsthed (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Is there a “European English”? I guess the EU uses British English for historical reasons, but Ukraine also has cultural ties to its North American diaspora and a friendly diplomatic relationship with the USA and Canada. I don’t see a strong current reason to change it for this article, but won’t oppose.  —Michael Z. 03:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Europeans use both American English and British English. I am a European and like to use American English. 69% of students mixed American English and British English in the study “Refined” or “Relaxed” English Pronunciation: Usage and Attitudes among Swedish University Students by Axelsson, Margareta Westergren (2002). Bevidsthed (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense. In my experience much of Europeans’ first-hand experience of English has been in connection with the UK, but with globalization and online media there is much more access and exposure to other varieties of the language.

When I wrote “the EU uses British English” I only meant when the EU administration produces official documents, since English became an official EU language when the UK was part of the EU. I believe there is an EU style manual, and I think it would conform to British conventions. Ukraine is in the EU accession process, so this may become more relevant over time.  —Michael Z. 03:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Euro English is actually a surprisingly complex phenomenon. Some time ago I met a pair of Swedish best friends. One sounded uncannily like an American; the other not only spoke in a hybrid of RP and high-register AAVE, but used very British constructions like “I’ve not…” So yeah, that sort of thing is par for the course.

However…

My soft-imperialist American brain wants to believe that Eastern Slavic countries tend to use AmE by default. At least this is what I’ve experienced (a lot of Russians, and some Ukrainians, have an almost Texan accent or at least drop final g’s).

Obviously it doesn’t go to the level of ties, but I actually don’t like the fact that several RUSUKR pages are supposedly BrE, especially as editors don’t conform to it anyway. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Fix broken reference in the article

This is a format issue. Can someone fix this?

</ref> |title=Russia Staring at Recession on Sanctions That Could Get Tougher |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-23/russia-staring-at-recession-on-sanctions-that-could-get-tougher.htmlhough the EU's initial list shied fromx}}</ref> Rapiteanu (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I think I have done it. Ymblanter (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you did. Thank you! Rapiteanu (talk) 19:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Fix dead link

The link for "Reacting to sanctions, Russians ban Reid, Boehner and four other lawmakers" (source 436, for John McCain being sanctioned) is dead. Use this link instead https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2014/03/20/reacting-to-sanctions-russians-ban-reid-boehner-and-7-other-lawmakers/ Woozybydefault (talk) 14:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)