Talk:Russian involvement in regime change

Preventing regimes from ruling by interfering in their politics is a regime change?

We have a discussion about this Talk:United States involvement in regime change. This might affect this article. A lot of content here might get deleted.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: Whichever the consensus is, I agree it should be applied to both articles equally. The "disputed" tag does not seem to be justified, though. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Jamez42, it is justified. The content here is disputed because most of it is about "preventing some parties from ruling.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: That doesn't have to do with the accuracy of the content per se, but alright. Can you point out which sections exactly are we talking about, so they can be removed if it comes to it? --Jamez42 (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Jamez42,

• 2019: Venezuela
• 2017: France, Germany
• 2016: United States
• 2016: United Kingdom
• 2016: Germany

TBH this article is full of other nonesense that are not even related to preventing governments or regime change like the one about Germany

• 1984: United States

These are some and I think there is a lot more.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@SharabSalam:, the sections you're referring to deal mostly with election interference, or at least its allegations. The most understandable section is Venezuela's, but it doesn't deal with "prevention from parties from ruling" but rather preservention of a government. Both aspects have been discussed in the United States involvement article and so far there seems to be an agreement to keep them. If this changes, I agree with removing them. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Jamez42, the alleged election interference is also preventing political parties from taking power. I don't see how is that any different. It is the same as when the US prevented another party/entity from taking power. --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: I understand. Does that mean that you would agree on removing sections of election interference by the United States? --Jamez42 (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm just saying that the outcome of that discussion should apply here as well.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. --Jamez42 (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Soviet Union? Election interference?

Why is most of the article talking about the Soviet Union? Russia, or the Russian Federation, and the Soviet Union, are two different entities and this is reflected on Wikipedia. It would make more sense to have a separate article called "Soviet involvement in regime change." Though this article would then become pretty much useless, a lot of what has been included is questionable. Election interference is distinct to regime change. I've seen a small amount of discussion on this topic but it doesn't seem to have gone anywhere. The regime change article states that "the term regime change is sometimes erroneously used to describe a change in the government of the day" so I don't see how these would fall under regime change. Instead, I think it would make sense for them to stay in the foreign electoral intervention article. I also don't see how helping to keep regimes in power, such as in Syria and Venezuela, also falls under regime change, since they're not trying to change a regime... Mellk (talk) 06:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The article Foreign interventions by the Soviet Union also exists, and while there's overlap between both article, there are important differences such as the post-Cold War era and election interference. On the other hand, the rationale to keep sections regarding preservation of power comes from the discussion of the similar article United States involvement in regime change, specifically Talk:Scope 2, where there hasn't been consensus to change "preservation" or "prevented another party/entity from taking power". However, it would be excellent to find a common format for both articles. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Right, so this article also reflects the format of the United States article. Understood. In that case, I hope there are discussions regarding the format of both articles that lead to a consensus. But still, for this article, I still don't think it's appropriate to treat the Soviet regime and post-Soviet Russian regime as if they were always one. This doesn't seem to be the case with other articles, so also for the sake of consistency. Mellk (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Possibly some moves and renames could solve the issue. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Rework

I am inclined to remove examples of election interference and meddling (where the regime did not change) because this article is about regime change. Those examples can instead stay at other relevant articles. Simply helping one party or candidate win an election by interfering is not an example of regime change. Helping Trump win the election is not an example of regime change; the regime did not change.

I am also inclined to create a new article for the Soviet Union and move all Soviet examples to that article. Russia and the Soviet Union are not synonymous.

Any opposition? Mellk (talk) 08:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I suggest not. The same article for United States involvement in regime change has similar content. As for moving the Soviet Union content away, I would suggest to better keep the content here under "Soviet Union era" or something like that. Russia is definitely the inheritor of the USSR legacy.--ReyHahn (talk) 11:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@ReyHahn: The US article is missing many, if not most examples of election interference. I would remove those that do not fit in the US article as well. Including simple election meddling goes against the point of these articles. As I've said, it does not count as regime change. Also, articles like Soviet war crimes and Russian war crimes are separate for a reason. Mellk (talk) 05:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest to discuss it first in United States involvement in regime change. As for the Soviet Union meddling, the article is short enough to include everything (and Soviet Union era).--ReyHahn (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

For one, it is not about length, it is about scope. Mellk (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@ReyHahn: Also to note, in the US article, there were only two examples of US election meddling in the whole article, one of which was preceding an eventual coup, (as I said before, most cases were not included), which I've removed now, so seeing as this article is based on the US article, it never really made sense to include election meddling here anyway. Mellk (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Soviet involvement in regime change into Russian involvement in regime change

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge Russian involvement in regime change and Soviet involvement in regime change; no consensus (with consistent opposition on the grounds that Soviet and Russian histories are sufficiently distinct) and discussion stale. Klbrain (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

---

I don't think this split was warranted. Russia's history includes its Soviet era. If length is an issue, then cut the it down in summary style but bifurcating the histories as if they're disconnected does not seem reasonable. I would be curious what sources cover Soviet regime change as a distinct concept from post-Cold War Russian regime change. czar 19:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand. Are you saying there's no reason for there to be separate Soviet history articles, like History of the Soviet Union? Also, the Soviet Union was ruled by the CPSU which was intent in propping up Marxist-Leninist governments in other countries that aligned with their ideology, which is why the vast majority of examples under the Soviet-era are this. This is obviously not the same case with the current Russian government. Mellk (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

"Russia" refers to both the Russian Federation and the Russian SFSR. As titled, this list should include regime change that occurred under both. The "Soviet involvement" split list appears to almost exclusively cover Russian-led initiatives under the name of the USSR. Unless sources discuss regime change under the RF and SFSR as two discrete concepts, there should only be one list of "Russian" regime change. czar 21:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

It seems like you're trying to argue that "Russia" is interchangeable with "Soviet Union"; scholars don't do this (which is why on WP this is typically followed) so I'd suggest not to go against this because it "appears" to you that these are "Russian-led initiatives". Should Soviet involvement in the Iran–Iraq War be renamed to "Russian involvement in the Iran–Iraq War" and Foreign interventions by the Soviet Union to "Foreign interventions by the Russia" then, if the Soviet Union is basically just Russia? The only sources I've found that discuss the concept of regime change and mention Soviet or Russian involvement distinguishes them, for example Soviet Involvement in Third World Coups by Steven R. David (though this is from 1986) and The Strategic Logic of Covert Regime Change: US Backed Regime Change Campaigns during the Cold War by Lindsey A. O’Rourke which in its final chapter states:

Because this article focused on US-backed cases, the question naturally arises of whether we can apply its insights beyond the United States. Nothing in this article’s arguments regarding the strategic objectives and logic of regime change nor the decision-making framework for covert and overt conduct is limited to the United States, so future research can access its generalizability as additional covert cases are uncovered. Although obtaining reliable data on foreign covert actions is difficult, where limited information is currently available, I have found this data to be consistent.

For instance, Rory Cormac’s detailed analysis of British covert interventions since World War II shows British leaders launched numerous covert regime changes in pursuit of similar security-oriented objectives as the United States. During the Cold War, in fact, Cormac shows that the United Kingdom frequently intervened alongside the United States during many of the covert interventions discussed here. Soviet-backed regime changes during the Cold War, by contrast, mirrored their American counterparts in terms of objectives and conduct: Moscow conducted offensive operations to divide the American alliance system and help communist parties win elections in Italy and France; preventive operations into multiple civil wars— including in Angola, Congo, Ethiopia, and Mozambique—to prevent those countries from joining the Western camp; and hegemonic operations to carve out a sphere of influence in Eastern Europe. Despite overt interventions in Hungary (1956), Czechoslovakia (1968), and Afghanistan (1979), the Soviet Union also demonstrated a similar strong preference for covert action to minimize the chances of military conformation. Since the Cold War, Russia has been accused of using covert action to help pro-Russian leaders assume power in Eastern Europe as part of its bid reestablish a sphere of influence in the region. US intelligence agencies have also accused Russia of covertly meddling in democratic elections in the United States and Western Europe to support candidates sympathetic to Russia’s strategic objectives and to “undermine the credibility of the US-led liberal democratic order.”

Given the centrality of covert regime change in current foreign policy debates, it is important for scholars to understand when and why states will pursue these interventions. Nevertheless, existing scholarship on regime change has focused very heavily on overt cases. To redress that problem, this article has introduced a new theory regarding the strategic objectives of America’s Cold War regime changes and a framework to explain policymakers’ reasoning to intervene covertly versus overtly.

Mellk (talk) 10:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see that extended quote's relevance to this discussion or how you'd twice arrive at the suggestion that all uses of "Soviet" are interchangeable with "Russian". I made a very specific point about this singular article and the content that up until very recently was included within it. Soviet involvement in regime change repeatedly refers to "Russians" as its subject, not "Soviets". Now if sources from the split content discuss those foreign interventions as led by bodies other than the Russian SFSR, that would be relevant, but it's not how it's currently written. I'm unwatching this page now. Good luck. czar 06:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Merge, as said in the section above, it is the same legacy and size is not an issue.--ReyHahn (talk) 11:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Soviet Union exists for a reason, you know? Mellk (talk) 11:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Merge per Czar, the Foreign interventions by the Soviet Union article already exists. The article should be restored to its pre-split version, and could include content about Imperial Russia if warranted. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

  That's a good point, if we wished to add content from Imperial Russia and the split is kept, does that mean that we have to create a new article (Imperial Russia involvement in regime change)?--ReyHahn (talk) 12:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose The USSR was a distinct entity to the present day Russian Federation. Russians only made up 52% of the population of the Soviet Union so it cannot really be considered "Russian".PailSimon (talk) 11:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose/Don't merge As I've already explained above (and did not get any more responses). Mellk (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment @Czar: Shouldn't the split have been discussed before the merge? There appears to be a clear opposition to it. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

  @NoonIcarus, it was discussed in the prior two sections. Yes, it could have potentially been reverted as BRD and then discussed for the same effect. czar 06:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Modern day Russia is not the same state/country as Soviet Union. This is like combining Yugoslavia and Montenegro. Why should'n we bring Ukraine here? For the same reason, I do not think we should include the Russian Empire and before.My very best wishes (talk) 03:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

  Modern day Russia is not the same state/country as Soviet Union.

  No one has argued this. czar 06:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

You proposed merging of two pages (the title of this thread), one of which (this page) is about modern day Russia, and another is about Soviet Union. My very best wishes (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

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.

Ukraine 2014

Is Russia annexing Crimea really regime change? I don't think it falls under the definition of regime change and none of the sources cited use that term.PailSimon (talk) 10:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Russian GRU operation in Crimea involved taking over the local parliament and installing their own new (Aksyonov's) administration. This is pretty much similar to Soviet actions in Afghanistan. But of course they also wanted to change the regime in Kiev. Ref: [1]. My very best wishes (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Burkina Faso

The Intercept has just published an article which lists the numerous United States training programmes that Paul-Henri Sandaogo Damiba has attended. The article does not mention that he has any connection with Russia. Burrobert (talk) 06:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Georgia

The description of the Caucasus War is implying, that Russia started the war, which is false, Georgia did. That should be corrected. 91.55.243.68 (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)