|
|
| (29 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | == Timeline ==
| + | [[Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Old|Archived discussion are here]] |
| − | We could try a "timeline" for this, possibly with a different article heading ("Russia-Ukraine war" or similar?). This war could be a short affair or expand into WW3. I regret not being active on the Covid timeline.
| + | <br> |
| − | [[User:Terje|Terje]] ([[User talk:Terje|talk]]) 07:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)--- | + | <br> |
| − | :Reliable information is hard to get by, from either side at this time. Please share your favorite sources. I'll start with: http://thesaker.is/ [[User:Urban|Urban]] ([[User talk:Urban|talk]]) 08:38, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
| |
| | | | |
| − | ::Marko at https://anti-empire.com and https://off-guardian.org/ both give excellent perspective. [[User:Terje|Terje]] ([[User talk:Terje|talk]]) 06:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)--- | + | ==Lede - "Russo-Ukrainian War"== |
| − | ::: Apart from not renaming this page for now, the timelin in hcard is something I did try at the 2014 coup page, but it looked buggy or I didn't understood it. I'd need to try it on a sandbox before trying it out. As I don't really grasp how it works in the SMWQ. --[[User:Jun|Jun]] ([[User talk:Jun|talk]]) 22:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
| + | Wikipedia writes: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine] "On 24 February 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine in a major escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian War, which started in 2014." - Russo-Ukrainian War is kind of a misnomer, since this is a civil war and also a proxy war that includes US/NATO interest. Like that, naming it like this repeats the ON. Should be changed accordingly. -- [[User:Sunvalley|Sunvalley]] ([[User talk:Sunvalley|talk]]) 21:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC) |
| | | | |
| − | == Pagename == | + | =='Vanishing people'== |
| − | Looking at our other [[wars]] (list), I see 2 named an "invasion", the [[United States invasion of Panama]] and the [[Afghanistan/2001 Invasion]], despite that most of the [[wars]] listed have an invader. I suggest renaming this one, but will bow to consensus. "2022 Russian-Ukrainian War"?
| + | [[user:Jun|Jun]], the section 'Vanishing people', what exactly do you want to say there? I hardly follow. And is a link to one (not small) Wikipedia article the citation for that? Please have a look. -- [[User:Sunvalley|Sunvalley]] ([[User talk:Sunvalley|talk]]) 00:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC) |
| − | [[User:Terje|Terje]] ([[User talk:Terje|talk]]) 06:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)--- | + | ::: I tried merging the "PMC" Underground bases and deportations claims a year ago, but WP changed it and split all those parts before I added all refs. I just kept the Deportations. The [[D.U.M.B]] (see; https://theconversation.com/going-underground-ukraines-subterranean-fighters-highlight-the-benefit-and-long-history-of-tunnels-in-warfare-181454, https://www.firstpost.com/explainers/russia-ukraine-war-underground-cities-bakhmut-soledar-salt-mines-wagner-group-11959712.html & https://defence-blog.com/ukraine-shows-off-underground-base-for-himars/) and [[PMCs]]/[[Sleeper cell]]/miliatry abduction (added now)/hitmen network ([[Academi]], [[Wagner]] now have their own pages. A redirect and sub-header in the future will be enough for them. Good catch. [[User:Jun|Jun]] ([[User talk:Jun|talk]]) 19:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC) |
| | | | |
| − | :I opt for the more neutral "war", but maybe a redirect does it, because search engines have already crawled this pagename. [[User:Urban|Urban]] ([[User talk:Urban|talk]]) 08:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
| + | == Russian sources - == |
| | + | I can't find anything for this, and it's a month, and we've almost reached the 50k limit, so for now, I've removed the following [[user:Sunvalley]]. |
| | | | |
| − | ::I think search engines are good at dealing with mediawiki & namechanges nowadays, so that shouldn't be a big factor. One common element of the other two invasions is a power imbalance, and a long distance between the two parties, only the former of which is true here. "[[Invasion]]" feels like quite an accurate description for now. If it goes on for ages and/or otherwise acquires more characteristics of a "[[war]]", we can revisit this topic then. -- [[User:Robin|Robin]] ([[User talk:Robin|talk]]) 15:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC) | + | The attempt at Kiev was thought of as a diversion by [[Scott Ritter]], in order to force Ukraine to split focus and power to some extent away from the main battle line.<ref>the explanation starts about 10:15 into the video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SN7o-ThhFfY The first casualty of War is Truth (Live w/Scott Ritter)], The Duran YT channel, Apr 4, 2022</ref> A Russian military commander later clarified that they thought the mood in the population would swing in their favor, but nothing of the sort did happen even remotely, so they adjusted strategy accordingly.<ref>Vladimir Shamanov - retired Colonel General of the Russian Armed Forces, from May 2009 to October 2016 Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Airborne Troops, https://de.rt.com/europa/139630-luftlandetruppen-chef-ad-zum-verlauf-militaeroperation/ - automated translation: "In the interview, the general also acknowledged mistakes made by the military leadership. At the beginning of the operation, he said, the Russian army expected to be "greeted with flowers" in Ukraine. This "component" had already been overcome."</ref> [[User:Jun|Jun]] ([[User talk:Jun|talk]]) 12:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC) |
| | | | |
| − | ==Blacklisted by google==
| + | :updated with the missing links today -- [[User:Sunvalley|Sunvalley]] ([[User talk:Sunvalley|talk]]) 10:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC) |
| − | The search "Russian invasion of Ukraine wikispooks" is blacklisted by google now. Yahoo and Duckduckgo report it as 1. hit though. [[User:Urban|Urban]] ([[User talk:Urban|talk]]) 21:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::This happens sometimes for a day or 2. According to internal data this week is the still the most busy week for us in at least ''1 year''.
| |
| − | Google is still responsible for 45-55% of search engines share to find access us for today. And ~30% of complete share in linking to us. A peculiar point to make is that unlike most sites, our visitors are already quite tech savvy, they use duck duck go more often and a significant share appear to access our site directly (by bookmarking us or remembering our from memory or as routine visitors (e.g: recent visit/start-pages in chrome, Opera & Firefox). https://wikispooks.com/piwik/index.php?module=CoreHome&action=index&idSite=1&period=day&date=2022-02-28#?module=Dashboard&action=embeddedIndex&idSite=1&period=day&date=2022-02-28&idDashboard=1
| |
| | | | |
| − | So apart from the fact it wouldn't be something to really anticipate on for now, just wait to see if this situation changes. You can always try to get more market share by promoting the site on our social media. (Telegram, Twitter, Reddit, NOT Facebook as that's run by someone unknown to us). I've send you the Twitter and Reddit and Gab login data. Telegram is run by Terje, ask him him you want to share knowledge of this. --[[User:Jun|Jun]] ([[User talk:Jun|talk]]) 21:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
| + | ::will put it back in at "===Execution===" / from there I'm gonna remove: "- which failed because the CIA was already training Ukraine to prepare for this.<ref>http://archive.today/2022.03.16-125239/https://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-secret-cia-training-program-in-ukraine-helped-kyiv-prepare-for-russian-invasion-090052743.html?guccounter=1</ref>" / the link is very good, since CCM which details CIA involvement, but the conclusion that it failed there because of that is imo not warranted, it failed since they did not really try, also because Russia had wrong assumptions as Vladimir Shamanov says in the part above. ukraine built almost all fortification and defensive lines of relevance towards donbass and russia border, but not over kiev, which the comment from the saker article in the lede also hints at. will find a place for the currently removed link. -- [[User:Sunvalley|Sunvalley]] ([[User talk:Sunvalley|talk]]) 21:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC) |
| | | | |
| − | This is correct, the page is blacklisted. But all other pages, and even the mentioning of this page on other talk pages appears quite high. Which is telling. --[[User:Jun|Jun]] ([[User talk:Jun|talk]]) 01:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
| + | ==50k== |
| − | I've contacted Google, but... to no avail.
| + | Per [[Style guide]], will everyone please try to keep the article under 50k bytes? When new content has to be added, please be reminded to move less relevant content to other pages. We still have 30% of stubs. Even 9-11, Covid or all US elections pages combined have less bytes. |
| | + | So, when over 50k bytes, just ''try'' to move some content and leave a forwarded redirect: {{FA|Example}} |
| | + | There is no mass message extension yet to edit, so please be reminded that in the future content may be moved with reasoning placed here, as in the past. Like I did with 3 sub-pages, more sub-pages are welcome, changing the names of the current one as well. |
| | + | [[User:Jun|Jun]] ([[User talk:Jun|talk]]) 04:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC) |
| | | | |
| − | ==Removed content== | + | ==Sex trafficking== |
| − | The following has been debunked and therefore removed; "When the USSR broke apart in 1990, Russia (then represented by [[Gorbachev]]) was promised that NATO would not expand eastward. The promise was broken from beginning." Please try to study this kind of info before adding it. See: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/
| + | From the current version of the article: |
| − | | + | Demand for Ukrainian women by VIPedophile networks was reported by European Commissioner Ylva Johansson to be sky-high.[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60891801] |
| − | Please try to add the sources while removing segments that already are "backed up with refs". We now have several parts explained two times in different headers. --[[User:Jun|Jun]] ([[User talk:Jun|talk]]) 14:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
| + | The BBC link does not mention European Commissioner Ylva Johansson, it is more on the ground reporting. What I find on short notice is a general statement by Johansson about trafficking early on (21/03/2022) [https://www.euronews.com/2022/03/21/huge-risk-ukrainian-children-can-fall-into-trafficking-says-eu-commissioner]; nothing in there really speaks about what we would term VIPedophile (the VIPedophile phenomenon is included in the general area of trafficking - that is understood but still). I doubt she would speak about it at all .. so when there is a distinction between sex-trafficking and VIPedophile the text should not conflate it. |
| − | | + | --[[User:Sunvalley|Sunvalley]] ([[User talk:Sunvalley|talk]]) 11:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC) |
| − | :I appreciate your edits. Great improvement. I did not intend to remove any content BTW, did I? I suspect Gorbi was in on it (his Club of Rome quote about a "New World Order") and if he denies the "well known" promise, this would fit in very well. [[User:Urban|Urban]] ([[User talk:Urban|talk]]) 18:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
| + | :Good catch. I added the term because of the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons accusations in the last ref; https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-trafficking-in-persons-report/ukraine/ that accused dozens of UKR officials of kidnapping orphans in sex trafficking networks, which would be enough for a VIPedophile suspicion. I moved the claim by Johansson as that;s by her - at best - vaguely implied - to ''suggest'' the claim as alleged or hinted by the OTMCTP report which are more sufficient. This report notes (as non-english sources are in general not preferable per style guide) that high-profile cases or sex-trafficking networks by important civil servants included; "Kyiv City police counter-trafficking unit, three police officers, recruiters accused of trafficking Ukrainians into a drug-trafficking ring in Russia, and a teacher at a government-run boarding school for orphans in Kharkiv who attempted to sell one of her students" [[User:Jun|Jun]] ([[User talk:Jun|talk]]) 12:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC) |
| − | ::You only moved the encirclement (and deleted the militarization) link in the lede. The militarization is not a perfect fit, but the best replacement should prob be a separate page called "NATO/Expansion". The encirclement link was really popular and a vital argument to understand narratives in the lede as pwiki data showed, that's why I placed it back in the lede.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ----
| |
| − | [[user:Urban|Urban]] could you explain why you removed the nuclear rearmament part? Having it's own article is fine, but it is relevant to give context here. -- [[User:Sunvalley|Sunvalley]] ([[User talk:Sunvalley|talk]]) 16:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − | :And to clarify, Zelensky insinuated it,<ref>http://archive.today/2022.03.09-172016/https://www.rebelnews.com/zelensky_suggests_ukraine_may_pursue_nuclear_weapons</ref><ref>https://kyivindependent.com/national/zelenskys-full-speech-at-munich-security-conference/</ref> by saying that that the [[Budapest Memorandum]]<ref>https://www.dw.com/en/ukraines-forgotten-security-guarantee-the-budapest-memorandum/a-18111097</ref><ref>https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2014/eirv41n08-20140221/34-35_4108.pdf</ref> does not work anymore, nuclear rearmament (given the smaller size of their army) is one obvious route to go from there. [[Rainer Rupp]] has written an article that pretty much has the same view.<ref>https://detv.us/2022/02/21/ukraine-threatens-nato-with-nuclear-weapons-acquisition-rt-en/</ref> [[Dmytro Kuleba]] (Minister of Foreign Affairs Ukraine) said something to the effect that it was a mistake do give the nukes away.<ref>https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/feb/22/dmytro-kuleba-ukraine-foreign-minister-giving-nucl/</ref><ref>https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/20/world/europe/some-in-ukraine-a-former-nuclear-power-now-regret-disarmament.html</ref> So I would clarify (maybe with Russian and Western reaction) and put it back in? -- [[User:Sunvalley|Sunvalley]] ([[User talk:Sunvalley|talk]]) 18:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ::It is exactly that: an ''insinuation'' by someone considered a US puppet here. That makes it suspicious as a propaganda move, given his main quote requesting NATO support, also western media fostering fear to raise support for sanctions. The media uses ''conjunctives'' here: it ''may'' be... But obviously the main topic: "What happened to all these nuclear weapons" is of great real concern. Are they old soviet type weapons? Have they really been disabled (as Dmytro Kuleba implies)? (WP is not clear about that) Or, are there NATO types, even? Who is in control NOW? It is a bit confusing to sort all this out on ''this'' page IMHO, obviously top secret info would be needed. We would have to use a lot of ''maybe''-type hypotheses, like the {{ccm}} does BTW, which is in itself suspicious. This is a hot topic which could be best referenced by a FA on ''this page'', I think. It is all hypothetical, we do not know, so not a re-action (other than propaganda) per se. [[User:Urban|Urban]] ([[User talk:Urban|talk]]) 18:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::You mentioned Rainer Rupp and he said in this article: ''Altogether, Ukraine had about 1,700 strategic nuclear warheads and hundreds of delivery weapons, '''over which, in practice, Moscow, more precisely the Kremlin, had never relinquished control.''''' (emph. added) This seems plausible to me. Nuclear weapons are controlled by sophisticated computers, which are owned by Putin. This might help explaining his rather bold move. [[User:Urban|Urban]] ([[User talk:Urban|talk]]) 18:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | :::Given what could be observed in Ukraine since the coup, I think you can not realistically exclude it. Exclude that they are not thinking about it. Or that they could not be thinking about it. I assume (without reading into it) that the disarmament [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine] was done under international supervision and these weapons were all removed from Ukraine, and that the real threat comes from them having the option to recreate the technology in the short run, since they have the foundation. I still think it is fair to mention this, however (you being probably right here), in a more exact way. The insinuation at that meeting and the remarks by the minister are just facts and the Russians reacted seriously, and shortly thereafter the military move. -- [[User:Sunvalley|Sunvalley]] ([[User talk:Sunvalley|talk]]) 19:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ::::At the Munich conference, when you read his statement in the original quote... Doesn't Zelensky sound a bit like a helpless clown among all these NATO big shots? If you think the reader profits from your interpretation of the insinuation, you can put it this way: ''user:Sunvalley assumes... '' and then quote him literally to make clear the difference of what was said and what your thoughts are. I am not devaluing your thoughts. I'm not fighting about that. Or you say: "''Probably'' (admitting that its a hypothesis) the real threat comes from them{{who}} having the option to recreate the technology in the short run (see FA...)". [[User:Urban|Urban]] ([[User talk:Urban|talk]]) 05:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC) | |
| − | | |
| − | :::::Sure he is, but given that the also has to make people directly around him happy, given the Ukrainian nationalism developed as it did, given that there is something akin to a deep state in Ukraine, I would not exclude the possibility that they want to have nukes again (relevant tweet by Hans Kristensen: [http://archive.today/2022.03.10-125900/https://twitter.com/nukestrat/status/1495925696056766467]) .. smaller ones (tactical), on rockets of the >500 KM range could likely be done, at least that is what Putin said in his address to the nation. First remarks from Ukrainian officials that I can find reporting on are from: Oleksandr Turchynov in April 2019)<ref>https://uawire.org/zelensky-ukraine-may-reconsider-its-nuclear-status</ref>. Looking at it, it does not really make sense, since when they use them in a theoretical future scenario, Russia could give a much bigger response, and not just in Ukraine - which would be the reason why Ukraine will not be helped with that officially. But since there is a certain know-how, they may be in a position to do it on their own. Putins address to the nation (21 February 2022):<ref>http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67828</ref><ref>https://tass.com/world/1407773</ref>
| |
| − | :::::{{QB|As we know, it has already been stated today that Ukraine intends to create its own nuclear weapons, and this is not just bragging. Ukraine has the nuclear technologies created back in the Soviet times and delivery vehicles for such weapons, including aircraft, as well as the Soviet-designed Tochka-U precision tactical missiles with a range of over 100 kilometres. But they can do more; it is only a matter of time. They have had the groundwork for this since the Soviet era.
| |
| − | | |
| − | In other words, acquiring tactical nuclear weapons will be much easier for Ukraine than for some other states I am not going to mention here, which are conducting such research, especially if Kiev receives foreign technological support. We cannot rule this out either.}}
| |
| − | :::::So it is not exactly me making that point, but the Russian state. And this is what the [[alt-media]] picked up on,<ref>https://www.dailywire.com/news/president-zelensky-suggests-ukraine-may-pursue-nuclear-weapons-to-counter-russia-putin-responds</ref> and thus my remark here. Ukrainian sources (in English) say after the Zelensky speech at times nukes are not pursued,<ref>https://ukrainianpost.com/politics/197-the-historical-meaning-of-zelensky-s-munich-speech-for-ukraine-and-the-west</ref> or alternatively "Ukraine may reconsider its nuclear status"<ref>https://uawire.org/zelensky-ukraine-may-reconsider-its-nuclear-status</ref>. There is an article by https://frontierindia.com/ which comes down to this:<ref>https://frontierindia.com/can-ukraine-be-a-nuclear-weapons-power/</ref>
| |
| − | :::::{{QB|Ukrainian Nuclear weapons capability
| |
| − | | |
| − | Some Ukrainian officials, such as retired General Pyotr Garashchuk , have argued that Ukraine retained enough technical knowledge to obtain a full range of nuclear weapons and delivery systems.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Technically, there is an industry in Ukraine that, with some modifications, should be able to create nuclear weapons systems. But, no nuclear power would help Ukraine make atomic weapons because no one wants to deal with the inevitable wave of problems that will arise the day it becomes known that Ukraine is developing nuclear weapons.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Instead of offering their approval and assistance, the U.S. and its allies are likely to work against Ukraine, potentially imposing economic sanctions. The current state of Ukraine’s economy and the government’s dependence on foreign aid makes Kiev’s chances of doing what Pyongyang did is doubtful.
| |
| − | | |
| − | The operation of nuclear weapons is a huge high-tech industry. Economically hobbled Ukraine will have to invest tens of billions of dollars in its formation, and without a guaranteed positive result.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Given the circumstances, Ukraine’s nuclear ambitions may be part of an attention-grabbing campaign rather than a real roadmap.}}
| |
| − | :::::So all that, can we mention it? Most of it can be put at [[Ukraine/Nuclear weapons]] but some would have to be mentioned here imo, since that is part of the circumstances before the invasion. -- [[User:Sunvalley|Sunvalley]] ([[User talk:Sunvalley|talk]]) 13:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | :::::::Isn't Putin speaking of a '''preemptive strike''' here? Go ahead then, put it it in. But I'd prefer to have his quote on the subpage. Matter of taste. [[User:Urban|Urban]] ([[User talk:Urban|talk]]) 16:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Who Promised What to Whom on NATO Expansion?==
| |
| − | | |
| − | As for Gorbi's reasoning, I don't know and I'm not that sure. It appears he was "led to believe" by U.S. Secretary of State James Baker. Kohl and Bush. They appeared to have tried to make him believe if Germany joins NATO, NATO would stay there and ''not have to'' move east. They appear to compare it to be better than Germany just being independent again until it starts some (....) again. Gorbi wanted E-Germany to become a sort of Moldova. They say Gorbi said yes as he was surprised with the speed of Germany's calls for unification. I tend to think he was pressured to believe it, but thought it helped him for the coming Soviet coup and there were to many deep state faction trying to position themselves for the August coup. https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early#_edn1
| |
| − | | |
| − | I think a missing piece here is what and who Putin did meet in '91 after leaving the KGB - according to him was Gorbi was becoming quite senile - before being exposed for fraud by Marina Salye should help to solve this.
| |
| − | | |
| − | :::That there were assurances in those negotiations, that NATO would <u>not</u> move eastwards, is not the question anymore, there were.<ref>https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Keinen-Inch-weiter-nach-Osten-Was-den-Russen-zur-Wiedervereinigung-ueber-die-Nato-versprochen-wurde-3918651.html?seite=all</ref><ref>https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Nato-Osterweiterung-Das-ist-eine-brillante-Idee-Ein-Geniestreich-4009027.html?seite=all</ref><ref>https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Osterweiterung-Fehler-von-historischem-Ausmass-4002177.html?seite=all</ref><ref>https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Osterweiterung-Wie-die-Nato-wortbruechig-wurde-6347016.html</ref><ref>https://odysee.com/@RTDE:e/Fasbender-im-Gespr%C3%A4ch-mit-Jochen-Scholz-Vorerst-keine-Aussicht-auf-Wiederann%C3%A4herung:d</ref><ref>https://www.spiegel.de/ausland/nato-osterweiterung-aktenfund-stuetzt-russische-version-a-1613d467-bd72-4f02-8e16-2cd6d3285295</ref> "In return for German unification, the west promises not to let nato advance further eastward" (ARD).<ref>https://odysee.com/@R.A.I.N.:0/Genscher---'Waren-uns-einig-dass-nicht-die-Absicht-besteht-die-NATO-nach-Osten-auszudehnen':b</ref> I believe that assurances in meetings amongst statesmen had up to that point some sort binding effect, but the US then played stupid, turned around and said: "We're not expanding, they're asking to join" ... integrating the KGB networks into NATO as they went. Anyway, if someone has the answer why the Russians did not make this binding in writing, it would be much appreciated. -- [[User:Sunvalley|Sunvalley]] ([[User talk:Sunvalley|talk]]) 23:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − | :::: Gorbi says<ref>https://www.dw.com/en/how-kohl-and-gorbachev-sealed-the-deal-on-german-reunification/a-5788998</ref> it was only about "new military structures created in the eastern part of the country" with no promises elsewhere, I still don't see it as the explicit promising of no expansion beyond de DDR. At best the beyond DDR part would be an informal guarantee imho. Which is suspicious and a quite weak ploy of Gorbi of its own, but plausible reading the declassified files. As to why, most witnesses suggest the combi of Gorbi preparing for the demise of Union & getting an informal financial injection to keep it still floating), as the USSR was paid $40-70 billion by the DDR as "price for reunification".<ref>German Reunification: A Multinational History edited by Frédéric Bozo, Andreas Rödder, Mary Elise Sarotte</ref> --[[User:Jun|Jun]] ([[User talk:Jun|talk]]) 00:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::::I found https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early. It says: "Who Promised What to Whom on NATO Expansion?” The panel included Mark Kramer: the “no-NATO-enlargement pledge” was a “myth”. And: "the U.S. was playing a double game in 1990, leading Gorbachev to believe NATO would be subsumed in a new European security structure" [[User:Urban|Urban]] ([[User talk:Urban|talk]]) 16:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Role of international lending institutions===
| |
| − | At the time massive currency speculation let to a devaluation of the Rubel. Likely, Gorbi felt he needs cold hard cash (from the West). [[User:Urban|Urban]] ([[User talk:Urban|talk]]) 04:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ...and I got a feeling that Putin is facing this same urge towards ''cold hard cash'' very soon. The role of banks in conflict is "overlooked" in history, but more visible in this case, where weapons deals are discussed publicly. [[User:Urban|Urban]] ([[User talk:Urban|talk]]) 07:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
| |
| | | | |
| | ==References== | | ==References== |
| | {{reflist}} | | {{reflist}} |
Archived discussion are here
Lede - "Russo-Ukrainian War"
Wikipedia writes: [1] "On 24 February 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine in a major escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian War, which started in 2014." - Russo-Ukrainian War is kind of a misnomer, since this is a civil war and also a proxy war that includes US/NATO interest. Like that, naming it like this repeats the ON. Should be changed accordingly. -- Sunvalley (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
'Vanishing people'
Jun, the section 'Vanishing people', what exactly do you want to say there? I hardly follow. And is a link to one (not small) Wikipedia article the citation for that? Please have a look. -- Sunvalley (talk) 00:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- I tried merging the "PMC" Underground bases and deportations claims a year ago, but WP changed it and split all those parts before I added all refs. I just kept the Deportations. The D.U.M.B (see; https://theconversation.com/going-underground-ukraines-subterranean-fighters-highlight-the-benefit-and-long-history-of-tunnels-in-warfare-181454, https://www.firstpost.com/explainers/russia-ukraine-war-underground-cities-bakhmut-soledar-salt-mines-wagner-group-11959712.html & https://defence-blog.com/ukraine-shows-off-underground-base-for-himars/) and PMCs/Sleeper cell/miliatry abduction (added now)/hitmen network (Academi, Wagner now have their own pages. A redirect and sub-header in the future will be enough for them. Good catch. Jun (talk) 19:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Russian sources -
I can't find anything for this, and it's a month, and we've almost reached the 50k limit, so for now, I've removed the following user:Sunvalley.
The attempt at Kiev was thought of as a diversion by Scott Ritter, in order to force Ukraine to split focus and power to some extent away from the main battle line.[1] A Russian military commander later clarified that they thought the mood in the population would swing in their favor, but nothing of the sort did happen even remotely, so they adjusted strategy accordingly.[2] Jun (talk) 12:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- updated with the missing links today -- Sunvalley (talk) 10:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- will put it back in at "===Execution===" / from there I'm gonna remove: "- which failed because the CIA was already training Ukraine to prepare for this.[3]" / the link is very good, since CCM which details CIA involvement, but the conclusion that it failed there because of that is imo not warranted, it failed since they did not really try, also because Russia had wrong assumptions as Vladimir Shamanov says in the part above. ukraine built almost all fortification and defensive lines of relevance towards donbass and russia border, but not over kiev, which the comment from the saker article in the lede also hints at. will find a place for the currently removed link. -- Sunvalley (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
50k
Per Style guide, will everyone please try to keep the article under 50k bytes? When new content has to be added, please be reminded to move less relevant content to other pages. We still have 30% of stubs. Even 9-11, Covid or all US elections pages combined have less bytes.
So, when over 50k bytes, just try to move some content and leave a forwarded redirect:
- Full article: Example
There is no mass message extension yet to edit, so please be reminded that in the future content may be moved with reasoning placed here, as in the past. Like I did with 3 sub-pages, more sub-pages are welcome, changing the names of the current one as well.
Jun (talk) 04:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Sex trafficking
From the current version of the article:
Demand for Ukrainian women by VIPedophile networks was reported by European Commissioner Ylva Johansson to be sky-high.[2]
The BBC link does not mention European Commissioner Ylva Johansson, it is more on the ground reporting. What I find on short notice is a general statement by Johansson about trafficking early on (21/03/2022) [3]; nothing in there really speaks about what we would term VIPedophile (the VIPedophile phenomenon is included in the general area of trafficking - that is understood but still). I doubt she would speak about it at all .. so when there is a distinction between sex-trafficking and VIPedophile the text should not conflate it.
--Sunvalley (talk) 11:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- Good catch. I added the term because of the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons accusations in the last ref; https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-trafficking-in-persons-report/ukraine/ that accused dozens of UKR officials of kidnapping orphans in sex trafficking networks, which would be enough for a VIPedophile suspicion. I moved the claim by Johansson as that;s by her - at best - vaguely implied - to suggest the claim as alleged or hinted by the OTMCTP report which are more sufficient. This report notes (as non-english sources are in general not preferable per style guide) that high-profile cases or sex-trafficking networks by important civil servants included; "Kyiv City police counter-trafficking unit, three police officers, recruiters accused of trafficking Ukrainians into a drug-trafficking ring in Russia, and a teacher at a government-run boarding school for orphans in Kharkiv who attempted to sell one of her students" Jun (talk) 12:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
References
