Talk:2014 Crimean crisis/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Legal nonsense

There is following sentence in the article: U.N. General Assembly passed a non-binding resolution. What a nonsense !! All resolutions of UN General Assembly are non-binding by themselves. No need to mention it specially. It's like there are some binding Resolution, but this one is non-binding. The words non-binding must be removed. 217.76.1.22 (talk) 11:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)217.76.1.22 (talk) 11:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)217.76.1.22 (talk) 11:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The statement has five inline references and all five say the resolution is non-binding. The United Nations Security Council can pass binding resolutions while United Nations General Assembly resolution says "Although General Assembly resolutions are generally non-binding towards member states, internal resolutions may be binding on the operation of the General Assembly itself, for example with regard to budgetary and procedural matters." Most readers probably don't know the legal details of which UN organs can make binding resolutions in which cases so it seems sensible to do as the reliable sources and mention it's non-binding. The Google search non-binding General Assembly resolution confirms this is very common. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree to keep the non-binding description as it is not common knowledge.Cmoibenlepro (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move at Political status of Crimea and Sevastopol

There is a requested move at Talk:Political status of Crimea and Sevastopol. Please comment there. RGloucester — ☎ 19:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Russian state media

Wikipedia does not, AFAIK, recognize outlets like RT as reliable sources. They are subject to the editorial control of the government of a country well known for lacking freedom of the press, and they disseminate propaganda accordingly. Especially when they make extraordinary claims about "self-defense units" stopping "employees of the Ukrainian government" from vaguely nefarious activities, they should not be cited on Wikipedia. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

RT is not under editorial control of the government. Moreover, there are many government operated/funded media outlets that are considered reliable sources, including BBC and CBC. You don't get to pick and choose whose state propaganda is legitimate. If you want to contest the usage of RT in this article, start an issue at the reliable sources noticeboard.LokiiT (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I've edited dozens of articles on Wikipedia, and not once has a consensus of editors deemed RT to be an acceptable source. It's a Kremlin mouthpiece. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Whether the said source reliable or not should be discussed case by case (sentence by sentence) instead of banning them wholesale. The previous discussions over Russian (pro-Putin) media in reliable sources noticeboard does not regard RT instantly unreliable if they're not given undue weight on certain controversial fact. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 06:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

And citing a report from RT to claim as fact that "self-defense units" stopped Ukrainian agents from some sort of terrorist act in the Kherson region definitely qualifies as "undue weight". -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

RT has never been an "unreliable source" on Wikipedia. Like all news sources, reliability is situational, and it's up to editors to see fit whether a source should be used. During the whole Edward Snowden event and the WikiLeaks cables release, the only sources available at a certain point in time were Al Jazeera and RT, since American media outlets had a blanket ban on the topic and information wasn't freely available. Back then, it was deemed by community consensus that RT was to be trusted on the WikiLeaks issue.

Just with any news source, determine whether or not the report is done accurately and fairly for the situation at hand; don't resort to arguments which address the country of origin. Just like how you would gauge the reliability of an article from Fox News or CNN, it's up to editors to analyse the reliability of RT article by article.

Proper usage of citations is supposed to be situational, and there is no universal set of rules for anything. Take Xinhua News Agency or the People's Daily, for example: There are some cases where you shouldn't use those two, but there are also times when usage is acceptable. I would consider the two to be unreliable when releasing information relating to dissidents or death tolls, but reliable on apolitical domestic issues, such as football match scores.

In summary: Don't jump on RT like it's the next Pravda or Der Fuhrer's Lugenblatt; analyse each report, and make an educated and intelligent decision from each one. --benlisquare_T•C•E 07:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

In summary: - an opinion isn't a summary. Xx236 (talk) 09:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Great reasoning there mate, you sure got me. --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

If our goal on Wikipedia is to promulgate verifiable, fact-based information in a neutral, encyclopedic way, couching radical claims in reports handed down from the Kremlin (or direct from any other government, especially those that restrict freedom of the press) is really going to get in the way of that. I am 100% opposed to basing any claims in an article like this off reports by RT or other Kremlin-controlled media. I don't even think it's appropriate to use sources like Voice of America that act as mouthpieces of the American government in situations where Washington has interests. This article, which covers a highly contentious topic, is going to be a lot less neutral if we consider that anything goes as far as sourcing, including propaganda from the intervening power. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Yet we cite sources from National Rifle Association in gun politics in the United States. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 08:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:OSE. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Have you discussed it on the reliable sources noticeboard or are you just here to argue? LokiiT (talk) 00:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I was expecting you to quote the OSE essay. The elimination of RT from Syrian Civil War would not apply here either according to this theory. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• NYT Xx236 (talk) 10:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
• SpiegelXx236 (talk) 10:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
• The TelegraphXx236 (talk) 10:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

What point are you trying to make? It's a given that western propaganda is going to criticize Russian propaganda and vice versa. The criticism in those articles is as legitimate as RT's criticism towards CNN and Fox News. LokiiT (talk) 10:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not making points, I'm quoting and everyone can make his/her opinion.

You have written RT is not under editorial control of the government. May I ask your source?Xx236 (talk) 10:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no West but the USA and a number of West European nations who poorly cooperate. There is no Western Propaganda Center and German media are different than the US ones. There is no symmetry: no Russian Assange, Anna Politkovskaya is dead. Xx236 (talk) 10:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Again we have the arguments that RT is an underling of the Kremlin. I find it ironic that people in the west, particularly Americans, are oh so abhorred at the thought that the press in Russia has a different viewpoint to theirs, and is therefore a definite Kremlin mouthpiece. It's strange how it's accepted that the American media is largely considered as reliable and trustworthy 100% of the time. Meanwhile, everyone seems to have zero qualms that 90% of American media is controlled by a certain ethnicity. I personally find it alarming that one ethnic group is able to control the large majority of American media outlets. But oh no, those Russians! --benlisquare_T•C•E 17:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I think this does a better job at explaining it than any of us could. The illusion of this alleged "western objectivity" is far more dangerous to wikipedia's credibility than the inclusion of RT as a reliable source. LokiiT (talk) 03:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

In another words you both refuse to discuss the problems of Russian governmental media - "a certain ethnicity" and You Tube. No, thank you! Xx236 (talk) 06:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

You can sum up how reliable Russia Today is by just reading the comments sections. Seriously take a shot everytime someone says the word Zion...you will have liver cancer in less than 10 minutes. 82.20.70.162 (talk) 10:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why you're cherry picking, it's widely known that a significant portion of online commentators make silly comments. Why stop at RT, when you can look at the Disqus feed on CNN.com? Or the comments section at Huffington Post? Your comment addressing what online commentators say has nothing to do with the reliability and trustworthiness of media outlets, and you're essentially distracting away from the main issue. --benlisquare_T•C•E 13:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The main issue is that the RT is a Mr Putin propaganda tool and CNN isn't Mr Obama propaganda tool. The boss or RT declared that the RT is an army which participates in the war. Does CNN participate in the war? Xx236 (talk) 07:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

What the хуй does that have to do with the point that I originally stated? If you have a source, you determine its value by reading it and critically appraising it. You don't brush it aside because of a label you give to the person or organization who made it. This is the fundamental principle behind neutrally assessing news and information sources without being partisan. --benlisquare_T•C•E 08:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, even though your point regarding CNN was completely irrelevant, it appears to be misguided as well. CNN is a democrat-leaning agency that is often critical of the Republican Party. Sure, CNN isn't directly owned by the US Federal Government, however the CEO and Chairman have direct stakes in the Democrat Party, and have various links to individuals belonging to said party. Then there are agencies which are Republican-leaning that are often critical of the Democrat Party. Things are not as simple as you're making them out to be. --benlisquare_T•C•E 08:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

If you bother to read CNN#Ratings and reception. Almost all news agencies have some sort of bias, including those in the "truly democratic" country. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 08:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

CNN isn't a propaganda tool of an army which invided land X, RT is. Xx236 (talk) 08:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

This is really starting to venture into WP:NOTFORUM territory. Wikipedia talk pages are not for general discussion. --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

You have used a 4-letter word, please remove. Wikipedia talk pages are not for vulgarisms. Xx236 (talk) 09:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of comment section. Recently many Western press like Reuters, the Guardian and CNN are plagued by enthusiastic anti-EU/US comments in every single report regarding Crimea. I think that hurts their credibility a lot. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

In Ukraine if you don't toe the line they'll personally come to your station and beat you up. If this is what they're doing in front of cameras, what are they doing off-camera? 99.226.48.235 (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine has been invided by an enemy. Any nation has problems with freedom of opinions when attacked, compare the USA after 9/11 or Russian murdering of journalists and anti-freedem laws. Did Russia protest after the murder of Georgiy Gongadze the way it uses the beating?Xx236 (talk) 07:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

EVERYTHING is "state media". See Operation Mockingbird, in which the CIA pays journalists in places such as Fox news or CNN. How sneaky of Wikipedia to make up policies that favor state propaganda of the West to sites like RT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.189.195 (talk) 05:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

"remove link to propaganda"

Please explain your position.Xx236 (talk) 11:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

What to do after normalization?

Possibly, most of you already know about the currently acting administrative restrictions aimed to decrease the number of en.wiki articles about the crisis. I hope that the community is healthy enough to eventually reopen a legitimate discussion about the fate of Republic of Crimea (country) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and controversial redirects and ridiculous protections on that page, as well as on Political status of Crimea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), will be rectified. But is it true that the number of subtopics (you can see their fair number in this navbox version under “Main topics”) is inflated? Can anybody cast a reasonable merger proposal, or propose some rearrangement of the content? Should I develop “Political status of Crimea” further (in the talk page, sandboxes, or so), or this article will likely be merged after the normalization?

In my opinion, the crisis and the status are the same thing today, but will be different things after just a couple of weeks. The former will become a history, the latter will remain a piece of politics. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps too many pre-existing things have been tagged with the crisis. As for the "main topics", many articles may be needed, but organization could be improved to reduce overlap. The following is probably controversial.

• Divide content from 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine among 2014 Crimean crisis, Timeline of the 2014 Crimean crisis, and International reactions to the 2014 Crimean crisis. Alternatively, leave the core as "Russian and Ukrainian military involvement in 2014 Crimean crisis" (or something similarly neutral), and merge List of military units in the 2014 Crimean crisis into that.
• Merge 2014 Russian anti-war protests with 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine to produce "2014 Russian-Ukrainian protests", "Protests during the 2014 Crimean crisis" or something similar.
• Move sanction information from 2014 Crimean crisis and Accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation to International reactions to the 2014 Crimean crisis - that article can be for formal actions taken by governments.
• If necessary, create Responses to 2014 Crimean crisis or some other page to contain the commentary.
• Turn International recognition of the Republic of Crimea into "Political status of Crimea", because the page is already mostly about acceptance of the region's belonging to Russia.
• Merge Crimean speech of Vladimir Putin into 2014 Crimean crisis. It is rather detailed and can probably be adequately summarized in a few sentences; world leaders have been giving a lot of speeches.
• I don't think we can merge Republic of Crimea and Crimean Federal District, but the latter definitely needs content from the former; it is currently small and lacking neutrality.

This would cut down the number of articles, and resolve most of the content forks.--Martin Berka (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, it is proposed to merge Political status of Crimea (or, possibly, this draft based on it) with International recognition of the Republic of Crimea. But what to do with the content of original “Republic of Crimea (country)” article (that is currently ransacked after the fraudulent discussion closure)? Should it go to “Political status …”, “2014 Crimean crisis”, “Crimean Federal District”, somewhere else, or remain a standalone article (that is a perfectly legitimate option)? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

We also need to change the title of Accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation to Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation due to the fact that what occurred is not dissimilar to what occurred in the Annexation of Texas and the Annexation of Bosnia as well as the fact that the majority (thus fulfilling the NPOV requirement) of the international community states that what was committed was a crime, that Crimea has no legal right to sign a treaty for accession, and many sanctions have been imposed. Thanks! მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 22:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that merge would make sense; there is substantial overlap. The Republic of Crimea was so short-lived that its only notable information was the surrounding politics, so "Political status..." seems best, but the corresponding Russian district is also plausible. I expect that "annexation" will be a difficult word to bring in (overall majority may not be sufficient to make it neutral), but "accession" does slant towards Russia (as does the gallery with six pictures and three videos, all pro-Russian.--Martin Berka (talk)

It pretty much comes down to the very dictionary definitions of the words. Russia, as a federation has to have states—and states are annexed, they do not accede to anything. People are taking the Encyclopedia Britannica for the definition of "annexation" instead of the dictionary and it's really quite absurd. A dictionary is for defining words, not an encyclopedia. If you look at the Accession of Crimea talk page you can see how fiercely the Russian PoV is being pushed...it's so visible there; the only thing I could do was source in a reliable source that said the process was illegal. Anyway, it's really between denotation and connotation and on Wikipedia, we should be using the former. მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 10:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. Annexation is unilateral (the annexing power doesn’t consult legitimate representatives of an annexed territory), whereas accession is thought to be bilateral. Note that I hereby don’t claim that the adoption treaty is internationally legal, only that such a form was respected by Russia. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

While you think that accession is "slant towards" Russia I would reply to you, that "annexation" is a slant too (but in this case — towards Ukraine). If you insist on renaming article, I would reccomend Incorporation of Crimea into the Russian Federation (or ...into Russia), which loosely stands for "Присоединение Крыма к России" but not presumes whether such incorporation was annexation of Ukr. territory or entry of independent state into Russia. Seryo93 (talk) 12:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is propaganda.

"Crisis" implies that the incident is a bad thing. It was only a bad thing for the West as it saw Crimean transfer of sovereignty. It also implies danger, except there was no force involved but rather a democratic process. It also pushes the POV that Russia took the peninsula by force, (rather than the Crimeans themselves wanted to leave for fear of the Nazi coup, as evidenced by Tymoshenko's "kill all Russians leak"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.189.195 (talk) 04:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

No violence? Maybe storming parliament with rocket launchers, killing a security guard, and then killing a Ukrainian soldier weeks later during the violent seizure of military bases. Let's also not forget those, including civilians who were abducted (and in the case of the Tatar Ametov, killed). --Львівське (говорити) 05:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure, lets talk about those things, which are omitted in this article to purposefully cultivate a pro-Western view. 'I'll hang you by the balls and have you f***ed' – Ukrainian presidential hopeful abducts pro-Russian MP, Kiev snipers hired by Maidan leaders - leaked EU's Ashton phone tape And don't bring up red herrings such as RT being state funded, the video/audio speaks for itself. 71.191.189.195 (talk) 05:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure there's a conspiracy forum out there that would love to have you. --Львівське (говорити) 05:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you able to discuss things without personally attacking the other guy with a witty remark? Address his point, see this graph for assistance. --benlisquare_T•C•E 17:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Refer to this diagram when deciding on what to say when addressing somebody else's argument. Please keep within the top sections, thanks. --benlisquare_T•C•E

There are differing views on the term crisis, as noted in the different definitions in wiktionary.

crisis (plural crises)

1: A crucial or decisive point or situation; a turning point.

2: An unstable situation, in political, social, economic or military affairs, especially one involving an impending abrupt change.

3: A sudden change in the course of a disease, usually at which the patient is expected to recover or die.

4: (psychology) A traumatic or stressful change in a person's life.

5: (drama) A point in a drama at which a conflict reaches a peak before being resolved.

The primary thread connecting the definitions is the element of a turning point or change, so I would disagree that the term is POV or propaganda. I know this is a popular and heated topic but let's keep this WP:CIVIL. Rmosler | ● 05:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

For clarification: it's a crisis not because it's a bad thing (which is subjectivity, Ru. views is as a historic achivement and reunification/"restoration of historic justice", while Ukr. views it as loss of territory/separatism, threat to it's state power), but because it involves tension (international tension, intra-Ukrainian tension, tensions on Crimea itself after seccession, economic consequences, etc.), or, in short, "unstable and dangerous situation". Note my emphasis on word unstable. Seryo93 (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Response

"The official Russian response was mixed.[248]" This sentence is so wrong... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.191.212.0 (talk) 19:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Why not WP:BE BOLD and edit it? - Doctorx0079 (talk) 14:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Edits

I edited the lead, "Revolution in Kiev" and some other things. I added some facts, which, as I believe, are necessary for the understanding of the events, corrected some inexact phrases and removed sentences which obviously sounded like pro-Russian POV-pushing. I'm not pushing my own POV. I'm trying to make the article as balanced and objective as possible. I think we should lock this article and propose all the changes only on the Talk page. Otherwise, this article will become an object of constant, everyday POV-pushing. Impatukr (talk) 12:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe that the article should be semi-protected, like eg. Poland is.Xx236 (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Xx236 I agree. How can it be done?Impatukr (talk) 12:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Crimean status referendum, 2014#Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2014Xx236 (talk) 08:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Removing neutral paragraphs and replacing them by your own POV pushing is not an improvement. I suggest that the lead would be reverted to the same version as a few days ago.Cmoibenlepro (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The paragraphs were not neutral at all! They were definitely pro-Russian. OK, maybe what I inserted was a bit too pro-Ukrainian. I re-read what I wrote, and yes, it did sound a bit like POV pushing.Impatukr (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

when you add in the lead a source that says "This pseudo-referendum was falsified! 30% participation maximum" as if it was a fact, then yes this is POV pushing. This biased opinion should be in reactions, not it the lead. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

BBC is propaganda, not a RS

See for example this video which documents clearly how BBC MADE UP a video depicting a chemical attack in Syria. Given it's track record for lying, alternate sources should be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.189.195 (talk) 04:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

BBC is used as an example in WP:RS under WP:NEWSORG. Remember that WP:RS do not need to be WP:NPOV as it can provide context. If you wish, you can bring your objection to WP:RSN to discuss. Rmosler | ● 05:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, perhaps RT will fall under NEWSORG criteria too? If "it's not necessary to be NPOV source"? Seryo93 (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Changed mind, abstaining for now. Seryo93 (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Time for a new article

The Crimean crisis is only part of a much bigger crisis, I think it's time we create a new main article about the whole crisis which began with Euromaidan and now threatens to destabilise the whole region. Charles Essie (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

That would be 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine. I've been talking about moving that to something like 2014 Ukrainian crisis and making it a broader article to deal with the overarching crisis. I'd comment there. RGloucester — ☎ 18:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Is it a Ukrainian crisis or rather a Rusian crisis which forces the Russian administration to destabilise not only Ukraine?Xx236 (talk) 10:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

It's Ukrainian crisis, because it happens in the Ukraine (obviously). Cf: Cuban Missile Crisis (revolved around Soviet-US tensions and threat of nuclear war between them, but still called Cuban, not Soviet or American). Seryo93 (talk) 11:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

First Partition Of Ukraine

According to current events it may be better to remain the paper to the pattern http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Partition_of_Poland 91.77.40.192 (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Revolution in Kiev Lead

This whole lead should be removed, its a mess and very one sided and more to the point unnecessary here. Links to 2014 Ukraine Revolution are sufficient and appropriate.Cachi43 (talk) 01:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Tortured hostages

Info on hostages tortured by pro-Russian militias should be added [1] [2]. Andriy Shchekun might be notable enough now to warrant his own article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

One question to VM

Reuters not RS? Are you serious? Seryo93 (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Synth removed correctly. Sorry for mislead question. Seryo93 (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Links

>> NATO satellite images of Russian troops allegedly deployed en masse at present on Ukrainian borders were taken in August 2013 - Russian MilitaryLihaas (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• The Voice of Russia is connected with the RT.
• Even Voice of Russia says Allegedly, which means "not at all".Xx236 (talk) 06:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Ron Paul has retired

Do we need to read about Pauls family dispute?Xx236 (talk) 10:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Wat? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.42.58 (talk) 06:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

US-backed Orange Revolution

It looks like we have a small revert war over the opinion of the "International Centre for Defence Studies". A new user insists that we should put the qualifier "US-backed" before the Orange Revolution. The source does not talk anything whether the Orange Revolution is US-backed or not. I do not think we should put our own synthesis into the source's mouth. I have put "Tallinn-based think tank" before the "International Centre for Defence Studies" to address possible concerns over the neutrality of the source.

The other edit of the same new editor is about "Russia's opinion", I think it can be kept, it is reasonably well-sourced and relevant. I would only changed Russia's opinion to Russian government's or Vladimir Putin's. Russia is a big country and different people there have different opinions Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

sounds good to me --Львівське (говорити) 01:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Novofedorivka incident

Can this article be merged anyplace? It seems out of place to me. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

BBC report: Proposal to rename "Simferopol City" to "Putin City"

This reeks of yellow journalism, but here goes nothing:

• 2014-04-09, В Крыму предложили переименовать Симферополь в Путин, BBC Russian

Apparently a suggestion has been made by the local Crimean party "Russian Unity" (which has pro-RF sentiments) to rename the city to "Putin". That said, I personally don't really think this will happen, and it's too early to say if anything will progress beyond the suggestion. --benlisquare_T•C•E 08:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Legal aspects ?

What is the connection between Legal aspects and Putin's opinion about a Kosovo verdict? What about the other opinion? Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances isn't mentioned. Xx236 (talk) 11:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Will fix that. Both opinions should be mentioned here, definitely. Seryo93 (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Seemingly Done. Seryo93 (talk) 04:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

(addition to above post): I've also balanced amount of text to avoid misbalancing towards Russian position. Seryo93 (talk) 05:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Event box on the right hand side too long

I have noticed that the event box stretches for far too long. Most of results are actually events that happened and should be removed or placed in another section. The number of participants and the whole thing seems quite messy as well. I would edit it myself but I feel that I am not experienced enough in this type of editing. --AzraeL9128 (talk) 11:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Using "Pro-Russian militias" in place of Russian military

Why, exactly, are all the mentions of illegal Russian troop military actions being replaced by the use of "Pro-Russian militias"?

These Russian soldiers have already been identified, by near all foreign journalists and UN observers in the regions, as well as by repeated photographic evidence, as Russia military. Almost all cases they are carrying Russian military weapons, wearing Russian military uniforms, that are unavailable in the region. They've even been caught a few times with Russian flags on their vehicles and insignias.

In fact, if I recall, it's a war crime for these Russian soliders to have removed their insignias. Yet a few Russian sock puppets here have been removing all sourced references and replacing them with "Pro-Russian militias".

Can I ask, for the betterment of this article, why this serious (defiantly against Wikipedias policies) issue isn't being addressed? 124.148.223.74 (talk) 12:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Historical-style

Now that the majority of the events in Crimea are finished, it seems time to start orienting this article toward a historical perspective. Would anyone be opposed to doing this? RGloucester — ☎ 19:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Is the Crimean Crisis over?

All major news outlets seem to be focusing more on South-Eastern Ukraine and what is going on there, and it seems that the Crimean Crisis has resulted in the illegal transfer of Crimea into Russia. The time zone in Crimea has already changed and Ukraine and Russia will continue to disagree over the status of Crimea for the time being. So, should we consider the Crimean crisis to have ended after the UN resolution declaring it illegal on March 27, due to the facts that Ukraine seems to be unwilling to continue further discussion over Crimea and seems to have surrendered it to Russia? Zbase4 (talk) 00:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I would broadly agree with that analysis. Events have moved to the mainland, and Kiev appears to have written off the Crimea in brutal "realpolitikal" terms. But we can not official declare anything "over". We must garner reliable sources to argue that Kiev has accepted the loss of Crimea, etc. Irondome (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Edits by user 77.51.99.2

I understand that this article must have generated a vast amount of hot headed users and i find it natural for people to get angry about what the newspapers of their opposite side of the newspaper influence say (in terms of western vs eastern media)

It is alarming that, for example the user 77.51.99.2 with a russian ip has only ever contributed to wikipedia by recently editing articles related to the Ukraine crisis, removing any references criticizing the Russian front or restating the facts in order to contribute to the positive Russian profile.

I believe this behavior may be dangerous for keeping the neutrality of the wikipedia intact and advice to revise or revert the edits made by this user. I have purposely not in engaged in such action, as i would not like to act hastily and would be glad if someone else also revised the user's actions.

93.184.73.10 (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I tried but don't want to get into an edit war, but it would be helpful if another user or two would review the edits in question.--Львівське (говорити) 21:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

As usual those Russian IP editors go completely over-the-top in their editing behaviour, but also as usual if you examine the point of contention calmly there does exist some ground for the underlying complaints. And also as usual blanket reverts of their edits is not productive behaviour, yes Volunteer Marek that is you. I'll start by removing the stuff that is not supported by the sources, which shouldn't be contentious. I'll bring up other issues here on talk first, and there do seem to be other issues. For instance, the reasoning applied in the source is that "because Tatars didn't participate in the referendum the turnout couldn't have been more than 30-40%". If you consider that Tatars only comprise about 12% of the population that looks like a school-child's bad attempt at basic arithmetic.B01010100 (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Blanket reverts of junk material inserted by disruptive sockpuppeting throwaway accounts and SPAs is VERY productive behavior, tyvm.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Let me ask you something: did you bother to check the sources and whether they were represented accurately in that part that you reinstated, before making that edit? Or did you just go "a russian IP, i must immediately revert everything they do"? The answer to the second question is something only you know, but the answer to the first is obvious - as i bothered to do so and found that pretty much none of the statements was accurately presented as given in the source. Very productive behaviour indeed...B01010100 (talk) 23:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

As it turned out that editor had good reason for removing that parapgraph in the state it was in for being "unencyclopedic", given that most of it wasn't supported by the sources and the stuff that was was not accurately presented. One could argue that he should have rewritten it rather than removed it, but that's a minor point. If you can't be bothered to look at the content that has been added/removed by an edit and the reasons for the edit, rather than going by who made it, then maybe you shouldn't be reverting them.B01010100 (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I think blanket reverts are justified if the user appears to be disruptive/POV socking, and a cursory overview of the edits seems to be that it's junk. I realize that even if its 80% junk and 20% good, that would be ruining that good portion, but at the same time its more prudent to get the junk off the page as its not helpful. Also, its a huge waste of time on everyone involved to have to fact check every spurious claim made in one of these editing hit-and-run sessions.--Львівське (говорити) 23:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

How would one know if the user appears disruptive/POV socking without fact-checking the content they add/remove/rewrite? From my, arguably limited, experience on these articles there seem to be two groups of behaviours that elicit the blanket reverts. The first group that does stuff like changing "the interim government" to "the Kiev-based junta" over the article, to which a blanket revert is certainly valid as that is nothing but disruptive POV pushing. And the second group that ends up in edit-wars over specific paragraphs. If that group is merely disruptive POV pushing, why would they end up in edit-wars over specific paragraphs? Think about it, the article has more than enough expressions of points of view contrary to the Russian one, why bother edit-warring over some specific paragraph rather than just removing the whole lot of it or something like that? It usually turns out that there do exist grounds for complaints with those paragraphs, so simply blanket reverting without fact-checking the content seems unacceptable in that case. If it takes too much time to fact check yourself, just state concerns on the talk page and let other editors look at it - you and everyone else is already doing that, except Volunteer Marek. Those things are content disputes rather than POV-vandalism, and WP:BRD and WP:AGF should be followed. The entire reason those policies exist is to guide editorial process when things get hot and controversial, when everything is calm there's no reason for them after all.B01010100 (talk) 00:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Back to the issue at hand. The extent of the argument made in the first source is that the turnout could be maximum 40% because (1) the Tatars boycotted it and (2) that was the turnout in previous elections. Regarding (1), even if we assume that every individual Tatar boycotted it (just because an authority calls for a boycot doesn't mean everybody follows it) that still leaves 88% which is well above official turnout. Regarding (2), just because only 40% of people bother to vote in normal elections over the previous years doesn't mean that only 40% will vote in an independence referendum in the middle of a seccession crisis, almost on the brink of civil war. This must be about the weakest case made for a voting turnout figure ever, i'd call for just removing it. If there was a better argument made, such as observations of voting stations or polling people or anything really, it could go in but as it is this is pretty much a junk argument based on groundless speculation.B01010100 (talk) 11:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd also call for removal of the last bit of that paragraph where it is reported that pro-Russian billboards were seen in the streets prior to the referendum. This is hardly notable, and completely expected - in what election/referendum are there no billboard in the streets about it?B01010100 (talk) 11:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

If only pro-Russian bilboards existed it's notable.The pro-1992 option wasn't supported by anyone, so who would have financed a pro-1992 bilboard? Has anyone seen such a bilboard? Xx236 (talk) 09:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

That's the thing, the source doesn't say that only pro-Russian billboards existed. If one can find a source that states exclusivity then i agree that it's notable and could be included, but the current source merely says that there were pro-Russian billboards. So how about this: if a source can be found that states exclusivity then we include it on that basis, otherwise remove?B01010100 (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

2014-02-28 - Crimean special forces

How an authonomic region can have special forces? Xx236 (talk) 06:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Normally autonomous region can't have them, but it's a breakaway region, after all. See this act, for example - it proclaims formation of Ministry of Interior of Crimea and Security Service of Crimea (among others). Seryo93 (talk) 07:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The act is of March the 6.Xx236 (talk) 07:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Anschluss

The article doesn't quote many Anschluss articles.Xx236 (talk) 08:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

While there are such parallels, we must put them carefully, attributing (i.e. not in "See also" or similar "Wikipedia siding" with) and not overusing. Bests, Seryo93 (talk) 08:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/putins-crimean-anschluss/495462.html

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/russia-will-pay-dearly-for-putins-anschluss/496870.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ukraine-foreign-minister-the-world-must-reject-russias-anschluss-in-crimea/2014/03/21/1130ef5e-b10c-11e3-a49e-76adc9210f19_story.html

http://www.interpretermag.com/crimea-anschluss-to-cost-russians-billions-kudrin-says/

Xx236 (talk) 10:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Sudeten

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/461770/Expert-likens-possible-Putin-action-on-Ukraine-to-Hitler-s-1938-move-on-Czechoslovakia

http://spectator.org/articles/57984/putins-sudetenland

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/schaeuble-compares-putin-moves-in-crimea-to-policies-of-hitler-a-961696.html

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/bobo-lo-argues-that-vladimir-putin-s-strategy-bears-striking-similarities-to-hitler-s-in-1938 Xx236 (talk) 10:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

pro-Crimean rally

Please define what is pro-Crimean. It's not obvious in this context, maybe POV.Xx236 (talk) 09:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

maybe "ralliy in support of de facto athorities of Crimea" will be more obvious and less POV. I'll reworded that ambiguity. Seryo93 (talk) 07:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

We don't know who de facto has ruled Crimea. Xx236 (talk) 08:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Crimean Tatars

Why Milly Firqa is mention in "Parties to the civil conflict"? It has no authority in Tatar community and was created by Russian forces. No one have ever heard about of it in Crimea. It can be easily checked - their public page in Vkontakte (the most popular social network in post Soviet region) has fewer then 400 subscribers and major part of them has Russian names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.11.80.131 (talk) 12:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

BBC

If official Russian media are not OK, why is the BBC (British state media) used? That's a serious question, I'm not just trying to say you can only ban RT if you ban the BBC from this article, I just am unsure why the BBC is considered trustworthy for anything other than quotes, dates, and so forth. I'd argue RT is reliable for those sorts of things, too. I'm English, not a Vladimir "Butcher of Grozny" Putin shill, just to be clear. But I am very curious about this seeming double standard applied to state media. AntiqueReader (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The difference is in how BBC vs RT are described in reliable sources. And whether they satisfy the criteria for reliability. While whether a particular source is state owned or not may play a role it's not the most important, or even a general, criteria. For example, American stations PBS and NPR are state owned but they're probably some of the more critical media outlets when it comes to the US government. So actually whether a media outlet is state owned or not is a bit of a red herring in this discussion. To be reliable a source needs to have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". BBC's got it (more or less). RT doesn't. Of course, whether a source is reliable also depends on the question "reliable for what". RT can be used for sourcing simplest facts and under some circumstances (which don't violate WP:UNDUE) to source its own opinions (or those of Putin's government).Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Margarita Simonyan (RT) is very open, she doesn't pretend any neutrality. Xx236 (talk) 05:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Just like Karen DeYoung (Washington Post) when saying "we are inevitably the mouthpiece for whatever administration is in power".B01010100 (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The general "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" is a bit of a red herring too, you should make it "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy relating to ongoing geopolitical crises in which their governments are playing a role". Under that consideration the BBC, as well as most mainstream US media, is about at the same level as RT. Remember all that stuff about "unprovoked Russian aggression" with respect to the latest South Ossetia war, or all that stuff about Saddam conspiring with Al-Qaeda, trying to buy uranium from Nigeria, expelling UN inspectors etc, the stuff about ongoing genocide to justify the bombing of Serbia, ...? As well as the same pattern if you look back even further. The main difference in how BBC and RT are used as reliable sources is that people tend to believe their own media and forget their actual track record of relevant accuracy. So given that this is the English language WP here the BBC/US media is given as reliable and RT as unreliable, whereas i guess you'll find the opposite going on in the Russian language WP.B01010100 (talk) 23:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree. I live in Chile, and over here CNN and BBC are known to be completely unreliable when it comes to international news in which the US or UK are involved. And on top of that, I only have one russian friend. She was born in Sevastopol and spent a few days there a week ago. They had russian flags all over and she said she was very happy to see her homeland reunited with Russia. Personal experience and all, but she's the only russian I know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.163.151.121 (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

http://www.opentown.org/news/41886/ Mr Putin decorated 300 independent journalists and the law was classified.Xx236 (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Frozen accounts

Can the names of the people which accounts were frozen (private sector, government) be mentioned ? See

• http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/03/17/west_freezes_assets_of_russian_officials_over_ukraine
• http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/03/20/us_freezes_assets_of_russian_businessmen_and_bank_close_to_putin
• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2574484/EU-names-18-Ukrainians-assets-frozen-including-ousted-President-Viktor-Yanukovych-son-former-Prime-Minister-Mykola-Azarov.html
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/28/yanukovychs-assets-frozen-swiss-austrian-banks-block-ukraine-president_n_4875267.html
• http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/Tracking_down_Ukraine_s_illicit_asset_trail.html?cid=38088672

80.200.241.27 (talk) 08:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

BIAS

All information should be verified. The Article should be neutral. This article is made to inform people about the event, not misinform people and make them take sides. The cold war is over.

Andrew Gunner (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

what are you talking about? could you be more vague? --Львівське (говорити) 22:10, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay a few things I want to ask:

• 1. What information are you talking about?
• 2. What about the article do you find non-neutral?
• 3. What part or parts of the article do you find misinforms?
• 4. If you are talking about information from the sources being biased then do you have better sources of your own to put in place?

Those are the main points I wanted to ask you. Thanks! - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The cold war is over. - let's hope the new war is cold rather than a hot one. More and more texts discuss the analogy with Nazi annexations before the WWII. The West was also very optimitistic at that time and those funny East-Europeans told stories. Later Jan Karski told stories about alleged crimes, many still don't believe. Xx236 (talk) 08:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Clearly both of these can't be true: The incumbent and two former presidents of Ukraine – Leonid Kravchuk, Leonid Kuchma and Viktor Yushchenko—called on Ukraine to renounce the Kharkiv Agreements.[236] Leonid Kuchma's press-center later denounced such a statement on behalf of Leonid Kuchma.[237]

"denouncing" isn't the same as "denying", the word used in the source, if I can trust google translate (The press service of Kuchma denied reports that he called for the denunciation of "Kharkiv agreements"). So who is telling the truth? The first statement appeared in the Ukraine pravda Sunday, March 2, 2014 , 2:35; Interfax published the statement from Kuchma's press center at 11:31 the same day. Without other sources, the first statement is only a claim, not a fact. Ssscienccce (talk) 04:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Unbalanced pro-intervention message in Russian media

According to The Economist:

In preparation for Russia’s actions in Ukraine, the Kremlin cleared the last pockets of independent media. Ria Novosti, a state-news agency, which sheltered loyal but liberal-minded journalists, was purged and turned into a blunt propaganda instrument. TV Rain, a private television channel which provided the most objective coverage of the Ukrainian protests, was taken off the air by the main cable providers, acting on the Kremlin’s instructions. The internet, once free of Kremlin control, has been restricted by new, vague laws. On March 12th the editor of one of the most popular news sites, Lenta.ru, was replaced with a pro-Kremlin appointee. Its journalists threatened to resign in protest: “The trouble is not that we won’t have anywhere to work, but that you won’t have anything to read.” Dmitry Peskov, a spokesman for Mr Putin, labelled anyone objecting to the Kremlin’s actions part of a “nano-sized fifth column”.

A patriotic frenzy whipped up by television muffles any dissent. Television executives who were trained as part of their Soviet-era military services in “special propaganda”, which sought to “demoralise the enemy army and establish control over the occupied territory”, created a virtual enemy in Crimea—fascist revolutionaries whose overthrow of the legitimate government justified the movement of real troops.

People close to Mr Putin say he had been harbouring the idea of taking Crimea since the war in 2008 with Georgia, which resulted in the de facto occupation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, its two breakaway republics. Yet the context is different. Kirill Rogov, a political columnist, argues that the war in Georgia served as a patriotic accompaniment to Russia’s economic resurgence. Ukraine serves as its substitute.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdnctx (talk • contribs) 22:30, 14 March 2014‎ (UTC)

Russia has clearly invaded Crimea. It has even issued a campaign medal for it. Under international treaties Russia undertook to recognize and protect Ukrainian independence and territorial integrity. It undertook that its military forces in Crimea would not interfere in internal affairs. All of these commitments were broken. Even if Putin had nothing to do with the overthrow of the Crimea regional government, the blockade of Ukrainian military bases and ships, and the rigged referendum, it certainly breached international law by annexing Crimea. In reality Russia was behind this, and it all adds up to an invasion. If France sent troops into Belgium, and organised an independence referendum in Walloonia, and then annexed that half of Belgium, would people see that as an invasion or a mere "crisis"? The entitling of this article as a "Crisis" shows the extent to which Wikipedia is either controlled by Russian intelligence services or influenced by Russian propaganda.Royalcourtier (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

We already have annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, which is culmination of 2014 Crimean crisis. And claiming that "Wikipedia is either controlled by Russian intelligence services or influenced by Russian propaganda"... is something funny, esp. considering that enwiki considers Ukr. media more reliable than Russian. Don't use Wikipedia as soapbox please. Seryo93 (talk) 07:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

End date

The Crimean Crisis is over, it is time to choose an appropriate end date for the infobox.101.119.15.73 (talk) 03:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

If the crisis is over, why is the EU imposing Sanctions in Crimea? [3] Why are minorities complaining? [4] And why are the banks closed?[5] USchick (talk) 05:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Crisis is clearly not over (it's in stage of territorial dispute). Seryo93 (talk) 07:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thicket of References

I've deleted every reference from the 3rd paragraph of the lede. There are far too many to support such a small paragraph, with the little superscripted numbers dominating what should be simple and uncontested text. They, however, require enormous work to review. I preserve them below. If one is actually needed (which I doubt), please add it, singly, to the article. This sort of mess should not exist. Jd2718 (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

ref name="themoscowtimes.com">New Ukraine Government Has White House's Support, U.S. Vice President Says, The Moscow Times (February 28, 2014)</ref>

ref>Joe Biden calls new Ukraine leader, pledges support, Politico (February 27, 2014)</ref>

ref>Biden: U.S. Supports Ukraine's New Government, Voice of America (February 27, 2014)</ref>

ref>Vice President Biden calls Ukraine PM Yatseniuk, pledges U.S. support, Reuters (February 27, 2014)</ref>

ref>"Ecuador does not recognize Ukraine's 'illegitimate' govt - Correa". RT. Retrieved April 29, 2014.</ref>

ref>"Maduro backs Ukraine's deposed leader". Malay Mail Online. Retrieved April 29, 2014.</ref>

ref>"President al-Assad expresses Syria's solidarity with Russian efforts to restore security and stability to friendly Ukraine". SANA. Retrieved April 29, 2014.</ref>

ref name=autogenerated8 />{{efn|The Washington Post (2014) "[Putin says:] Are the current authorities legitimate? The Parliament is partially, but all the others are not. The current Acting President is definitely not legitimate. There is only one legitimate President, from a legal standpoint. Clearly, he has no power. However, as I have already said, and will repeat: Yanukovych is the only undoubtedly legitimate President."

malformeed: ref name="http" cite news |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/transcript-putin-defends-russian-intervention-in-ukraine/2014/03/04/9cadcd1a-a3a9-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html |title=Transcript: Putin defends Russian intervention in Ukraine |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=March 8, 2014 |accessdate=March 10, 2014

ref name="ReferenceA">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-feffer/who-are-these-people-anyw_b_4964526.html Who Are These 'People,' Anyway?</ref>

ref name=RadioFreeEurope>Sindelar, Daisy (February 23, 2014). "Was Yanukovych's Ouster Constitutional?". Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty (Rferl.org). Retrieved February 25, 2014.</ref>

ref>"Russian official accuses US of fueling Ukraine crisis". PressTV. Retrieved April 20, 2014.</ref>

ref name=autogenerated8>United Nations News Centre – UN Security Council action on Crimea referendum blocked</ref>

Object in lead

Beneath the NPOV tag and above the first sentence of the lead, there is a random black line on the left. Here's a picture of what I'm talking about (object circled in blue). I've tried editing it out but I can't seem to find where it's actually coming from. I tracked it down to edit #598628060 on March 8, 00:58 by User:RGloucester as he was re-doing the info boxes, but still don't know what actually caused it. What is it, why is it there, and can we get rid of it? Coinmanj (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreement on the Settlement of Crisis in Ukraine

Has become a seperate article in the german wikipedia. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vereinbarung_%C3%BCber_die_Beilegung_der_Krise_in_der_Ukraine it seems quite important that Viktor Yanukovych fled the very same day. --Anidaat (talk) 12:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)