Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Splitting proposal

The following discussion 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.

---

I propose that section Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation#Russian takeover and parts of other sections be split into a separate page called 2014 Russian invasion of Crimea. They are related but different events. Compared to 2022, there is an article on the Russian invasion, but there is a separate article about the annexation. See also d:Q15833607. Privybst (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• You mean a new article strictly on the military operation? Might be a good idea. I would prefer plain language to the euphemism: I can think of several variations, but the best is probably Russian invasion of Crimea. —Michael Z. 21:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Mzajac we still need to disambiguate it from the invasion of Crimea by the Russian Empire. I'm OK with 2014 Russian invasion of Crimea. Privybst (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  I don’t think we do need to disambiguate in the title, because there’s no conflicting article. A hat note on the new article would do as well as the hat note on the current one does now: “ For the 1783 event, see . . . ” But we could follow the current pattern and title it Invasion of Crimea by the Russian Federation, or Russian Federation invasion of Crimea. —Michael Z. 22:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  The title question is now moot as the other has been renamed Annexation of the Crimean Khanate by the Russian Empire.  —Michael Z. 15:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• Well, technically Russia took over/occupied Crimea, not invaded it, because Russian army was already station there due to Russian naval base in Sebastopol. Wikisaurus (talk) 13:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  No it wasn’t. Only the navy was stationed in bases. Over a dozen units of Russian Ground Forces and Russian Airborne Forces illegally invaded. Refer to the article. —Michael Z. 20:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, the region was invaded then occupied, but is now annexed and it may need to be merged with Annexation of Southern and Eastern Ukraine or a year put in the title to be more WP:PRECISE. waddie96 ★ (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  Which parts od SE Ukraine are annexed? The situation is dynamic. Xx236 (talk) 07:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think we should merge this article into the "Russian annexation of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts" (previously under that other name) because that event specifically refers to the 2022 Russian annexations of Ukrainian territory, whereas the Russian annexation of Crimea occurred in 2014. Historically, even though the two events are closely related, they are indeed separate, and it would not make sense to combine the two annexations from eight years apart into a single article. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support I think this makes sense from a reader's perspective as well as an encyclopedic perspective to differentiate the two and I completely agree with the reasoning from Privybst for symmetry with the recent annexation. It doesn't seem to be an issue of article size but rather scope if I'm understanding correctly; this new article would surely take information from this article and the timeline. I also would support the title 2014 Russian invasion of Crimea with '2014' included. Yeoutie (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support - It's a good idea to map out the military aspect in a separate article from the politics. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: Someone has very recently created an article titled "Russian occupation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol". The article has contained a substantial level of information from the get-go, although I haven't personally assessed the reliability of the information. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose – Unnecessary and confusing. The political and military events in the case of Crimea were an integrated operation, not separate in any way. The result of such a split would be the creation of potential POV forks we don't need. RGloucester — ☎ 23:35, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
• Close as the creation of Russian occupation of Crimea has made this proposal moot, and the discussion seems to be petering out. User:Privybst, would you consider withdrawing the proposal? —Michael Z. 15:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with you @Mzajac that the discussion has slowly petered out, although there are a few responses here and there. However, I don’t think we will be getting a response from @Privybst any time soon seeing as they have been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. Fats40boy11 (talk) 07:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

• I personally would like to read about the invasion Patriciogetsongettingridofhiswiki (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
• I like the idea from Michael Z above but I think a better title would be Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea. IntrepidContributor (talk) 01:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support Lucasmota0975 (talk) 01:22, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The creation of the Russian occupation of Crimea article means it wouldn’t make sense to have another similar article. That being said, I wouldn’t be against merging any relevant information to Russian Occupation of Crimea if it makes sense to do so. Fats40boy11 (talk) 14:01, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with RGloucester, that would be just confusing to have 100 articles for one integrated series of events. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Unnecessary, all the relevant information can be included in the current article. Vic Park (talk) 01:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose As the current article seems sufficient to cover the military actions, in addition to the politics. Granular coverage of the nature of the Russian military involvement is also covered under Little green men (Russo-Ukrainian War). --Katangais (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support annexation is just an event, suggesting "invasion of Crimea" is on Russian occupation of Crimea - Jjpachano (talk)
• Support I support the split! Naming the invasion “annexation” is like naming the 2022 invasion “Annexation of Eastern Ukraine”, which only happened in September 2022! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TankDude2000 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 30 January 2023 (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.

Requested move 1 February 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 09:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

---

Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation → 2014 Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea – The article describes not only the annexation, but also the invasion. The political and military events in the case of Crimea were an integrated operation, not separate as in 2022 for which there are separate articles 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and Russian annexation of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts. I propose to include the year in the title in order not to confuse with the annexation of 1783, but maybe the hatnote is enough, I also agree with the title Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea. Onlk (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Ancheta Wis; Could you look at this unexpected request made by another new editor, who appears to have extensive knowledge of Wikipedia Request policies and Dab policies after making only two hundred edits for Wikipedia. The request was made the day after I did a close for very similar move request which was closed as having no clear consensus above. I was thinking that this request seems un-needed and not useful, possibly for quick deletion. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause I was inpires by your closing remarks in the split propoal (not a move request) above. Several editors have voiced the opinion that a possible name change to the article might be considered, possibly taking into account the more recent annexations taking place in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. These items could be considered separately. And yes, I edited enwiki before and read the internal discussion already many years. Onlk (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Support  The title should make it clear that this subject is not only a political declaration, but also a cross-border military operation. —Michael Z. 23:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

If Michael is supporting then it seems ok. Full 30-day discussion? ErnestKrause (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:RM says 7 days is full, and it’s routine for closers to extend if consensus is not clear. As this is a major article, I won’t object to additional extensions until consensus is in no doubt, but seems CRYSTAL to predict how long that will take.  —Michael Z. 02:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose   the title is not convenient and the article is also similar to Annexation of Tibet by the People's Republic of China - Jjpachano (talk) 12:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose As per Jjpachano. 2001:8003:913E:5D01:34A2:6620:A592:B4 (talk) 02:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)— 2001:8003:913E:5D01:34A2:6620:A592:B4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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.

Name of the Ukrainian Revolution of 2014 ('Revolution of Dignity' or '2014 Ukrainian Revolution'?)

I've attempted to edit one link to the revolution in Ukraine in 2014 and try and put a name that I view as non-partisan: '2014 Ukrainian Revolution'. The reason is that the name 'Revolution of Dignity' is a name for the revolution widely used in Ukraine, but not internationally. Besides, the name 'Revolution of Dignity' not only does not indicate when or where it took place (it's a vague name), it also sounds partisan (I swear I'm not trying to degrade the name because of pro-russian bias, I personally oppose Russia's invasion and War in Ukraine). Wikipedia's guidelines indicate that articles cannot take any stance in a conflict; I.e, to stay neutral. And even in a war where there's an obvious aggressor (in this case, Russia) and an obvious victim (the Ukrainian people), one can't get carried away with any biases, however small they may be.

As such, I propose that articles in English refer to the Ukrainian revolution as '2014 Ukrainian Revolution.' It's a clear, non-partisan name (in line with Wikipedia's guidelines) specifies when and where it took place, and even indirectly says that it was a popular uprising against their government (the government of Viktor Yanukovich at the time).

I'm open to questions and responses to my proposal. 80.42.174.53 (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I you truly think so, then try first to move Revolution of Dignity to Ukrainian Revolution of 2014 or so. Onlk (talk) 13:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

The name is indeed used internationally. For example here is New York Times. Volunteer Marek 13:22, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

We generally use article titles. If there is a problem with the title, request a move of the article.

That article has had at least 9 move requests, and the current title is a result of consensus in November 2021.

One can infer that there was a consensus at the time that the title is sufficiently neutral. If you want argue it’s not, that is the place to start. —Michael Z. 22:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

And the article Revolution of Dignity falls under WP:GS/RUSUKR, so anonymous editors cannot propose moves or vote on them. I suggest you register as an editor and spend some time editing before leading efforts to reevaluate issues of neutrality in contentious topics.  —Michael Z. 22:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 February 2023

The following sentence: "Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk called for a change in EU energy policy as Germany's dependence on Russian gas poses risks for Europe.[409]" should be removed from the article as it is not based on a source. The Guardian article linked does not mention Donald Tusk or any quotes by him. This sentence either should be supported by a legitimate source of should be removed. 37.30.44.187 (talk) 14:39, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done I replaced the source that failed verification. M.Bitton (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 April 2023

TankDude2000 (talk) 08:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC) I suggest that we should move some parts of this article to the page 2014 Russian invasion of Crimea, while we keep the current article. Obviously the situation wasn’t just an annexation, it was an invasion as well! This is the reason the following pages: Russian invasion of Ukraine and Russian annexation of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts are separate!

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 11:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Split article

I suggest that we should move some parts of this article to the page 2014 Russian invasion of Crimea, while we keep the current article. Obviously the situation wasn’t just an annexation, it was an invasion as well! This is the reason the following pages: Russian invasion of Ukraine and Russian annexation of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts are separate! TankDude2000 (talk) 07:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

There’s a broader article Russian occupation of Crimea. It is less mature and needs work, but the scope of its subject should be treated as a parent article to this one.  —Michael Z. 16:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I refer to an article reffering to the 2014 invasion of Crimea and another one for the annexation. TankDude2000 (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Well the other already is about the military invasion and occupation, including the political annexation. This one is about the annexation including military events of the invasion and occupation. The difference from what you’re proposing is not substantive, only one of emphasis. Please expand these articles to include what you think they deserve.  —Michael Z. 18:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 May 2023

The following discussion 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.

---

There are still debates on whether the invasion of Crimea and the pro-Russian protests started on February 20 or 23, so I guess that we should replace February 20 with February 20/23. WikiManUser21 (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC)strike sock -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. — Czello ^(music) 17:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

You mean the “Date” field in the infobox? Not sure what protests have to do with it. The dates represent the likely dates of initial Russian invasion and the final ousting of Ukrainian forces.

Actually material should be moved to the newer article Russian occupation of Crimea. This article on the annexation should be slimmed down and the date should be the actual annexation, March 18.  —Michael Z. 20:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

 Note: Closing pending consensus.

I'm a big fan of explanatory footnotes, so I would suggest adding one to the lead to explain the lack of clarity. Actualcpscm (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2023 (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.

Requested move 10 May 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: WP:DENY, sockpuppet of a well-known disruptive user in this topic area. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Czello ^(music) 07:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

---

Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation → 2014 Russian invasion of Crimea – It clearly was an invasion, rather than only an annexation, with 3 deaths happening. Having the current title seems like it was only an exchange of territories, which obviously didn’t happen. Oh, and about the Annexation of Tibet by the People's Republic of China, Tibet wasn’t a de jure independent republic, and China cannot invade itself, so we should not change that title. After we change this page’s title, we should make a page only about the annexation. WikiManUser21 (talk) 04:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Comment. Not sure this would be an improvement. The actual article about that subject already exists: Russian occupation of Crimea. These two articles need improvement more than renaming.  —Michael Z. 14:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

That article is about the military occupation, not the 2014 invasion. WikiManUser21 (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per above comment by User:Mzajac. 162 etc. (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  The user didn’t support or oppose yet. WikiManUser21 (talk) 17:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  I, however, do oppose. 162 etc. (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• Note that the requested move was made by a  Confirmed sock.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:18, 10 May 2023 (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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 July 2023 (2)

Add reference [6] ("Vladimir Putin describes secret meeting when Russia decided to seize Crimea". The Guardian. Agence France-Presse. 9 March 2015. Retrieved 14 April 2016.) to the quote "we must start working on returning Crimea to Russia". Spingleton (talk) 12:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

 Already done it's already sourced in the article's body. M.Bitton (talk) 12:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 July 2023

Remove broken Yahoo reference [4]. The adjacent refs [5] and [6] cover the same story. Spingleton (talk) 12:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done Xan747 (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 4 August 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 18:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

---

Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation → 2014 Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea – It was mostly an invasion, which killed about 6 people, the annexation took place on one day, while the invasion took place 1 month. Sure, you’ll say that this title is similar to Annexation of Tibet by the People's Republic of China, but it would violate WP:OTHERSTUFF. WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

This user was blocked as a sockpuppet. S.L. 17:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - I can't think of any sources, reasons or policies provided to support the move. I must oppose a move per WP:CONSISTENT; and it does not violate OTHERSTUFF to say that this is similar to Annexation of Tibet by the People's Republic of China because CONSISTENT takes precedence over OTHERSTUFF. estar8806 (talk) ★ 16:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Support. Maybe it’s not ideal, but it is an improvement in terms of the title identifying the subject, improving its fulfilment of the WP:CRITERIA. BTW, there is also Russian occupation of Crimea, about the nine-year occupation that started with the 2014 invasion.  —Michael Z. 16:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Comment. Nominator is not extended-confirmed as required by WP:GS/RUSUKR and the rationale sounds awfully familiar to the last RM by a sock. Mellk (talk) 17:10, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, having socks is not allowed, but some may have a point on some discussions, but by WP:GS/RUSUKR, I will withdraw my RM. WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. S.L. 17:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, having socks is not allowed :)) Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. per @Estar8806: - Jjpachano (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2023 (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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 October 2023

Fix the broken link in the international response section on sanctions: "They were the most wide-ranging applied to Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union<refname="Katakey"> Rakteem Katakey"

Change the statement "Russian companies started pulling billions of dollars out of Western banks to avoid hahingtjrie asset freeze," in the sanctions section of international response to "Russian companies started pulling billions of dollars out of Western banks to avoid having their assets frozen." TheSwolOne (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done. gobonobo ^{+ c} 08:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 December 2023

• What I think should be changed: Change the date of the beginning of the invasion to 22 February 2014.
• Why it should be changed: To make this article as unbiased as possible, it would make sense to change the date to the time the invasion is stated to have begun reliably. This will also help reduce confusion about the reasons and events of the ousting of Viktor Yanukovych.
• References supporting the possible change: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation#cite_note-7

Antny08 (talk) 14:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

The note text should be re-verified and fixed first. For example, now it directly quotes the phrase "some contradictions and inherent problems" which is not found in the referenced source McDermott, Roger N. (2016). "Brothers Disunited: Russia's use of military power in Ukraine". Kammerer55 (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Putin's words stated in WikiVoice?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Use of American English?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

However…

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

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

Fix broken reference in the article

This is a format issue. Can someone fix this?

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

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

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

Fix dead link

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