Talk:Capture of Chernobyl

Can you fix the section about radioactive spike?

I added a little text in the article about radioactive spike near the power plant. "After the invasion of the zone, there was a spike in radioactive activity." However, i am new to Wikipedia and i don't know how to properly cite something to something else.

Chicken4War (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems resolved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 25 February 2022

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 section.

---

Result:
Not moved per consensus garnered below to keep this title for now. Closure requested at WP:CR <permalink>. Please keep in mind when making and participating in this type of renaming that a hyphen between such as "Russo" and "Ukrainian" is incorrect and should be an endash (–) instead per MOS:ENDASH. Thanks and kudos to all editors for your input, and Happy, Healthy Editing! (nac by page mover) P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 16:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

---

Battle of Chernobyl → Chernobyl in the Russo-Ukrainian War – The battle was actually quite uneventful. The real WP:NOTE of this in the grander scheme is the nuclear contamination issue ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 20:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps "Russian takeover of Chernobyl", "Russian occupation of Chernobyl" or "Russian administration of Chernobyl" could be more precise titles. Super Ψ Dro 22:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - Media has this more or less as the "Battle of Chernobyl". Elijahandskip (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. A much better descriptive name would be to call this a battle; it is widely reported that there was armed fighting at the location between Ukraine and Russia, with Russia having a goal (at least in part) to capture the power plant. But that wasn't its only goal; the goal was to advance towards Kyiv as well and to sure up the area north of the city. I don't think the proposed name is more natural than the current one, nor is it more precise. The real WP:NOTE of this in the grander scheme is the nuclear contamination issue seems to be missing the point of the battle's strategic implications as it pertains to attacking the city of Kyiv. — Mhawk10 (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Reasons described above. Dangeredwolf (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Elijahandskip -- HurricaneEdgar 00:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose We have a bloody Battle of Brisbane page over a fist fight between American and Australian troops, no reason to move this page unless another battle occurs at Chernobyl which becomes far more impactful on the human memory. -AndrewRG10 (talk) 02:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Someone above says that the media is "more or less" using the term battle of Chernobyl, but I can find no uses of the term "Battle of Chernobyl" in this context whatsoever outside of Wikipedia. Even casual usage only seems to use it to refer to the 1986 Chernobyl incident. In contrast, the Battle of Brisbane (which someone cited above) is widely described as such in sources, And as a descriptive title it is a bad choice because it carries the implicit implication that scholarly or media breakdowns of the conflict have identified this as a significant battle, which simply isn't true; it's inappropriate for us to declare any place where fighting has taken place the "battle of X" on our own. This is a situation where Wikipedia should be careful in terms of wording in order to follow the sources, not trying to establish its own structure for describing the conflict. --Aquillion (talk) 08:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
  • BBC is referring to the situation as a battle, as have the Associated Press, Al Jazeera. That we're adding the descriptor "of Chernobyl" doesn't really seem to be anything other than applying an appropriate descriptive title. — Mhawk10 (talk) 14:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support something other than Battle of Chernobyl until RS uses that name. As Aquillion noted, "battle of x" conveys a sense of historical significance that we can't be the ones to confer. Gaelan 💬✏️ 09:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mhawk10's statement. Fijipedia (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - The article does not so much relate to Chornobyl (by the way, it should be Chornobyl not Chernobyl) now but what happened during the battle, so the proposed name is foolish. Doc Dimaus (talk) 4:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: As per the majority. Utkarsh555 16:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: I generally agree with the sentiment of being careful about calling any engagement a battle. I actually considered "Occupation of Chernobyl" as different title when creating the article. However, this engagement (according to Ukrainian sources there was a fight with victims, which drove me away from a simple "occupation") clearly opened up the way towards Kyiv, having serious implications for the greater conflict on both sides, making it a battle in my book. Teddet123 (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current title is best for now. If things change in sources in the future we can reassess then. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, as per prior arguments. I believe the current title befits the events thus far; it can be change if later circumstances warrant it. Tisnec (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment — Newsweek calls this a battle. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, as per Tisnec. Heyhayley (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nothing more to add. Slightly ridiculous nomination. Buttons0603 (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per reasons given by rReagan007.Mr.User200 (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Strong support, and plea to oppose voters to make arguments based on policy. I'm a bit confused by the opposes here, which all reference each other in a house of cards resting on the idea of this being backed up by reliable sources... Except the people citing those sources acknowledge that no one but us is actually using the term "Battle of Chernobyl". This is pure original research, and I think the real reason people are defending it is because it sounds cool. "Battle of X" is not an appropriate descriptive title, as readers expect a "Battle of X" article to be about something called the Battle of X, not a military engagement that took place in X that no one calls "Battle of X". There's a huge difference between sources saying "a battle happened in Chernobyl" and us saying "The Battle of Chernobyl was a military conflict ..." A descriptive title would be something like Russian capture of Chernobyl. I'd be open to really any title other than the current one. I'd prefer the example I gave or one of the ones Super Dro gave to the nominator's proposed title, but that title is still a step up from this completely fabricated title. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 06:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

  Implying that none of the above votes are based in policy makes little sense here; there are multiple users who have cited specific sources that describe the situation as a battle. The most natural title for a battle at a particular location is to call it "Battle of [location]". The current title is more concise than the proposed new title as well; the proposed title is quite a mouthful. Furthermore, the title of the article indicating that a battle took place is going to be much more recognizable than the proposed new title—people who know about the event know that there was a battle at Chernobyl and this is better than a title which generally refers to a location with the qualifier that it's in a particular war. The current title is also much more consistent with how other battles in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine are currently titled and the current title is precise: the title unambiguously identifies the battle that occurred at Chernobyl and distinguishes the battle from other subjects. As a result, I think that the current title meets the WP:CRITERIA on its own and is superior to the proposed title. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support as per the above, who expressed my concerns more eloquently than I could. —AFreshStart (talk) 09:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: For the most part, I believe that use of the word "Battle" in the title is warrented, as there was a direct conflict between Ukrainian and Russian forces, large enough to at least creat need for an artillery bombardment. I understand the apprehention, butdo not think that the importance of the opening of the road to Kiev should be downplayed. That being said, I am not directly opposed to changing the title. Capture of Chernobyl would be a fine title, I believe. --Panzerfaust613 (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Panzerfaust613
• Comment: I believe both names are inappropriate. Chernobyl is a city some distance from the CNPP, but still inside the Exclusion Zone. The title should either reflect the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant or the Exclusion Zone as a whole, depending on where fighting occurred or what Russia's strategic aims here were (a consensus would need to be established), unless the city of Chernobyl was somehow the focal point. I know that colloquially Chernobyl is a catch-all name for everything to do with the CNPP and the Zone, but that should be addressed in the article, not the title. Kylesenior (talk) 06:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: Changing the name will break the convention to use "Battle of X" for a place name in the List of military engagements during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and other battle of X like Battle of Okhtyrka has no uses of the term "Battle of Okhtyrka" in this context whatsoever outside of Wikipedia but still no one debated about that. AnimMouse (talk) 07:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support change to "Russian takeover of Chernobyl" or maybe "Russian seizure of Chernobyl". The only article I found referring to a "battle" was this one in | Newsweek. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
• Keep  This was an act – a battle, offensive, advance, occupation, or whatever you want to call it – and the current title makes the nature of the subject clearer to a potential reader, supporting the WP:CRITERIA of recognizability and naturalness. The proposed form sounds like a thematic subject, is more appropriate, and is currently used for, a bunch of lists and listicles with in, of, or during the war. —Michael Z. 22:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support eventually As was mentioned, the actual battle will be a very small part of the developments, but as of yet the content of the article does not reflect that. Feel free to add information regarding the administration and risks, if there's enough information about the subject the move will happen more naturally. Changing the name of an article in hopes that the content will change is less likely to pss.--TZubiri (talk) 01:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Wait Feel free to include any information relating to chernobyl during the 2022 invasion, once the content of the article becomes settled, it will become more clear what to name it. Content first, name second. --TZubiri (talk) 10:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• I have reopened this discussion, as the close was not done properly and was done by an editor who had !voted. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:53, 13 March 2022 (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.

Delete this article

Please do not let wikipedia turn into a propoganda tool by mythologizing and branding current events for warmongers. 100.37.11.148 (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

No valid reasons to delete the article mentioned. Fijipedia (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If you believe that the article should be deleted (as per our deletion policy), then feel free to nominate the article for deletion. I don't think the rationale above is in line with a reason that the policy gives for deletion, however. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't see reason to delete this article, as I don't feel thatf what is disscussed is contriversial in any way. As per your comment on the "mythologizing and branding current events for warmongers," I would lke to hear more about your stance and hear your reasoning--Panzerfaust613 (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Panzerfaust613

I haven't heard of any Ukrainian attempt to hold Chernobyl, so how can this be a battle? It seems like Russian troops just took control of the area. Wolf359Locutus (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Is the name "Battle of Chernobyl" sourced?

I don't see any sources using that phrase, and it can't be considered purely descriptive either, so it feels like inappropriate editorializing. "Battle *for*/*at* Chernobyl" would be a little better, "Russian capture/seizure of Chernobyl" even more so, as this is more descriptive and is the language used by some of the sources for what I can see. If "Battle of Chernobyl" is an established WP:COMMONNAME per sources I am not seeing then fine, but it does feel a little like mythologizing the war for Wikipedia editors to unilaterally start naming every engagement "Battle of X". 82.15.196.46 (talk) 10:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

See the above Requested move 25 February 2022, where it was unclear in regard to sources whether or not this title was COMMONNAME, it was clear that as a descriptive name it was more in line with similar titles at List of military engagements during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 06:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Update on power plant

On a Facebook page an update was posted regarding workers, tresspassers, and 10 ill or female defenders were released and a new group of workers allowed in. Backup power was used for 5 days until outside power resored. Here's an article from the Washington Post. A free site would be better.Technophant (talk) 02:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Between 21:45-22:00, 27 March 2022 (UTC) a heat signature was detected ~2.14 mi, West of the Chernobyl reactor, using FIRMS and InciWeb data presented on Zoom Earth. 86.25.176.161 (talk) 00:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

There was no "battle"

This article is absurd. In over one month there has been no evidence of actual fighting anywhere near the town of Chernobyl, nor the plant itself. The article even includes a reliable source stating no casualties. The article should be deleted and any actually reliable information moved to the ChNPP article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sredmash (talk • contribs) 00:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, original creator here. I understand your entire and agree with parts of your point (see below). However, I would like to point out that calling the article "absurd" takes things a bit too far in my opinion. Initial reports clearly mentioned fighting (e.g. ); there was no indication against such statements' truth, as Russians obviously brought violent intentions into Ukraine. Hundreds of soldiers as well as the plant's workers were captured. A battle does not always involve scourges of dead and wounded; sometimes, fighting results in capitulation. Saying that there "was no battle" at all is disrespectful to those who ended up in Russian hands due to military violence. Regarding your comment that there was no fighting, even after the decision to abandon the area had been made, Russians "planted a dense maze of anti-personnel mines, trip wires and booby traps around the defunct station. Two Ukrainian soldiers have stepped on mines in the past week, according to the Ukrainian government agency that manages the site" . As stated in discussions before, the capture initially "opened up the way towards Kyiv, having serious implications for the greater conflict on both sides". Simply moving everything over to the ChNPP article denies these serious implications, which have been acknowledged by countless military, political, and independent sources. The decision to use the term battle was made in a situation where reports spoke of fighting about an area more important in the strategic setting than some village. I still argue that this initial call was right, as does the majority of contributers. However, I added the current/ongoing event tag for a reason. It is supposed to make clear that any information should be taken with not one, but several grains of salt. 278 edits have been made since then and the article has gone beyond the initial days of the war. Wikipedia is not about opinions, but about facts. As soon as those become clear, changes to reflect the changed situation are mandatory. This invovles the title just as much as the main text. with the focus of this article having shifted away from the initial days of the war, a changed title could be warranted. That's not my call to make however. Teddet123 (talk) 09:51, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Ukrainian victory?

The Russians retreated from the power plant and Chernobyl is already under Ukrainian control again? So basically the Ukrainian won this so-called battle? 182.239.87.226 (talk) 06:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Not really. The battle took place on 24 February and only on that date. Everyone, meaning Russia, Ukraine, and outside countries, all agree that Russia won the battle on that date. Russia withdrew, not retreated, over a month after the battle, but the actually battle was a Russian victory. Elijahandskip (talk) 07:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

There was never a battle in the first place.Sredmash (talk) 12:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

We have RS calling this a battle. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

This article is about the events/battle from February 24. Not the recent events/Russian withdrawal that took place over a month later. No problem with mentioning the eventual withdrawal in the aftermath section. EkoGraf (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 3 April 2022

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: Moved to "capture of Chernobyl" based on RS presented favoring this title. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 04:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

---

Battle of Chernobyl → ? – Now the dust has settled somewhat since the earlier discussion, I feel it is time to revisit the issue as previously the consensus seemed to be to just wait it out and see what happened next. The Russian forces have withdrawn, so now seems a good time to revisit. It is pretty clear to me that the article is currently at the wrong title - you cannot have a military battle where no shots are fired. Previously, Chernobyl in the Russo-Ukrainian War was proposed, but I'm not sure if that's the best solution we can come up with, so I will leave discussion about a new title to be decided below. Buttons0603 (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - Media has this more or less as the "Battle of Chernobyl". The Colorado Daily directly says “Battle of Chernobyl” and Forbes mentions the Wikipedia article as the “Battle of Chernobyl”. WP:COMMONNAME applies here. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

  The Forbes article cannot be used as a source, because ultimately the source comes back to Wikipedia! Also, it states, "the Battle of Chernobyl (as Wikipedia is already calling it)". The parenthesis sounds like a disclaimer, like it implies they disagree with it being classified as a battle and are only repeating our title. Buttons0603 (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - RS sources call it a "battle". EkoGraf (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

  Any source calling it a battle is not an RS. The R stands for reliable. It wasn't a battle. That isn't really up for debate regardless of what "RS" say. Buttons0603 (talk) 18:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

False statement. The Colorado Daily Has not been deprecated, so until a discussion says otherwise, it is a source. If you feel that it isn’t RS, per your statement, please start a discussion to deprecate it. Otherwise, I would ask you do not make large claims like “Any source calling it a battle is not an RS.” Elijahandskip (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

As Elijahandskip says, to prove a source is not reliable, its deprecation needs to be confirmed by the Wikipedia community. The Colorado Daily isn't deprecated. EkoGraf (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - I would've been happy to move it if the process of the dust settling involved more of a larger battle that was more appropriately named the Battle of Chernobyl by other sources. Seeing that didn't happen and the first battle is now called the Battle of Chernobyl, the page name is therefore appropriate. AndrewRG10 (talk) 22:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Though Forbes mentions this article, it does use the name, so I don’t see why that should disqualify it as a source. Russian occupation of the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone could be an acceptable title too. —Michael Z. 14:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. I do not know the right title, but Battle of Chernobyl was fought in the first day of war, while the article explains the events long after it - and should probably also describe the liberation of Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant a month later. Russian occupation of the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone suggests mostly correct content of the article, although it sounds a bit strange to me. Wikisaurus (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I would put this as an Occupation. There was no combat, not even a shot fired intentionally, let alone an injury. Now the Russians left, vacating for Ukrainians to reclaim, again no shots fired, not a single injury reported among anyone. HOWEVER the Russians disturbing and distributing radioactive material is critical to be published, and is an evolving item as more and more reports of contamination are being published. There is a possibility that this might be considered a RUSSIAN LOSS, casualty of 1 due to reports of at least 1 soldier dying from radiation. Flightsoffancy (talk) 04:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: I agree with Flightsoffancy and Wikisaurus. The article doesn't really describe any "battle", it mostly describes the occupation and its consequences. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 02:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support Capture of Chernobyl. This is the most WP:COMMONNAME name on Google News with 87 references, followed by 58 references for Seizure of Chernobyl and then 39 references for Battle of Chernobyl, which includes the Colorado Daily piece (just an opinion piece) and Forbes which sets aside parenthesis "as Wikipedia is already calling it" - a bit of WP:REFLOOP. Ribbet32 (talk) 03:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support Capture of Chernobyl per thoughtful analysis by Ribbet32. Common, precise, concise. No such user (talk) 12:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - Hello, original creator here. Initial reports clearly mentioned fighting (e.g. ); there was no indication against such statements' truth, as Russians obviously brought violent intentions into Ukraine. Hundreds of soldiers as well as the plant's workers were captured. A battle does not always involve scourges of dead and wounded; sometimes, fighting results in capitulation. The statement above that "the Russians left, vacating for Ukrainians to reclaim, again no shots fired, not a single injury reported among anyone" is false. Russians "planted a dense maze of anti-personnel mines, trip wires and booby traps around the defunct station. Two Ukrainian soldiers have stepped on mines in the past week, according to the Ukrainian government agency that manages the site" . If you call for facts, you should first check your own before throwing opinions. As stated in discussions before, the capture initially "opened up the way towards Kyiv, having serious implications for the greater conflict on both sides". These serious implications for the greater picture, which are what makes the difference between a battle and some 'random' fighting, have been acknowledged by countless military, political, and independent sources. The decision to use the term battle was made in a situation where reports spoke of fighting about an area more important in the strategic setting than some village. I still argue that this initial call was right, as does the majority of contributers. However, I added the current/ongoing event tag for a reason. It is supposed to make clear that any information should be taken with not one, but several grains of salt. 278 edits have been made since then and the article has gone beyond the initial days of the war. Wikipedia is not about opinions, but about facts. As soon as those become clear, changes to reflect the changed situation are mandatory. This invovles the title just as much as the main text. With the focus of this article having shifted away from the initial days of the war, a changed title could be warranted. That's not my call to make however. Teddet123 (talk) 10:00, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support move per Ribbet32. It doesn't particularly matter whether it can be classified as a "battle" properly or not - these events can be called many things. What matters most is the WP:COMMONNAME adopted by reliable sources. I feel like "Battle of Chernobyl" was invented wholesale by Wikipedia editors - we should be using the language the media uses, not the other way around. 82.15.196.46 (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

References

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.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Battle-of-Chernobyl.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Russian's dug trenches in the Exclusion Zone

Drone video shows mounds of disturbed earth and fortifications dug on the outskirts of the Red Forest, the most radioactively contaminated part of the zone around Chernobyl. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:967F:DA30:90AD:93E9:FCB:7989 (talk) 03:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Status on 6 April? Now that Russians have withdrawn...

The article seems to have no encyclopedic summary info on anything Ukrainian authorities have found in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone, and at the plant itself, since the Russian military forces withdrew about a week ago, approximately 31 March.

What is damaged? What is intact? Has substantial new source radiatively-active material been released into the environment? Was the shelling precise, or somewhat scattered? Are monitoring systems back to working? Have international monitors joined to help, and to co-validate, the post-battle damage assessment? Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Some news reports https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/04/01/russian-soldier-dies-radiation-poisoning-chernobyl/

https://www.newsweek.com/chernobyl-russia-troops-ukraine-yemelianenko-nuclear-1693714Flightsoffancy (talk) 04:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Title

Shouldn't the title be "Capture of the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone" or something like that? The exclusion zone, which the article goes into, extends further than the city/ghost town/whatever Chernobyl itself. Dawsongfg (talk) 05:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Spelling Error in "Russian Withdrawal" Section

In the second paragraph, second sentence, the word "planet" is used when it is meant to be plant. Can anyone correct the error, since I am not able to since it's semi-protected and I do not have an account. 128.4.155.120 (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

2024 book by Serhii Plokhy

Just noting this book by Serhii Plokhy  and one review. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 07:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

References