Talk:Russia–United States relations/Archive 1

Archive 1

Proposed sources for edits to this page

GallupPoll - http://news.gallup.com/poll/1642/russia.aspx

The Chicago Council - https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/publication/us-and-russia-insecurity-and-mistrust-shape-mutual-perceptions

Book - The Limits of Partnership: U.S.-Russian Relations in the Twenty-First Century

Scholarly Article - US-Russia Relations Rice, CondoleezzaAuthor InformationView Profile. Hampton Roads International Security Quarterly; Portsmouth (Oct 15, 2008): 2533.

Scholarly Article - Warming U.S.-Russia relations Cathleen A. Campbell

Initial Comments

Friendly actions of Russian Empire during American Revolutionary War, when Russia and the USA were friends against Britain, are forgotten.

So historically, the US have been in more wars against the British and her commonwealth but was never engaged in a single armed conflict with the Russians (Imperial, Communist)?. --60.48.223.13 04:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If not to count allied intervention during Civil war in Russia. -Dzerod 16:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope there's not another Cold War, cos I was born just after it died down and I do NOT want to live in fear of getting blown up here in Europe because America and Russia can't get along..82.15.9.10 15:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I share the same sentiments with you, although I'm not too concerned about all the heated rhetoric coming from the Russian side. From what I've read on the news recently, President Putin and President Bush have already discussed the missile defense issue at the ongoing G8 summit, with the former suggesting that American missile bases be established somewhere in Azerbaijan instead of in Poland or the Czech Republic; Bush seemed to find the suggestion "interesting." 99.247.85.241 05:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh good, because if Bush gave a one-word response then we *know* the man with enough intelligence to run the states will do something. Honestly I think 'interesting' is bush's way of saying 'hell no', but in a way that can be quoted. Besides, the Cold war was a great example of all nuclear wars from now on: A couple proxy wars and two big guys with their fingers on the button.

ven so, they wouldn't go to war for the simple fact that any engagement between two powers like that would result in the victor's economy so screwed that another power (ie, China) would likely take over. No point fighting when someone else grabs your prize. 70.70.97.117 09:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Where are the Admins? This entire portion is nothing more than a violation of WP:FORUM ! Needs to be deleted or hatted. 50.111.22.143 (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Russia DID Protest bombing of Serbia

During the 1999 NATO bombing of Serbia, Russian leaders repeatedly inferred that if bombing continued or ground troops entered Serbia, it might lead to nuclear war with Russia. A series of quotes, right up until the bombing stopped, illustrate how serious they were. Unfortunately I don't have the rest of the references (mostly Reuters, AP articles) but some are still on line.

“I told NATO, the Americans, the Germans: Don't push us toward military action. Otherwise there will be a European war for sure and possibly world war. Russian President Boris Yeltsin, April 6, 1999

"In the event that NATO and America start a ground operation in Yugoslavia, they will face a second Vietnam, I do not want to forecast what is going to start then. I cannot rule out a third world war. Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov, April 17, 1999

"If NATO goes from air force to ground force it will be a world catastrophe. (Russia) has never felt such anti-Western, anti-European feelings." First Deputy Russian Prime Minister Anatoly Chubais, April 25, 1999.

“You have to understand that if we want to cause you a problem over this, we could. Someone, we don't know who, could send up a missile from a ship or a submarine and detonate a nuclear weapon high over the United States. The EMP (electromagnetic pulse that destroys electronic and computer equipment) would take away all your capability.” Vladimir Lukin, Chairman of the Russian State Duma Foreign Policy Committee, late April, 1999

“Just let Clinton, a little bit, accidentally, send a missile. We will answer immediately. Such impudence! To unleash a war on a sovereign state. Without Security Council. Without United Nations. It could only be possible in a time of barbarism.” Boris Yeltsin, May 7, 1999

"The world has never in this decade been so close as now to the brink of nuclear war." Viktor Chernomyrdin, May 27, 1999

Carol Moore 01:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Russian Proposal on the Gambala Station

I'm not sure whether the Russian proposal for the Gambala Station which was made during the G8 Summit was accidentally or purposely left out.

Russia, U.S. agree on missile defense dialogue-1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfosa (talk • contribs) 06:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

References and citations?

Where have the references gone? Are they hidden somewhere I can't find them, or have they been deleted? Russia and America are likely to start WWIII this year. Brace yourselves! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.140.81 (talk) 03:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

It's written there in the Timeline of peace: 2008 Russia invades Georgia. Why then there is no such stuff as 1999 US invades Serbia, 2001 US invades Afqanistan and 2003 US invades Iraq? Don't you think it's a bit boss-eyed? I believe one should either add US invasions (which will go to make up the half of the timeline of "peace"), or remove the Georgia invasion. --FarShmack (talk) 06:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see my contribution today to the Georgia invasion portion. The US green light for the invasion (as alleged) establishes very clear implications of the war for Russia-US relations.--NYCJosh (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Pre- involvement of US army before the Georgian conflict/response to Polish deployment: Venezuela and Russia

{{editsemiprotected}}

The latest developments are part of the new cold war, being strengthened a lot lately by both the two nations.

I use the term "The New Cold War" as still to be implemented on Wiki... I lend this from a book's title 'The new Cold War' by Edward Lucas, journalist for Economist))

Well, first of all, I'd like to add that

following link: Caucasus crisis prelude to war on Iran(be it Iranian Press)

shows some interesting insights in the Georgian affair, namely this section:

In mid-July, Georgian and US troops held a joint military exercise dubbed 'Immediate Response' involving respectively 1,200 US and 800 Georgian troops.

Also I believe that the response to the deployment of the anti ballistic installations in Poland are probably being responded by the new cooperations between Russia and Venezuela + Russia and Iran :

Venezuela, Russia form big oil consortium

Chavez accepts Russian nuclear offer

Russia ratchets up US tensions with arms sales to Iran and Venezuela

Also interesting to keep an eye on in the near future:

A Kremlin official declined to comment on the report, and the Russian ambassador to NATO did not reply to messages left on his cell phone. But the Interfax news agency, citing what it called a military-diplomatic source in Moscow whom it did not identify, reported that Russia is reviewing its 2008 military cooperation plans with NATO.

Norway: Russia to Cut All Military Ties With NATO

And please check here too.

Russia Makes New Threats Over U.S.-Poland Missile Deal [1]

I'm sorry I cannot edit/tidy myself now, but I would certainly want to edit the article together, so please contact me if so desired! (I keep my eyes open these days, things are moving a lot!!)

Olli.vdl (talk) 01:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

 Not done Requested changes unclear. Please tell us exactly what in the article you would like changed, and where.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Rescue of American Girl

I move to remove the section on the 'Russian Military Rescuing American Girl.' The source has no relevance to the text, and I can't find another source online for the 'rescue.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zerodefeks (talk • contribs) 00:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sock editing

Article has been semi-protected to help deal with Koov socks. Those you can see in the edit history are: Rolbn, Rolih, Rolsb, Arado, Citno, Bnni, Jikn and Fsbi. See also Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Koov. EdJohnston (talk) 03:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

SK-Iran&Russia

When South Korea decided to go public with its nucular program russia was shocked as well as NK and America. Although Russia is in cahoots with SK they were still rather upset that they wern't kept in the loop. Now when you think about it, America ask/TOLD South Korea they had to shut down there program- - Which they did in a timly matter. When SK's program was shut down they imeditally got in touch with Iran and had asked if they would be interested in buying some documents and facility instructions on how to correcly build and develop warheads. Ironically after Sk program was shut down we hear Iran has a program opening up. Now at this point in time we happen to be waging a war with Iraq/afgahn/iran so on so forth, so this esclated the situation in which iran felt they were obligated to proceed with the making of warheads. Now since America wants to be the only people whom build WMD ( Weapons of mass desctruction ) We told Iran they ahd to shut down there facility in which they rebelled and opened a second nucular program. Now Russia has been allys with Iran/persia since forever long ago they were yet again distasteful with what iran had been doing behind thier back and not conceeding the fact they had programs in which warheads were built. All the meanwhile America sits back and watches as we invade the wrong teritory and fight for democracy over in the middle east when we should be worring about bigger problems, No not health care or welfare or finical aid but war. Yes war, since time and time ago we alwayse try to dictate other 3rd world contries on how to run thier and it seemed to work for some time untill we got our heads fo far up our ass's we didnt realize the real benefactor at hand, which is nucular war. They say the aztecian calander ends on 2012, could that be out WW3? Or could a metor hit the earth, or a nucular war? I am off topic and getting back to the point, To sum it up quickly, SK shut down there program in which was sold to iran, russia wanted more knowledge in which is now rebelling against iran, Iran now hold 2 major nucular facilities in which are alerady being test launced and manufactured ( and im sure being sold to other world leaders whom wants to reek thier own havoc ) This i believe isnt a topic of russia vs the US, but the Us vs Political allies of Russia, and Iran. Russia at the moment have the smartest and most intelligant scientists in the world, yet they cant figure out how to keep in touch with thier own allies and produce a stable ground for them to reech an agreement. Iran used to see eye to eye with russia and the Us at one point in time, but where did this all go wrong? when Senior Bush was in office? Wanting to much oil and rebelled so fire was set to irans oil fields? When Jr. Bush sent troobs into iran afghn to kill dictators of other leaders? To find osama for what he did during 911? No. It was for power, and thats exactly what iran wants is to feel powerful, they dont want to share there knowledge with thier buddies over borders, they dont want to call cnn and say; hey come on down and video tape out nucular warhead launch test, they want the world to be scared, they want the people of the world to fear them and that is what they are thriving to get and are getting right now. All the meanwhile americans are sitting back with our crap economy waiting for somthing to go wrong, waiting to play the blame game to see what will happen next.

Hilarious. When was this posted? Too funny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.39.45 (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Why doesn't this include pre-1917 relations?

Thomas Jefferson I believe, once said that Russia and the United States were the best of friends, or something along those lines. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 01:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

This article should summarise relations overall from 1776 to the present: see our MoS guidelines on a summary article. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 01:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Russia on 1999 NATO intervetion

Why did russia was so opposed to NATO intervention? 164.67.59.99 (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm Russian and I don't understand too. In fact, citizenry are not everyone opposed. --212.3.159.77 (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it's because NATO was created to go to war with Russia? There is no other real reason for NATO; going to Afghanistan, etc, is just minor "make-work" for NATO while waiting to start a real war with Russia. Santamoly (talk) 03:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was created as a DEFENSIVE alliance against agression by the USSR - not to go to war with Russia.104.169.39.45 (talk) 02:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Michael A. McFaul NYT resource

New U.S. Envoy Ruffles Feathers in Moscow by Ellen Barry, published January 23, 2012 99.181.134.88 (talk) 06:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Updates

Hello everyone, I made a couple of changes to the organization of the section "Military ties" and included a sub-section on Nato-Russian relations, as I consider that of great importance to US-Russian relations in general. I also took the "Bering strait" sub-section out of "Military ties" as I fail to see the connection. Well, I hope I didn't over-extend my amateur enthusiasm and I expect most disagreements to be related to the rank and organization of this section as the little content I added is well cited, referenced and related (I think). In any case, any feedback would be, of course, greatly appreciated. Cheers. ArticunoWebon (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Footnote 28

Footnote 28 has no relevance to the sentence that it is placed after. Either someone put the wrong number in the wrong place, or it is just a bad link, since the article that it links to has nothing to do with any sort of study it cites. 134.139.237.238 (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

This page needs an update, and possibly rewriting for NPOV

Unfortunately, conceptual error in the opening sentence including mistaking a people for a state (the Slavs and Everyone Else), and for thinking that the history of people equated to a single state of formal governance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.172.244.99 (talk) 06:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

It makes little mention of the marked decline in relations between the US and Russia over the past year or so. It could use more content about the dispute between the two governments over the war in Syria, and should also mention diplomatic disagreements such as those over Edward Snowden and the Illegals Program.

The section titled 'Timeline of peace between the United States and Russia', in particular, could use a rewrite: it seems to be pushing a position that there has been growing relations and strengthening peace between the two countries since the end of the Cold War, and only mentions instances of such cooperation. Such a one-sided list (without an equivalent list of times the US and Russia have been at odds) seems to raise issues with WP:NPOV. Robofish (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Link

>> Russia expels US journalist David Satter without explanation(Lihaas (talk) 09:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)).

Timeline

I am going to clean up this timeline adding a few good references once in a while. But I am not going to google myself silly; a few citations every 3-6 years should suffice. I always preview my changes or citations, but it's not easy to complete work by people who don't cite their sources. I can't do that in one session, and this will produce different versions. Sorry. (Osterluzei (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC))

Recent removal of apparent copyright violation: context

United States and the Russian Federation

Presidents Bush and Putin at the 33rd G8 summit, June 2007.

U.S. President Bill Clinton and Russian President Boris Yeltsin in October 1995.

For the sake of transparency, I think the context behind @Hahc21:'s recent reversion of a large portion of this article, and suppression due to (alleged) copyright violation, should be mentioned on this talk page. Here is the diff for that reversion (diff is visible to admins).

This is a reversion of material originally added by @Timothysandole:, then Wikipedian in Residence for the Belfer Center. Specifically, these edits drew heavily from this source, inserting it as a footnote 11 times:

• Allison, Graham, Robert D. Blackwill, Dimitri K. Simes, and Paul J. Saunders (October 2011). Russia and U.S. National Interests: Why Should Americans Care? (PDF). Cambridge, MA: Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University. p. 3.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: year (link)

The general circumstances were covered in March 2014 in the Wikipedia Signpost.

The copyright status of the excerpts he included was brought up on his talk page.

The two photos I included above (including captions) were also added by Timothy at the same time. I don't know much about US/Russian relations, so I'm not interpreting any of these facts or advocating any specific change to the article; but I think it's important that substantial changes like this should be explained to those who do follow the article. -Pete (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits

I've reverted reverted User:Coruscant123's edits to Russia–United States relations for a few reasons. First, they removed a significant amount of material without comment. Second, the edits seemed to be written from a strongly pro-Russian point of view. Some of the edits might be fine, but they need to be done with comments or with discussion here. Agtx (talk) 23:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Russia–United States relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071123153405/http://mnweekly.ru:80/world/20070720/55262872.html to http://www.mnweekly.ru/world/20070720/55262872.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Scholarly analysis included

Here is a straight-forward scholarly analysis that one editor wants to remove because of his strange claim the coauthors are too ignorant!? It summarizes an article in a major scholarly journal on exactly this article's topic and by Wiki NPOV rules must be included. The editor here seems never to have read the article in question and shows no record of dealing with geography or economics. John Biersack and Shannon O’Lear, "The geopolitics of Russia's annexation of Crimea: narratives, identity, silences, and energy." Eurasian Geography and Economics 55.3 (2014): 247-269. Rjensen (talk) 07:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The source you provided isn't a reliable neutral source. It's an opinion piece and reflects the opinion of Roy Allison which is POV pushing. Plus my edits did not remove any information it simply reworded the extremely POV terms such as "staged referendum" and "occupation". That is all POV matter and is not used on Crimea-related articles on Wikipedia. --Turnless (talk) 06:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I added several more RS. What RS are you relying upon? Rjensen (talk) 06:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Have you been following how Wikipedia covers events in Crimea? I believe that even way back when the annexation first occurred there was a large discussion and consensus to refer to the events as simply annexation and not occupation as that is NPOV. As well "staged" is an opinion. There isn't actual evidence that supports the referendum being staged. I changed it to controversial as that is a word no one can argue against as the referendum was very controversial. --Turnless (talk) 06:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The sources you have added are again not in any way reliable. They are all opinion pieces. Don't add opinions of people but rather coverage of the events, although even that can have POV pushing in it. You also added comments by John Biersack and Shannon O’Lear which is again opinion of people and are not notable as they are not factual. Opinions by anyone doesn't give facts and cannot be counted as reliable sources. --Turnless (talk) 06:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The fact that those are "Russia's goals" are the opinions of John Biersack and Shannon O’Lear and not a factual reference thus is not notable. --Turnless (talk) 06:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

what reliable sources are you relying upon for what happened??? Rjensen (talk) 06:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

wp:NPOV All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic....As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. if you have reliable sources please ADD them. Rjensen (talk) 06:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not adding any new information, so what sources can I provide? All I did was amend the existing wording to make it more NPOV. You are just adding opinion pieces which are not reliable nor notable at all and should be removed. Your citation on NPOV shows that editorial bias is not welcomed for sources. By the way, prior to my changes, the sentence did not have any sources at all and was obviously added with POV. --Turnless (talk) 06:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

No Rs --then you're relying only on your personal opinions--they should go on your Facebook page not here. Rjensen (talk) 06:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I did not add any new information, so what am I suppose to provide sources for?? You are the one adding opinion articles. --Turnless (talk) 06:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Here are a few of sources covering the referendum that have a generally (although not entirely) neutral point of view and are not opinion pieces like every single one of the sources you provided [2] [3] [4]--Turnless (talk) 06:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

the sources only mention Putin & Russians as saying the referendum is legitimate. US, EU and UN reject his opinion, as do the scholars. That makes Putin's a fringe opinion by Wiki rules: an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. = WP:fringe Rjensen (talk) 06:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The articles summarize the situation in Crime at the time. It is better than the opinion articles you added. It doesn't matter how many people or organization have a certain opinion, Wikipedia should never take a side itself. Organizations such as the EU and the UN are notable for showing their point of view in articles, but all of the opinion pieces you added are not notable at all. Once again, as you seem to not understand, I did not add any new information. I only changed the existing wording to make it more NPOV replacing biased and POV terms such as "staged" and "occupied" with more NPOV terms. --Turnless (talk) 06:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

when one near-dictator [Putin] has an opinion, his country shares the opinion as do conquered areas like Crimea. When the rest of the world & the scholars reject it then we have a fringe that gets downplayed. Wiki Warns against giving equal weight to the Fringe fringe and the mainstream analysis--We are not neutral between them. Rjensen (talk) 07:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

What are you talking about? My edits had absolutely nothing to do with the official position of Russia or Putin. Neither did my edits legitimize the annexation. I changed POV terms to NPOV terms, that is all. --Turnless (talk) 07:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

you need rs to tell the difference between POV and NPOV. all you did was emphasize fringe views. But anyway it's fixed now. Rjensen (talk) 07:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

No I did not. I called the event an annexation which is an NPOV term used on Wikipedia. Look at Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. I did not say something like "it has rightfully returned to its homeland" which is something Putin says all the time. I also changed "staged" to "controversial" which is again something you cannot argue about and is NPOV. The fact that the referendum was staged is highly disputed and that is something that cannot be supported by the opinion pieces you provided. The EU, the US nor the UN have called it "staged". They have numerously voiced their disapproval to the event as a whole as it annexed a part of someone's territory but never "staged". That is an extremely POV term that needs to be removed. No where else on Wikipedia are the events in Crimea described in such way. Look up the articles about the annexation on this website and how discussion have gone by with consensus to stay neutral. You are clearly not staying neutral and providing opinion articles (which are most definitely not reliable sources) to support your stance. The extra sentences you added about "Russian goals" are only supported by opinion pieces of not relevant enough to the situation people. At this point, this can be called POV pushing. This situation is in no way "fixed", the articles remains with POV pushing material that you added. --Turnless (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

You also keep talking about RS being provided for distinguishing NPOV and POV. Many sources already take either side of the conflict. It has long been determined which terms are NPOV for Crimea on Wikipedia. Plus you yourself have not provided any reliable sources, you just added a number of biased opinion articles. I was not the one who added new information to the article and changed it, you did. You are the one that has to add RS if you're going to add new facts. You just added opinions of two people not relevant enough to the conflict. The changes I made to the original sentence don't in any way support Putin's view on Crimea as you said. They are NPOV and are often used on Wikipedia for articles related to Crimea. --Turnless (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

wiki has rules about what reliable secondary sources (RS) we should use. --Wiki recommends scholarly journals and I cited three. Rjensen (talk) 03:12, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

You cited their opinions on an extremely controversial and disputed topic. That is not how you edit on Wikipedia. You cannot simply portray an opinion of a person as facts. The people you cited are also quite irrelevant to the conflict as a whole. If you had your own show then you could invite those people and interview them, but this is Wikipedia and we should not include opinions of people who have nothing to do with the conflict. Once again look at articles relating to Crimea on Wikipedia. "Staged" and "occupied" is extreme POV pushing. --Turnless (talk) 04:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

those are your own opinions and they are fringe--rejected by US, EU, UN and the RS & promulgated by Putin's people. Rjensen (talk) 05:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Will you stop with that. I already explained how my edits did not in any way support Russia's and Putin's actions in Crimea. Oh and by the way, The EU, US and UN have never referred to the referendum as "staged" officially. They have numerously called the annexation illegitimate but that is entirely different. As for "occupation", I have again also explained to you that articles related to Crimea on Wikipedia use the term "annexation" not occupation. That is not my opinion, it's a fact. You're really just repeating yourself with the same claims that I have already proven wrong. This is POV pushing and that is not suitable for Wikipedia. --Turnless (talk) 05:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, stop referring to the citations you provided as reliable sources. They aren't. They are all opinion articles of people who have nothing to do with the conflict. --Turnless (talk) 05:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

You need to read a bit beyond Wikipedia. start with Roy Allison, "Russian ‘deniable’ intervention in Ukraine: how and why Russia broke the rules." International Affairs 90#6 (2014): 1255-1297. Do you think Russia seized Crimea? Rjensen (talk) 05:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I think that what Russia did is illegitimate whether or not Crimeans support it or not. Annexing a part of another country is never okay. However, it is irrelevant what I think. Wikipedia isn't about my opinion, neither is it about the opinion of Roy Allison. That is POV pushing. Controversial and disputed topics such as this one have to follow NPOV policy. --Turnless (talk) 05:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

your mixing up the private opinions of wiki editors (not allowed) with the opinions of experts (explicitly allowed). wp:biased states reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Rjensen (talk) 05:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Except for the fact that you are taking those opinion articles and using them as facts which is unacceptable for Wikipedia, especially for such a controversial topic such as this one. Extremely POV terms such as "staged" have no reliable sources supporting them except for opinions of people. NPOV must be followed for these articles. --Turnless (talk) 05:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

in wikiworld Facts are statements supported by RS...whether or not one editor agrees. Rjensen (talk) 06:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Facts are, but not opinions. Look at the discussions and consensuses about Crimea that agreed on using NPOV language to describe the events. I am sure that there is at least one scholar out there who agrees with the annexation, but that doesn't mean that we can now change the article to match his point of view. Keeping NPOV is very important. --Turnless (talk) 06:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

the Wiki articles on Crimea are written by anonymous editors like yourself with zero known expertise or qualifications. you appeal to them and ignore known scholars whose works are vetted by editorial boards. that's odd. Rjensen (talk) 07:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

How is it "odd"? Neutral editing on Wikipedia is built upon consensus. Wikipedia articles don't justify the annexation either, but they do create NPOV without POV pushing like you're doing by adding opinion pieces and claiming them as facts. Scholars aren't one single organization. There are millions of scholars with millions of different opinions. The ones you cited have absolutely nothing to do with the conflict so they are completely irrelevant to the article. If someone finds a pro-Putin scholar and cites his reference as RS then Wikipedia would be a complete mess full of POV pushing. You seem to know nothing about neutrality and NPOV on Wikipedia which is extremely odd as you seem to be a very experienced editor. If you don't even want to look around and see how Wikipedia neutrally portrays the conflict then why are you even involving yourself in editing Crimea-related articles? Once again, before you want to continue repeating yourself, your citations are based on opinions of single people, they do not in any way portray the conflict neutrally as NPOV. POV pushing is never okay. With people POV pushing there will be no constructive editing system on this website, and if you don't want to co-operate with that then it is quite odd that you are a Wikipedia user in the first place. --Turnless (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

to repeat: NPOV rules apply to Wiki editors and NOT to reliable scholarly sources. If you think there are alternative RS, then you ADD them. Do not rely on other Wikipedia articles--they are not reliable sources according to Wiki rules. Rjensen (talk) 08:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I will add the articles I already showed you, but it is not up to the source to determine NPOV, it is up to the Wiki editors with consensus. Consensus on Crimea happened a long time ago and is followed everywhere on Wikipedia articles. Sources will always have a different opinion and they can only determine facts of events not the perception of those events by different individuals (even if they are honorary scholars). I'll cite all the sources I already showed you on the article as they do summarize the event pretty well. I will just say once again that it is not the sources that distinguish NPOV, it is the users as all sources will never share the same opinion. --Turnless (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't confuse POV pushing with just POV. Including two scholars who have absolutely noting to do with the conflict in Ukraine and citing their opinion as one shared by other scholars is POV pushing on your side. Like I already said before there are a million scholars with a million different opinions and including certain ones over others is in fact POV pushing by Wiki editors. If the quote came from someone more relevant to the crisis, then at least it would make some sense to include it, but these specific scholars are very random in this case. Either way, the reference you provided is backed up by only the personal understanding and opinions of those two scholars. Treating that as fact is not neutral. --Turnless (talk) 00:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Conflict in Ukraine is your thing but it's not the topic of the Russia - US article. The text in question deals with Putin's global strategic vision esp as it impacts the US. Rjensen (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Stop erasing sourced info you dislike. Wiki rule is to include RS covering all sides of the issue. If there is a side not represented it should be ADDED, rather than erase sourced material. You're new at Wikipedia and need to learn the rules. The topic in question is Russian-US relations and not the history of Crimea or Ukraine so we depend on experts on Russia and USA. see wp:DUE Rjensen (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The sources you provided are completely irrelevant. John Biersack and Shannon O’Lear have absolutely nothing to do with the conflict. If the opinion cam from someone relevant to the Ukrainian crisis then at least it would make some kind of sense to include it. The section edited is specifically about the Ukrainian crisis, so it has a lot do with Ukraine and Crimea. I already left a message on your talk page explaining this more thoroughly already, so you can respond there. --Turnless (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

What conflict are you talking about? They deal with Putin's strategic vision as they impact russian-us relations. Rjensen (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The idea of what Putin's strategic vision is, is only a matter of opinion. No one other than Putin can determine as a fact what that vision is. When you include the opinions of two scholars who have nothing to do with the conflict in Ukraine expressing their understanding of what "Putin's strategic vision" is, then that is POV pushing on your side. Scholars will obviously never entirely agree on any issue unanimously, so when you include two completely random scholars only then that is POV pushing. It would be different if the opinion came from someone relevant to what is going on in the conflict. I also wanna add that I am not in any way removing your edits because I don't like the sources. I personally entirely agree with what the scholars say. I share their opinion, but that doesn't make it okay to randomly include it on the article. --Turnless (talk) 00:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The idea of Putin's strategic vision is central to historical analysis. If you have DIFFERENT views in your RS please include them. Scholars like John Biersack and Shannon O’Lear examine Putin's actions and words over time to figure out his strategy. Editors at scholarly journals evaluate their work and publish it only if it meets high quality standards and is based on good evidence beyond mere "opinion." the US then reacts to its understanding of that strategy. Rjensen (talk) 01:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Understandings of scholars will always be opinion. It is much more neutral to cite info with actual facts. Certain scholars do not get to decide what is "Putin's strategic vision". --Turnless (talk) 01:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Scholarly opinion is relevant to these articles in context, biased or not. They are attributed inline. If you have WP:RS scholars you believe to be significant to the analysis of nation-state relationships, you are welcome to bring them here and discuss their relevance. Bear in mind, however, that sourcing is not a tit-for-tat prospect (i.e., WP:FALSEBALANCE): the relevance is dependent on whether the academics/experts are deemed to represent mainstream views. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it is entirely unnecessary to include scholars at all. Whether or not they agree with Putin or not. If we start including the opinions of all scholars this page would be endless. The fact that these two people are not at all relevant to Ukraine and its conflict is a very important factor. It would make a lot more sense to include someone who has actual significance and relation to what is going on in the conflict. Oh and by the way, Rjensen, I have never in our discussion said that I think the views of those two authors should not be included because they are ignorant. I have not once called them ignorant. Mora then that, I told you I agree with their opinions and what they say. Don't put words in my mouth. --Turnless (talk) 01:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

wikipedia gives high priority to scholars. see wp:RS Turnless seems unfamiliar with all of them--he has never cited one scholar! The issue here is not Ukraine it is broader: US -Russian relations and specifically what Putin's vision is for Europe & the world. Rjensen (talk) 01:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Whose 'opinions' do you think are used for comparable articles? Such analysis is used throughout Wikipedia for articles about nation-state to nation-state articles. Please feel free to take a look around. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Certain scholars do not get to decide what "Putin's vision is for Europe & the world". That is purely a matter of opinion and should not be included as facts. The opinions of scholars will never be the same. Just because those two scholars think of Putin's vision to be what they said it its, that doesn't mean that that is actually his vision, that only means that that is what they think. Because of the fact that they have virtually nothing to do to Ukraine and its conflict, what they think on the matter of the Ukrainian crisis is pretty much irrelevant. I am not saying that opinions should not be included at all, I am saying that they should at least be relevant to the issue, especially such a controversial one such as this. --Turnless (talk) 01:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Turnless is new to Wikipedia and unfamiliar with the world of scholarship. He can keep his opinions but ERASING the text added by editors is disruptive editing. Why he's fooling around in Russia-US relations is a mystery he cannot explain. It is a FACT that [to quote a passage he deleted;} Scholars have explored the reasons the Kremlin provided for its actions comparing them to its geopolitical goals. John Biersack and Shannon O’Lear argue that when a pro-European Union government came to power in Ukraine, Moscow worked to create a secessionist referendum in Crimea. It justified its moves by appeals to Russia’s geopolitical and historical imaginations of Crimea. Its real goals, they argue, were to control naval bases of the Russian Black Sea fleet and to seize much of Ukraine’s Black Sea energy potential and existing oil facilities. we are stating facts that anyone can easily check -- that these authors made these claims in such and such a journal article. Rjensen (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It is a fact that they said that, but the things they said are not facts, but only a matter of opinion. If we start including the opinions of all scholars then this page would be endless. It is much more neutral to stick to actual facts rather than opinions of people who have nothing to do to the Ukrainian conflict. Also, stop bringing this towards my opinion. I do keep my opinion to my self and would like the editors editing this page to do the same. I almost entirely agree with what John Biersack and Shannon O’Lear say about Putin, but that doesn't make their statements notable enough to be mentioned on this article over any other scholar. --Turnless (talk) 01:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

"only a matter of opinion. " says who--you never read it! The editors and reviewers of the scholarly journal did review it & concluded that it moves beyond mere opinion to verifiable information. That is what scholarly journals editorial boards actually do and those are the reliable secondary sources that Wikipedia explicitly depends upon. Rjensen (talk) 02:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It is in fact a matter of opinion as it assumes the vision and political goals of a single person. No matter how many secondary sources support that, it will always be an opinion. No one can look into the head of another person and automatically assume what their geopolitical goals are. --Turnless (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@Turnless: Looking into other's heads is not the role of editors, but it is the role of academics and political experts and, in turn, the role of Wikipedia's editors to reflect well documented, comprehensive analysis. In this case, Russia-US relations may appear to be a far more comprehensive article than other articles on 'country X'-'country Y' relations, but for good reason: the US came out of WWII as the new superpower, while Russia was the central power of the Soviet Union (i.e., all other Soviet states were known as 'satellite states' for a reason) and claimed the crown as the successor state. Consequently, there is an inordinate amount of serious research into the dynamics of the relationship and what makes Russia tick (whether you like it or agree with it). The only comparable political relationship is described in the China–United States relations article: an article which also has a lot of scope for development according to the volume of in-depth analysis of the dynamics of the relationship. It is absolutely appropriate that quality scholarship be drawn on to examine the details, even if it means that WP:SPINOFF articles be developed in order to accommodate the scholarship where it is justified WP:CFORK. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

No matter how many predictions and assumptions academic and political experts make, it doesn't make it a fact. It will still be an opinion no matter what you do to it. Once again, scholars will not all share the same opinion. They will differ in many things. Picking and choosing which ones to include and which ones to leave out is POV pushing (especially picking two that have nothing to do with the Ukrainian conflict). The only way to be neutral is to either include them all (which is absolutely ridiculous) or to not include any at all. If you are so desperate to include an opinion of a scholar, I would at least suggest picking one that is relevant to the Ukrainian conflict. --Turnless (talk) 03:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Turnless certainly has his own opinions. But they contradict Wikipedia rules that we rely on reliable secondary sources. wp:RS: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered.... When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. Rjensen (talk) 04:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

You are honestly getting very annoying continuing to refer to my opinion. I already told you my opinion, but my opinion has absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia as Wikipedia is not a site for opinions. I am going to repeat myself, if you want to include the opinion of a scholar then at least pick one who is at all relevant to the Ukrainian conflict rather than picking two that have nothing to do with it. The fact that your current edit says that these are the views of John Biersack and Shannon O’Lear will tell absolutely nothing to the reader as they have very little to do with the issue. --Turnless (talk) 04:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think that the problem here is that Turnless has confused WP:NOTSYNTH with WP:CHERRY and WP:SYNTH. In fact, Biersack and O'Lear encompass 'good synthesis' in that the same conclusions have been drawn my multiple RS. Perhaps the way to best deal with this is to add a few more reliable sources attesting to the same conclusion, but avoiding WP:CITEOVERKILL. For the moment, however, it should remain as is. WP:BURDEN has been met. Also, they are including WP:INTEXT because that is best practice. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Apparently vandalized footnote #22

Dear people, by accident I stumbled upon what seems to me to be a vandalized footnote (#22 at this point in time). The footnote purports to link to a White House press release from march 2012, but instead links to a 'news site' that looks more like a Russian government propaganda site. I will in a minute 'vandalize' the footnote a tiny bit more, in order to draw the attention of some editor who is hopefully better capable than me to check this out and (if indeed necessary) repair damage done. (my 'vandalizing' will consist of adding the text: "see talk page!" to the footnote, in the 'edit-summary' I will mention that the footnote was vandalized)

I want to apologize beforehand if this turns out to be a mistake of mine; I do not mean to cause anybody unnecessary work or trouble. Yet it seems to me important enough to bring to you guys' attention, for maybe other links or footnotes are vandalized as well. 77.174.175.230 (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, my vandalizing has immediately been undone by ClueBot. Of course I won't report a false positive, because it wasn't. But I do hope somebodycan have a look at this (for I am not the right person to do that). Good luck! 77.174.175.230 (talk) 00:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing my attention to this, but please don't 'vandalise' links in order to gain attention to the fact that they're dead or unfit links. It wasn't 'vandalised' in the first place, but was replaced by another article using the same numeric string. I've now added an archived capture of the correct article. We're grateful for comments about problems with links, but it was a link rot problem and is dealt with by other means so, please, just leave a comment rather than actually genuinely vandalise links. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Propaganda war should be mentioned

RT (TV network) versus Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, a giant and a Lilliput. Xx236 (talk) 07:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

There are a number of 'upbeat' sections like "Victory Day celebrations" (note that it was back in 2010) that are more WP:PEACOCK than substance. I do think that the article needs to have some of the fat cut away. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 08:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the Victory day section as being WP:UNDUE coverage of a single instance of a happy NATO collaboration. It read as nothing other than ludicrous given the constant and escalating tensions that have been, and still are, being reported on on a daily basis. As it stands, there's already an article on Russia-NATO relations, therefore it is WP:OFFTOPIC for this article (i.e., it belongs as a wikilink in the "see also" section).

Further to that, "Joint operations and mutual support" is an uncited and dated piece of malarkey. Unless it's updated and reliably sourced to reflect the serious tensions (including sanctions being pushed by the US) over the last few years, I'm going to remove it as WP:OR/WP:POVPUSH. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Joint operations and mutual support:

Unsourced

No dates

If Russia supports two operations, does it support the whole WoT?

Xx236 (talk) 08:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Russian Involvement

The fact that the CIA and other US intelligence agencies have stated that Russia attempted to elect Trump President is extremely important to US-Russian relations. I would suggest that this revert [[5]] should be relooked. The article should provide a summation of Russian involvement in the 2016 United States presidential election and a link to the article. Casprings (talk) 04:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Casprings. This is a major development with coverage in thousands of secondary sources all over the world, and should be given more weight in the article. The current article wording, with a very brief mention followed immediately by "The allegations were dismissed by Putin who said the idea that Russia was favouring Donald Trump was a myth created by the Hillary Clinton campaign...." seems right out of what Putin would prefer the page itself to say. Sagecandor (talk) 09:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Russian view of allegations

@MrX, wrt to your removal of my edit, thx for correction of attribution in your explanation. Given that, though, it would seem not WP:UNDUE to include the quote (“The aim is to force Trump into enmity with Russia.”) from Alexei Pushkov — a senator who sits on the upper house of parliament’s defense and security committee — as a representative expression of Russian perspective. A proper placement could be after "The allegations were dismissed by Putin who said the idea that Russia was favouring Donald Trump was a myth created by the Hillary Clinton campaign.” in the U.S. election of 2016 section. Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 02:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Hearing no objections, I inserted the quote; placement adjusted to early 2017 to comport with time of quote. Humanengr (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Rjensen removed the above with this explanation: "drop old prediction". @Rjensen: Is this the only "old prediction" in the article? Humanengr (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

wiki avoids predictions as a policy, and outdated predictions bypassed by actual history are pretty useless. Rjensen (talk) 04:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

You did not answer the question. As to your cmt re policy, specific policy cite? Humanengr (talk) 07:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Rjensen: Do you have a cite to specific policy text? Humanengr (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

After further discussion, Rjensen and I resolved issues of concern and assembled the following for inclusion:

In January 2017, Alexei Pushkov, a senator on the Russia’s parliament’s defense and security committee, said “The new hacking allegations against Russia are clearly timed to coincide with the handover of power in the United States, … The aim is to force Trump into enmity with Russia.” Victoria Zhuravleva, Director of the American Studies Program at Russian State University, who writes analytical papers for the Russian gov't on U.S.-Russia relations, said the current mood in the United States meant Trump would struggle to improve relations with Moscow even if he wanted to. Zhuravleva said “If we are realistic we have nothing to wait for,” and went to say that Congress could stymie Trump’s Russia policies and would probably present him with proposals to hit Moscow with fresh sanctions rather than roll back existing ones.

References

Humanengr (talk) 20:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Allies section

I have removed the allies section of the infobox and it must be emphasized that the allies section for BOTH countries have been removed so as to maintain neutrality. It is completely meaningless and just inaccurate information, particularly given the protean and infinite nature of interstate relationships. I am confident that this is a proposal that all editors can agree on irrespective of what we may personally think about the bilateral relationship. Flickotown (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Exaggerated Area of the United States

Under section "Country comparison", the area of the United States is exaggerated. It currently reads "24,033,527 kilometers squared", even when Wikipedia's own list of the largest countries by area conflicts with that number. Perhaps I may be missing something here, but even factoring in all of America's territories, the area would still not add up that high. Correction would be much appreciated. Originally Origins (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2019

Please correct the populations of Moscow and New York cities in the comparison table. Current numbers underestimate Moscow and overestimate New York.

Moscow page says "with 13.2 million residents within the city limits,[12] 17 million within the urban area[13] and 20 million within the metropolitan area."

New York page says "With an estimated 2018 population of 8,398,748[7] distributed over a land area of about 302.6 square miles (784 km2) ... and one of the world's most populous megacities,[16][17] with an estimated 19,979,477 people in its 2018 Metropolitan Statistical Area and 22,679,948 residents in its Combined Statistical Area.".

Probably it makes sense to list 13.2 million residents for Moscow and 8.4 million residents for New York within the city limits. In any case, one should use the same estimate (within city limits or within a metropolitan area). 109.63.180.131 (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done The source for the 13.2 million number is from 2015 so I used the most recent number from the Moscow page instead. Alduin2000 (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Military equipment numbers are horribly off

According to this article apparently the Russians have 67,000 tanks, and the Americans have battleships. The military numbers are horribly off and are more comparable to these militaries during World War II military rather than the modern armies. The US only has 2,384 M1 Abrams MBTs in active service, as well as 3.5k in reserve. The equipment numbers aren't even there on the cited website. Russia's tank numbers according to this page are four times the actual total number.

New proxy template

@SpinnerLaserz: you created the Template:Russia–United States proxy conflict, I think here would be a good place to discuss with everyone the point of such a template. Could you provide your reasoning for this template? When should it be applied? I am against its use until the article for Russia–United States proxy conflict is rightfully created. --MaoGo (talk) 11:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@MaoGo: There is a draft for the Russian-American proxy conflict and anyone can edit for free. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 16:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Propaganda - RT

Nothing about RT content. "it has RT America based in Washington, D.C" - quite concise (11 million viewers). Xx236 (talk) 11:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

"Reset" under Obama and Medvedev (2009–11)

Do Western readers understand Putin-Medvedev relationship? Xx236 (talk) 12:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• 2017 Tax Day March in Chicago 6.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

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:

• Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin in Geneva, 16 June 2021 (04).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Please trim the allies section

It seems to include countries which are either neutral or have good relations with both, such as Azerbaijan and India. Mexico is not an ally of the USA per the Estrada Doctrine--118.211.181.97 (talk) 14:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

First Image Change

The United State flag and color at the bottom should be on the left side whilst Russia on the right so the image is easier to read/clearer. 166.181.85.158 (talk) 14:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)