Talk:Government and intergovernmental reactions to the Russian invasion of Ukraine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from
Talk:Government and intergovernmental reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
)

Display of blue/yellow icons or Ukraine flags (in solidarity)

I should have taken a picture of it, but I noticed when walking home today that many buildings in NYC with custom light displays had them set to blue and yellow horizontal bars, presumably in solidarity regarding this situation. I have also now seen websites, coorporations, etc changing their logo to the Ukraine flag colors as well.

I'm unsure as to what qualifies as 'international relations' in regards to the WikiProject; it is unclear whether this only includes governmental/political entities or if I'm overthinking it, but, in any case, I think that there should be some coverage of this 'private' aspect of international reactions. Bagaboiebailey (talk) 02:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide me some links to reliable sources regarding these "Ukraine flag custom light displays"? A diehard editor Editing Wikipedia too much rn, talk to me here, bruh. 04:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10548629/Countries-world-light-buildings-Ukrainian-flag-colours.html
https://www.foxnews.com/world/cities-across-globe-light-up-blue-yellow-solidarity-ukraine
https://www.wivb.com/news/local-news/buffalo/buffalo-light-up-blue-yellow-city-hall-electric-tower-in-support-of-ukraine-russia/
it just took the right combination of search terms Bagaboiebailey (talk) 06:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://spectrumnews1.com/oh/columbus/national-international/2022/02/24/ukrainian-sister-city-sees-support-from-cincinnati
Also, I doubt this meets worthiness requirements (probably better for an eventual country-specific set of reaction pages), but I found this pretty interesting. Bagaboiebailey (talk) 06:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Megan B.... It’s all coming to me till the end of time 09:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

International reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine → Reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine – Please place your rationale for the proposed move here. Utkarsh555 08:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Utkarsh555 08:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

I think this would be a good idea; there is no reason to make 'international' its own special section for an event this significant. Bagaboiebailey (talk) 13:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also there already exists a page for the prior crisis in the same format: Reactions to the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis. Bagaboiebailey (talk) 13:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I support the move. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I support the move as well --P1221 (talk) 14:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on if the page will be about diplomatic and political reactions or reactions such as brands and other entities that would react to such a situation. Idit2801 (talk) 00:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I support the move. It's not only diplomatic/political reactions; for example see the growing "Non-governmental organizations, non-political groups and individuals" section. Unless this changes, the new name seems more appropriate. TimSmit (talk) 02:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like this should keep at International, seeing as this is a global reaction to the invasion of Ukraine? |1Falco3&#124 (talk) 11:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yeah maybe, but the reactions section is needed for an overall views: regional, territorial or international. example is: Reactions to the 2008 Mumbai attacks. Utkarsh555 12:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

f I'd also support this page move. As other people have said here, it's better to collate all of the responses in one page rather than have separate ones foe national or international reactions —AFreshStart (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support for now - For now, I support this move, until this page, which is over 100kB, needs to be split. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate since there are overlaps between the content of the two pages. Only difference is that this page separates the responses from the heads of states from other political actors ie opposition leaders and organisations. If its moved, the distinction should also be made as well. MetroMapFinalRender.svg (talk) 04:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Russian and Belarusian protests, mass arrests, and political opponents like Navalny can all be found on this website. I would recommend the article be structured to first feature Russian and Belarusian reactions, then the old USSR, then nation states by continent, then international groups of countries, and subsequently notable individuals, organizations, and corporations. But to reiterate, I support the move.InvadingInvader (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to be
    WP:CONSISTENT with Reactions to the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis, a similar article. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:14, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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.

anti-Chinese disinformation

The claim "The Chinese government stated on 24 February that the conflict was not an invasion" was plain disinformation. The Chinese spokeperson repeatedly refused to say it "is an invasion" or "it isn't" twice when answering Bloomberg's inquiry "Can you say then China considers Russia’s action an invasion? Is it an invasion?" and Reuters' imquery "Does China think Russia’s action is an invasion of Ukraine?". The report "China refuses to accept Russia has 'invaded' Ukraine" was already a delibrate one-sided story, while the corresponding statement in Wikipedia was one step forward disinformation and must be removed. As for the "Associated Press reported that China would increase its imports on Russian wheat, effectively easing Western sanctions against Russia", that's nothing about Chinese responce about the situation. It is an opinion, and should be included in an article mass opinions on international reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, thus also should not be included here (totally offtopic).

The Chinese reaction was quite similar to Vietnamese reaction, with remarkably similar wording, except for two differences: 1. China actively recognized that France and Germany "have made a lot of efforts through diplomatic mediation in order to ease the tension" and alleged that the US "started the fire and fanned the flames" (when Biden suggested that a small-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine might not lead NATO to respond with full force, analysts in Chinese state media mostly interpreted it as "you sure you don't want to invade Ukraine a little bit, Mr. Putin?"), which Vietnam, AFAIK, hasn't yet expressed. 2. China was more extensively inquiried by AFP under the press release, which revealed much more details. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicates: Ski and climbing organisation

(was an intense editing time yesterday, thank you all, so) the statements/press releases of the International Federation of Sport Climbing and the International Ski Federation appear twice currently, under "Sports" and "Sports Organizations" with slightly different web sources, pls clean up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fazhbr (talk • contribs) 08:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Stance on Map incorrect

The map indicates Israel has condemned the invasion, when despite statements by the Foreign Minister Prime Minister Bennett has maintained a neutral tone and has praised by Russian diplomats for doing so

https://www.timesofisrael.com/despite-us-request-israel-refrains-from-backing-unsc-resolution-against-russia/

https://www.timesofisrael.com/bennett-refrains-from-condemning-russia-in-first-remarks-since-invasion-of-ukraine/

https://www.timesofisrael.com/russian-envoy-to-toi-we-hope-israel-will-continue-taking-wise-diplomatic-approach/

Here are sources. Israel should be changed to yellow on the map Wordbearer88 (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Serbia's stance incorrect on the map

"Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic said at a press conference on Friday evening that Serbia stands for peace and respect for international law – and also considers it wrong to violate the territorial integrity of any country, including Ukraine – but will not impose sanctions on Russia, because it is protecting its own interests." - Source: BalkanInsight

So technically speaking Serbia should be blue on this map, just like Georgia who is blue but also didn't impose sanctions. 77.105.56.37 (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One has to push pretty hard to call "It is protecting its own interests" a condemnation. That's clearly much closer to approval than condemnation so "technically speaking" they're really closer to orange than blue. Neutral is likely the most accurate though. 78.78.200.165 (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal Stance on Map incorrect

Nepal has opposed the invasion of ukraine! https://kathmandupost.com/national/2022/02/24/nepal-opposes-russian-invasion-of-ukraine


Dutch stance update

The entherlands will send 100 sniper riffles, 30.000 rounds of ammunition, 3000 helmets, 50 anti tank weapons including 300 rockets, and 200 stingers. Given the fact Germany has its equipement aid shown I think it'd be wise to do so for the netherlands too. 143.177.34.149 (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reading clarity

Maybe we should move the reactions of the different zones, Asia, Africa, Europe, etcetera, into their own collapsible boxes to improve quality of life on the page? 143.177.34.149 (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who to add on "former politicians"?

Well, obviously leaders of countries like presidents and PMs will be included. But how far down are we going? Mike Pompeo and Hillary Clinton have commented, so are we adding them? So Secretaries and Ministers? How about Former MPs and Congress(wo)men? E.chinguun (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnia and Herzegovina's stance to the invasion is partly incorrect

Only the Croat and Bosniak presidents of Bosnia condemned the invasion. The Serbian president did not. I’m not sure if this should change anything, but I’m noting it none the less . Maybe it should be noted next to the title or it should be striped between neutral and condemning. This is just a suggestion. KongJungle (talk) 07:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sealand

Does Principality of Sealand really need to be added to the list of countries / territories? I can understand the inclusion of disputed territories like Abkhazia and Kosovo as these have semi-functioning governments, a population and are recognized by some other countries. Sealand is a former oil platform off the coast of England. It has no population, no recognition and no functioning government other than a guy who calls himself 'prince Michael'. XANIA - ЗAНИAWikipedia talk | Wikibooks talk 12:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not, it is laughable to include
micronations which are an entirely different thing from partially- or unrecognised states. I have removed Sealand. Frickeg (talk) 12:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
To Crazy Boris (talk · contribs) who reverted: micronations are not considered sovereign states according to the criteria established at List of sovereign states. To list them here is frankly to invite ridicule, and in rather poor taste to be honest. Frickeg (talk) 20:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria does not determine reality. Sealand is de facto independent, and that’s that. Crazy Boris (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, Sealand is not an oil platform. It's a fortress permanently attached into the surface of the North Sea not dissimilar to the islands built in the South China Sea. It does have a government. We also have nations included here that have no recognition such as Transnistria. Sealand has controlled its claimed territory for longer than Transnistria has. Sealand is relevant to include, given the circumstances. I would not include any other micronation, but I believe that Sealand should be an exception to this given it's relevance to the topic (self declared breakaway states). Sealand is the only "micronation" that has any legitimate claims to statehood. In other words, it's the only "micronation" that has basis for it's claims. No matter what you think about it's status, it's functioned de-facto independent for over 50 years. They (the Sealand Government) have maintained effective control of its territory throughout the duration of its existence. Keep in mind that the UK does not claim jurisdiction over Sealand and classifies all activity there as an overseas activity. Remember that within this Russo-Ukrainian crisis are two self declared independent states (Donetsk & Luhansk) that arguably have less of a claim to statehood given the fact that their territory is claimed by another state. Sealand is the only "micronation" that is not beholden to the state it stems from. Given these specific cases relating to the events discussed in this article. We include video games, sports, and even dance, surely Sealand has more of a reason to be here than those (not saying they don't). I believe that this warrants its inclusion at least somewhere on this list (if not in the normal section on the list). It's circumstances are relevant to the topic. Maybe we make a separate section with statements made by states with limited or no recognition.--Jrcraft Yt (talk) 05:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of assertions here. Firstly our sovereign states criteria requires a permanent population, which Sealand inarguably does not have. I have found no evidence that Sealand is not claimed in its entirety as part of British territorial waters and this paper explicitly quotes the UK considering the structure "former Crown property that is within the UK and subject to all UK laws". I have not found any evidence that Sealand should be considered any differently from any other micronation and invite others to provide said evidence. Partially recognised states, whether Transnistria or Donetsk/Luhansk, are obviously entirely different, having permanent populations, recognition from other functioning sovereign states, and properly functioning governments (you can hardly have a functioning government without a population of some kind; selling parody titles does not count). As such, it has absolutely no business being listed under international reactions. As to whether it should appear somewhere else, that would appear to depend on whether there has been any coverage whatsoever of Mr Bates's tweets to indicate their significance. I haven't been able to find any. Frickeg (talk) 07:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with the person above. It is not for us to apply our personal definitions of what constitutes a nation states. Sealand is not recognized as a nation state under international law, is not a member of the United Nations or other major international organizations, is not recognized by any other nation state, and no nation state maintains diplomatic relations with it. It has no business on this page. Francoisdjvr (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You’re missing the point here, this isn’t about any personal definitions, my point is that Sealand effectively operates as a sovereign state, and has for more than half a century, therefore, it pretty much is one just the same as Transnistria et al. My point is basically “if it exists, then it exists”, which to me seems pretty clear and objective. To address the population question, Sealand does have a population, and the Fort is always occupied by at least a few people, so it is populated. If it’s supposedly disqualified because it doesn’t have a native-born population, then wouldn’t that exclude the Vatican as well? Recognition shouldn’t be a factor here, it’s a big deal in the game of international politics, sure, but it doesn’t dictate what does and doesn’t exist. Somaliland has about as much recognition as Sealand does but no one disputes its de facto existence. Plenty of fully-recognized states weren’t given any recognition until well after their founding (Mongolia, Haiti, San Marino, Belgium, to name a few), but this doesn’t mean the country didn’t exist before that recognition was given. Recognition ultimately doesn’t mean anything in the big picture. You can’t just say “oh that doesn’t exist” and expect that to somehow alter the actual reality of the situation. I think, and forgive me for playing armchair psychologist, that the objection to Sealand as a state basically stems from a dismissal based on its strange origins and situation rather than any objective facts, and I admit, a family commandeering an old naval platform is a bizarre national origin story... until you realize that Monaco was established pretty much the same way. It’s strange, but it’s happened before. To finish this off, I’d like to echo Jrcraft’s point that Sealand, though a micronation, is not controlled by anyone but Sealand itself, which is basically the core idea behind my argument. PS. Apologies if I come off harsh at all in this. I mean no disrespect, and honestly I kind of regret getting involved in this, it seems kind of silly to argue this here rather than on list of sovereign states or something else more relevant, and I don’t like arguing in the first place, so after this I think I will withdraw from the debate. I’ve said all I have to say and don’t want to get dragged into a long-term debate.Crazy Boris (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I too agree that it should be included. This is not a list of sovereign states's reactions, but a list of international reactions. It's fair to include on this page for the above reasons. Just give it a note like the other unrecognized states here.--Bvbv13 (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of my points have been refuted (if you need me to tell you the difference between Sealand and Somaliland ...), and there is still no reason to treat Sealand differently to any other micronation. One thing I do absolutely agree with Crazy Boris on - it is strange to suggest that this page treat an entity differently from the rest of Wikipedia. If you want to treat Sealand as an unrecognised state rather than a micronation, that case should be made elsewhere (probably List of sovereign states). I note we still have zero independent coverage to suggest that Sealand's reaction is even vaguely notable. Frickeg (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to jump in fully and address what was discussed above. In the Montevideo convention, there is no “minimum” regarding permanent population. There are always people on Sealand, meaning it’s population has permanence. If you argument is that these people hold other citizenship, so does everyone in Vatican City. Vatican citizens hold said citizenship primarily for work, and most (but not all) Vatican citizens live outside the country. The same applies to Sealand unequivocally. Do you want to exclude the Vatican form this list? It is worth noting that Article Three of the Montevideo convention states “The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts. The exercise of these rights has no other limitation than the exercise of the rights of other states according to international law.” Recognition is explicitly not required. Full stop. In regards to the rest of Article Three, Sealand does every single one of the listed items. Sealand has defended itself to provide for its integrity and independence. Sealand organizes itself as it sees fit. It is not beholden to any other state. It legislates upon it’s own interests. Sealand’s has a unicameral legislature made up of it’s Senate. The senate prepares it’s laws. Sealand administers it’s own services, such as it’s postal system. Sealand also has defined the jurisdiction of it’s court. The United Kingdom’s Ministry of Defense directly denies ownership of the territory. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the UK “Refuses to deal with any issue of Sealand, fearing that it may be interpreted as official recognition.” The British Department of Health and Social Security decided to exempt bates from paying into the National Insurance while in Sealand. It’s also worth noting that the Ministry of Defense of the UK designed a plan called “Operation Seymour” to conduct a military reoccupation of Sealand. Sources for everything above are listed here ([1][2][3][4]). Don't mean to sound like I'm coming off strong, I generally don't participate in talk page discussion, I just wanted to structure everything. I’d like to point out that this article is not a list of reactions of sovereign states, nor a list of sovereign states, nor a list of notable reactions. This is an article that collects responses internationally from countries, organizations, companies, and personality’s and more who’ve directly responded to in Invasion of Ukraine. Adding Sealand to this list isn’t classifying it as a sovereign state. It enriches the article by providing an international reaction. The argument being made against Sealand’s statement’s inclusion is being based of it’s sovereignty. Sovereignty is not a condition of inclusion on this article, hence the inclusions of companies, hacking groups, music, media, video games, sports, etc. Weather or not Sealand is sovereign or not is not a precondition to Sealand’s statement’s inclusion in the article. In this case, the statement should be included somewhere else. You questioned it’s notability. The inclusion of the statement is notable because it pertains in some manners to the conflict (to be a bit pedantic, the statement has more likes and responses compared to other statement that are included using the same platform (Twitter)). The discussion shouldn’t be “is Sealand sovereign?’ because that is not a precondition to a statement’s inclusion in the article. The question is “is the statement notable?” The statement is notable for the reasons above. Lets agree to include the statement somewhere on the article through consensus whether that be with other countries (with a note) or somewhere else in the article. It’s clearly already had a reach bigger than other included statements and reactions.--Bvbv13 (talk) 01:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for the delayed response. I believe what other have said illustrates my point. While I think it makes sense for Sealand to be included as it as previously in the section, I’m open to including it’s statement somewhere else in the article, perhaps under “Political parties, opposition politicians and other political groups.”--Jrcraft Yt (talk) 05:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad we at least agree that its inclusion in a list of reactions from actual countries is inappropriate. As for its inclusion elsewhere, I am yet to see a single source indicating that a Twitter statement from the non-notable person claiming leadership of a micronation is noteworthy. It doesn't fit in any of the categories currently here, because none of them apply to a micronation. As for the lengthy statement above from @
every single person on Twitter and everywhere else. There is obviously a standard for inclusion based around notability and significance, and Sealand comprehensively fails to qualify - frankly, it's not even close. Frickeg (talk) 06:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Before I continue, I want to make sure we're on the same page. The statement made via twitter that I am referring too is this one:

Sealand [@SealandGov] (March 1, 2022). "We are truly shocked by the ongoing events in Ukraine. Sealand staunchly supports humankind's right to freedom and self determination. We continue to reach out to our international partners, offering our unreserved support. #Ukraine" (Tweet) – via Twitter.

While I think you are referring to this one:

Michael Of Sealand [@sealandprince] (February 26, 2022). "A note to those hell bent on defacing and pulling down historic statues "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."#Ukraine #UkraineUnderAttack #FreeUkraine #Poland1939" (Tweet) – via Twitter.

Both were in the article originally, and neither is substantially different as far as this discussion is concerned. Frickeg (talk) 05:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Sealand [@SealandGov] (March 1, 2022). "We are truly shocked by the ongoing events in Ukraine. Sealand staunchly supports humankind's right to freedom and self determination. We continue to reach out to our international partners, offering our unreserved support. #Ukraine" (Tweet) – via Twitter.

under the "Political parties, opposition politicians and other political groups" subsection as it fits the criteria of that subsection. The statement's notability is comparable to or surpasses the statements, engagement, and organizations/groups that are featured there. Keeping in mind

WP:Vote, and staying in line with Wikipedia's "Straw poll guidelines" consider replying with either support or oppose as a measure to gauge consensus. --Jrcraft Yt (talk) 05:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

I support the inclusion. It's clearly within the scope of the section. --Jrcraft Yt (talk) 05:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
support. It seems to fit there appropriately.--Bvbv13 (talk) 05:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Definitely more appropriate there.

//Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 20:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose — I would probably have thought this was a joke if I weren't reading it on Wikipedia. Are you seriously willing to consider that a micronation — a guy who claims to have founded a brand new country with him and his family — deserves to stand on equal ground with real countries in the list of international reactions? I found this mention yesterday and promptly deleted it (as I thought it was so obvious that it shouldn't be here) and was shocked to find today that my edit had been reverted because the issue had been debated in the talk page and consensus had been to include Sealand! As has been argued before, Sealand is not a sovereign state by any criteria, and I doubt any reliable source calls it that; it is not a state with limited recognition, but rather a
WP:PSTS). As it stands, the reaction of Sealand is sourced by... a tweet. The guy who founded Sealand says he opposes the invasion. That's it. There is no independent third-party reporting on his tweet, no secondary sources of any kind, nothing. Only a tweet. (Of course, there must have been millions of tweets from people condemning the invasion already; but this guy's tweet gets to be featured here because he claims to be the leader of a new country? If I declare my house a new country and then tweet against the invasion, will I be featured on this list? Of course not!) This means that, even if we were to concede that Sealand is a real country, then we would still have to find reliable secondary sources in order to determine that Sealand's reaction is notable enough to include here. Therefore, I strongly oppose the inclusion of Sealand. LongLivePortugal (talk) 12:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Oppose Since we're apparently voting now, I want to state that I am against its inclusion anywhere in this article on the same grounds as the person above. That is to say
WP:INDISCRIMINATE. In fact, this entire article suffers from this problem, and I confess I probably also contributed some less than important information. The article has simply gotten too long. We don't need everyone's grandma or micronation's opinion mentioned here. Francoisdjvr (talk) 13:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

References

  1. ^ Hammonds, Henrietta (12 May 2016). "To what extent can the Principality of Sealand be considered a sovereign state according to international law?". Retrieved 2 March 2022.
  2. ^ Lyon, Andrew (2015). The Principality of Sealand, and Its Case for Sovereign Recognition. Emory International Law Review, Volume 29, Issue 3: Emory International Law Review. pp. 1–36.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  3. ^ "Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States". 26 December 1934. Retrieved 2 March 2022.
  4. ^ "PRINCIPALITY OF SEALAND STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT" (PDF). 3 May 2002. Retrieved 2 March 2022.

The Batman and Morbius

Need to add information that Warner Bros. and Sony canceled the release of The Batman and Morbius in Russia. [1], [2], [3]. — Vladlen Manilov ✉ / 14:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FIA

The FIA has cancelled the Russia GP, and banned Belarus and Russia from competition until further notice. Individual drivers allowed to compete under FIA flag. Mjroots (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil

Why is Brazil still marked as condemning? Even the wiki says it isn't. Some politicans in Brazil have done so but the head of government (ie Bolsonaro) has made it rather clear that they will not and despite what some people may wish, he is indeed the head of government. 78.78.200.165 (talk) 00:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

China & Mexico

Should probably also be reviewed: [4] "We are not going to take any sort of economic reprisal because we want to have good relations with all the governments in the world," López Obrador said at his daily news conference. López Obrador was internally criticized for his reluctance to condemn the unprovoked invasion, with initial official Mexican reactions calling for dialogue between the parties. A day after hostilities broke out, Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard issued a statement condemning the Russian attack. Mexico was among the 11 United Nations Security Council members to vote for a resolution condemning Russia's actions late last week." So Mexico seems to be talking out of both sides of the mouth a bit here, they don't like the invasion but at the same time they don't want to condemn Russia for it, which should likely put them in the neutral camp?

China clearly seems to be blaming Nato: [5] "China claims U.S. and NATO provoked Putin, but Beijing wary of support for invasion" https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/24/china-refuses-to-call-attack-on-ukraine-an-invasion-blames-us.html "China refuses to call Russian attack on Ukraine an ‘invasion,’ deflects blame to U.S." So while they are not supporting the invasion (claiming they're against war and military action as such) they have repeatedly said it was Natos fault it occured. They also refuse to even call it an invasion.

78.78.200.165 (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia and Kyrgystan

It seems like Georgia should not be regarded as blue/opposed, that if that ever was their position, they have changed it. President Zelensky: https://ukranews.com/en/news/837814-ukraine-recalls-ambassadors-from-georgia-and-kyrgyzstan-zelenskyy President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says Ukraine has recalled its ambassadors from Georgia and Kyrgyzstan. He said this in his video address, Ukrainian News Agency reports. According to him, Ukrainian diplomats are now implementing fair and absolutely necessary decisions regarding those states that have broken their word and international law. As Ukrainian News Agency earlier reported, President of Kyrgyzstan Sadyr Zhaparov supported Russia’s actions in his talk with Putin." So.. neutral or maybe unknown? for Georgia. And according to this, Kyrgystan is clearly an orange. 78.78.200.165 (talk) 02:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

South Africa is explicitly neutral

I noticed that on the map South Africa is indicated as blue 'Countries that have condemned the invasion', but this is not the case (regrettably in my opinion). This is already evident from the text of this Wikipedia article itself: 'South Africa – Naledi Pandor, Minister of the Department of International Relations and Cooperation, released a statement blaming neither Russia nor Ukraine, calling for "inclusive talks led by the UNSC" and "enhanced diplomacy".[24]'

It is possible that this was the result of an initial misunderstanding resulting from the initial phrasing of South Africa's statement on Ukraine. A statement which the government has hastily withdrawn. South Africa's current stance is unambiguously one of neutrality and this is reflected by South Africa's explicitly neutral stance at the UN General Assembly Emergency meeting. Below some sources:

- Pretoria scrambles to repair relations with Russia after calling for invasion forces to leave Ukraine

- South Africa’s diplomacy falters over Russia’s attack on Ukraine

- Why is South Africa not condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine?

- UN Assembly votes to demand that Russia stop war in Ukraine

I will also post this information in the talk section of the map. Francoisdjvr (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


"I noticed that on the map South Africa is indicated as blue 'Countries that have condemned the invasion', but this is not the case (regrettably in my opinion)."

Indeed, this seems to be the case with a lot of countries listed here, I put examples of some above. I'm getting the feeling that as alot of us want this to be universally condemned, people are seeing condemnation where there really is'nt ("how could they not condemn? Im sure they really are, mark as blue") putting quite a few countries that should be listed as neutral as condemning, and countries that should be listed as blaming it on Nato / supporting Russia as neutral. Wishful thinking rather than NPOV. 78.78.200.165 (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add Greenland as a subsection to Denmark

The Greenlandic government condemns the attack:

- https://twitter.com/GreenlandMFA/status/1498359624566812681

- https://naalakkersuisut.gl/da/Naalakkersuisut/Nyheder/2022/02/2502_tilslutning (danish) 2A02:810D:27BF:E878:6193:7965:38C9:5EF (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Map: 'International reaction to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.'

Can we remove the map titled: 'International reaction to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine'? The map is based on an interpretation of what particular countries stances are on the Ukraine/Russia conflict. The map is not entirely accurate (it is an estimation of how a countries stance is perceived) and is now redundant given that the UN General Assembly has voted on a resolution, which gives us a better indication of where different states stand on this issue. The two maps are contradictory and I support using the UNGA Resolution map as the better indicator of each states position on the conflict.--Mrodowicz (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joint Statement in the UN the condemned the invasion

It was an Albanian-American initiative [6][7][8].

Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Yes, multiple other sources as well, confirm that it was an initiative of the two countries. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 12:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Layout is overwhelming, I suggest converting to Two Columns

Here is one way to do it: Template:Col-2

Chesapeake77 (talk) 11:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done.
Chesapeake77 (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's awful. See my comment below. It explains why. --2603:7000:2143:8500:A17F:8056:14D1:4E05 (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware that Putin uses thousands of Internet agents to hack his critics?
Did you also know that your personal IP address (your home Internet address) is exposed in your “Signature” code when you post without using a Wikipedia account Username?
Having a Wikipedia Username protects you. You might want to consider signing up for an account, for your own protection.
Especially if anything you edit could be seen as being critical of Putin.
Chesapeake77 (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article is way overdone

It should be noted that after all of this extensive work-- "political positions" of countries change all the time.

I discourage anyone from doing this again in a few months.

More constructive projects are in need of editing person-power / human-editing-hours.

This was a time-waster. Other editing projects need help.

Please don't do this again.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another point. Each and every "Nations position" should be edited way down and simplified.
Chesapeake77 (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article is hugely problematic. It has gotten far too long and far too detailed for an encyclopaedia entry. Wikipedia is not a database of everything in existence. It suffers from
WP:INDISCRIMINATE issues and needs to be edited down massively. Francoisdjvr (talk) 13:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Mess

This article is such a mess. Similar to

International reactions to the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, we should merge lots of stuff. Maybe start with sport organizations that banned Russian/Belarussia? Instead of listing them individually, say "several organizations, including x, x, ... have banned Russian/Belarussian athelets", for example. Beshogur (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Yes, it's a massive waste of time. A 90% simplified version would just do simple tallies and leave it at that.
This is absorbing huge amounts of human-hours, valuable Wikipedia Editor skills are being wasted here.
Chesapeake77 (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More to add on North Korean response

Kim Song, the North Korean ambassador to the UN, has given some more comments on the situation. The section might be a bit bloated, but I think this might be useful to include as it mentions some points that aren't included in the current response:

The root cause of the Ukraine crisis totally lies in the hegemonic policy of the U.S. and the West which indulge themselves in high-handedness and arbitrariness towards other countries.

The U.S. and the West, in defiance of Russia's reasonable and just demand to provide it with legal guarantee for security, have systematically undermined the security environment of Europe by becoming more blatant in their attempts to deploy attack weapon system while defiantly pursuing NATO's eastward expansion.

The U.S. and the West, having devastated Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, are mouthing phrases about "respect for sovereignty" and "territorial integrity" over the Ukrainian situation which was detonated by themselves. That does not stand to reason at all.

Source: KCNA (official English translation), quoted in Yonhap and Voice of America. —AFreshStart (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why? What do you expect from North Korea?
I encourage everyone to leave this article and go edit articles about-- human rights violations in Ukraine-- or elsewhere.
Just saying, this article is an enormous waste of time.
Chesapeake77 (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Company section

Numerous information here are already outdated. Given the high dynamic in this topic its very difficult to keep up to date here. As there are 2 detailed articles/list on the reaction of companies, I suggest to move the list of bullet points into those articles. What do you think?Wissen4all (talk) 04:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Columns

Someone introduced columns. Columns make sense where the line items are short. They do not make sense where, as here, the sections are multiple lines long. Instead, columns make that very difficult to read an navigate, as when someone is searching for "country x." I think they should be reverted back to their prior, non-column, format for that reason. --2603:7000:2143:8500:A17F:8056:14D1:4E05 (talk) 16:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Using the “Find” function available on all browsers— you can find anything you want in seconds.
When there were no columns, this enormous article was nearly impossible to scroll through.
Additionally, this article is far too big, and should be broken into several separate articles and then cross-linked.
Chesapeake77 (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs to be broken into several articles

The amount of information in its current form is enormous. It's too unwieldy.

It needs to be edited down by a lot too. A lot of what is included now is extraneous.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 02:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article is unwieldy. How should the article be separated? -- AFreshStart (talk) 09:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have an idea, lets break everything from "Non-governmental organizations, non-political groups and individuals" and under into a separate article. That would also be roughly in half in terms of page length. Basically, this article would keep countries and political entities here. We'd be moving companies, media, sports, organizations and the like to another page. Perhaps We'd call that new page "Notable responses to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" or something. --Jrcraft Yt (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a good idea to me. LongLivePortugal (talk) 14:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This article is a mess in its current format. Splitting it up is an excellent idea. Francoisdjvr (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. This page is currently #2 on Special:LongPages, it's simply far too long for its own good. Splitting into two articles on governmental and non-governmental reactions would be best, with this article renamed to "International response to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" and the other named something like "Media response to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine". Soweli Rin (talk) 04:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Street renaming

A growing number of countries seem to rename the street, square or metro station near their Russian embassy. Worthwhile to include here. Bommbass (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Format

Might be worth sorting by support, neutrality, or opposition Dialmayo (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Expulsion of diplomats

A dozen of countries expelled Russian diplomats in the weeks after the invasion. It seems this wasn't a coordinated effort, but more European countries are joining the initiative. References: [9][10][11][12][13][14][15]. Should we cover it in this page or the

2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine? I'd say this page, but we should create a separate section and perhaps a table, like in Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal#Expulsion of diplomats. If this sounds good, I'll proceed. --Mindaur (talk) 10:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Well, as per
Reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Expulsion of diplomats. --Mindaur (talk) 11:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Split with
Non-government reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

Article is big. Many complaints above. I

Government and intergovernmental reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine starship.paint (exalt) 14:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Lead

The

WP:LEAD at the top and the first sections make this article, for someone just looking quickly, like a long list of blabla rhetoric by politicians. The institutional reactions of significance are hidden lower down. For a state to be thrown out of an international institution is more significant than having critical comments made against that state. Some work to write a better lead, both in terms of summarising and in terms of highlighting the most significant institutional changes, would be worth it. Boud (talk) 23:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Being punished for blaming the invasion on Ukraine

Wasn’t the US supporting Ukraine’s right to choose its alliances??? That is why the war was worth it, I thought they said. Unbearable that a country would be told what to do or threatened. I get so confused… 88.231.147.172 (talk) 11:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction of the People’s Republic of China

China says the US is the ‘main instigator’ of the war in Ukraine - https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/8/10/china-accuses-us-as-main-instigator-of-the-war-in-ukraine

I wonder what China's reaction were if Kazakhstan invaded Xinjiang in order to protect the Uighurs from Chinese oppression. Oppressing your own people, especially minorities, is never a good idea, but it's still a matter of national interest. I wonder what Russia has tried in diplomatically to help the Russians in Donbas. There is probably a dozen countries who suppress their own minorities -- that's a lot of potential for invasions. Peteruetz (talk) 03:19, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

China hammers home its message of US blame for Ukraine war to domestic audience - https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3172228/china-hammers-home-its-message-us-blame-ukraine-war-domestic (Chinese gov’t owned news agency admitting this) Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

first-pass trim

Since there appears to be an overwhelming consensus that this article is too long, I made a bold beginning. I should note that I did not finish working on Europe, and if Asia seems to be more heavily cut, this does not reflect an assessment of notability. But as a result of these efforts I can make a few following observations. As a rule "said in a statement posted to Twitter/on its official website/in a statement to the nation" can become "said". The exceptions would be the instances such as Croatia where there was public disagreement among officials. But there are also important nuances, especially from Russian trading partners, where certain countries "expressed concern" but declined to condemn, or declined to impose sanctions. etc. I have tried to limit deletions to the truly boilerplate thoughts and prayers; I am open to hearing that I got it wrong in certain instances.

  • Given the title of the article contains "2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" I think it is ok for specific countries to react to "the invasion".
  • I question the importance of whether these statements were issued on in the 24th or 25th of February, except in cases such as Israel where the reaction expanded or changed. I left these in on this pass however
  • It would probably be a good idea to split off NATO and UN reactions, as mentioned above. I would also treat Russia separately, if we are going to attempt to track who said what at what time in that government, and yes I think we should document the shifting narratives, as long as we can do this without appearing to validate them
  • The thing about Ukranians filming Russian prisoners of war is gratuitous and off-topic in my opinion.

I will check back in on the article in a few days to see if anyone has had any thoughts before I go further. Elinruby (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Map Update

CAR, Mali, and Zimbabwe support Russian invasion. 2600:8807:BA07:E400:1D1A:F256:AC95:B65B (talk) 00:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SCO

Is there any official reaction from the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO)? I don't see anything mentioned in this and in other articles. --11:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC) Z 11:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_and_intergovernmental_reactions_to_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&oldid=1219714405"