Talk:Russian-occupied territories

Estonia

As far as I know, Estonia and Russia still haven't signed a border treaty. During the late 1990s (if I am not mistaken), Estonia and Latvia claimed some territories from Russia that had belonged to them during the interwar period. Here's a map of it: [1]. Latvia dropped its claims on 1997 but Estonia technically has not, so, from the Estonian perspective, Russia is currently occupying land from Estonia. For more on this, you can read Territorial issues between Estonia and Russia. Should we include this on this article? Super Ψ Dro 16:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

If it's a government claim supported by reliable sources, yes, you should add it. Bommbass (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Estonia and Russia signed a border treaty in 2014.

45.74.78.9 (talk) 22:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

The scope of this article

Can we get a consensus on the purpose and scope of this article? Is this article a list of

1. All territories considered by another country to be "occupied" by Russia, or
2. All territories considered by the United Nations and several UN countries to be militarily occupied by Russia?

The first sentence of this article is "Russian-occupied territories include the lands outside of Russia's internationally recognized borders which have been designated by the United Nations and most of the international community as under a Russian military occupation." (emphasis mine) This wording implies the latter categorisation, but the Kuril Islands dispute between Russia and Japan does not fit that criteria (evidenced by the sources given), nor do the territorial disputes between Estonia and Russia as discussed above; they do, however, fit the former categorisation.

TL;DR: The purpose and scope of this article is unclear because some of the article's content contradicts the lead. In particular, the example of the Kuril Islands dispute between Russia and Japan contradicts the criteria set out in the first sentence of the article. Thus, should the content in this article meet the criteria outlined in 1. or 2.? CentreLeftRight ✉ 22:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The article should cover all allegations of occupation that are covered in reliable sources. That would include Estonia and the Kuril Islands. However, a distinction should be made between recognized military occupations versus other allegations of occupation. I would suggest having two top-level headings, one for recognized invasions and one for occupied disputed territories, but I'm sure there are other ways to organize it as well. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that the article title itself implies categorisation 1. and not 2., as it is "Russian-occupied territories" ss like everyone elseand not "Territories occupied by the Russian military" (or something along those lines).

However, when considering the use of the criteria under 1., whether partially (i.e. Use all examples and include both categorisations) or in full, what would be the utility then of having this article and the section Foreign relations of Russia#Territorial disputes (including the redirect Territorial disputes of Russia)? In my opinion, including categorisation 1. in any form would make this article and that section in Foreign relations of Russia equivalent in purpose and scope. However, "Russian-occupied" (or just "occupied") is not an adjective generally used to describe Russia's territorial disputes which do not involve military occupation. I also do not think categorisation 1. was the intention of this article's original creator, Silence of Lambs, although I may be wrong. CentreLeftRight ✉ 00:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Is this an attempt at a line dance. ! or 2, spin your partner.... This is a malformed RFC. Besides this the criteria is already set by Wikipedia guidelines. One such guideline would be WP:NPOV. It's not necessary that they be a UN country, If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents. I'd go further but, why? You are arguing about the original creators POV as if it would even matter. Let me direct you to WP:OWNERSHIP to point out they don't own the article and WP:CON because they are subject to the consensus making process. Now you don't even make a specific argument about which location you don't believe is occupied by Russia, but sure lets swing at the dark blindly. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 shows that the USA views South Ossetia and Abkazia as being occupied by Russia, barring funding for use "the Russian occupation of the Georgian territories of Abkhazia and Tskhinvali Region/South Ossetia". The USA isn't alone in viewing this as an occupation on the part of Russia. It's interesting that you want to redirect this to Territorial disputes of Russia. Notably the majority of the occupations listed here are not listed there. The reason for this is because the majority of the occupations listed here aren't territorial disputes. But yeah, 1 or 2. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the OP is making a good-faith effort to clarify the scope of the article, and I agree that that is a non-trivial undertaking. I think your tone is unhelpful. Take it easy. Regulov (talk) 03:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Good faith? I didn't suggest there was bad faith. This is a very piss poor RFC. It has little chance to actually result in a consensus. Every listing on the article meets both of the listed criteria. The occupied territories of Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, and even Japan are considered by another country to be "occupied" by Russia, and United Nations and several UN countries to be militarily occupied by Russia. All of which can be easily sourced and fall under NPOV criteria as I pointed out above. It's not much of an undertaking at all but what would be is getting something out of this RFC. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting that the view of the United Nations or any governmental body should be the sole basis of an article's composition, but similar to how the article List of states with limited recognition was developed, there has to be clear guidelines (set by a consensus) so this does not become just a mirror of existing content on Wikipedia or a free-for-all where anonymous editors add countries like Syria. Whether or not this article incorporates content from Foreign relations of Russia#Territorial disputes is up to everyone to decide.

The United Nations, as well as several UN members, recognise the mentioned territories of Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine as under Russian military occupation. Why is this important? Not because this makes the designation legitimate, but because then several reliable sources agree with this description and provide reliability to the statement. The same is not true for the Kuril Islands. Views on the matter vary or are ambiguous, and the United Nations has no firm decision on this matter. Furthermore, nobody is pretending (at least no reliable sources) that the Kuril Islands are under a constant military occupation like the aforementioned territories of Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine. The Kuril Islands were annexed after World War II and they have since been settled by Russians. Whichever view you subscribe to regarding this matter, surely you recognise that the nuance when someone says "the Kuril Islands are occupied by Russia" and "Crimea is occupied by Russia".

Also, nobody is proposing a redirect. If the consensus is that the article should be about all Russian-occupied territories, then that will be the logical development of this article. The main issue then is that the title, lead, and article body all contradict each other somewhat.

And finally, to be frank, I find it troubling when new and long-dormant accounts which have not made any significant contributions recently to any articles suddenly pop up only to comment on RfCs and proposals for articles of certain topics (in this case, topics related to recent political developments concerning Russia). You are not terribly convincing of your good faith when you start your contribution to this discussion with a belligerent tone and disparaging comments, immediately citing WP:NPOV, WP:OWNERSHIP, and WP:CON without engaging with the given arguments, and constructing strawmen of existing arguments and examples. CentreLeftRight ✉ 07:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Also to be clear, I mentioned Silence of Lambs to get their input. If I thought the only thing that mattered was the opinion of the article's original creator, I would not have started an RfC. CentreLeftRight ✉ 07:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I am going to withdraw the RfC as I think one of the contentions that Serialjoepsycho had, and I don't mean to put words in their mouth but I'm assuming from the comments around this being "a very piss poor RFC", was that the start of the RfC was premature and unsubstantiated. If that is a point they tried to make, I actually agree upon reflection. It is probably more appropriate to let this discussion develop on its own first as the RfC likely won't draw in relevant editors before a significant disccusion has already been had. CentreLeftRight ✉ 07:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

These changes to the lead were made recently by UlyssorZebra. I do not think these changes are useful because it distinguishes the Kuril Islands from all the other occupied territories, but it doesn't give a reason why. Also UlyssorZebra is a three-day-old account that has made changes exclusively to articles related to Russian politics. Their first edit was a vote on a merge proposal. Kind of suspicious. CentreLeftRight ✉ 08:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Does not look like a new user at all. Likely needs a SPI. Mellk (talk) 11:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

All my contributions are constructive. I suggest to focus on content and assume good faith. There are good arguments to include the Kuril Islands because their situation - or at least how some countries see their situation - fits the title of the article. I made the distinction in the lead as an imperfect attempt to distinguish the European and Kuril occupations, but perhaps such a distinction is not needed. UlyssorZebra (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Normally I would assume good faith, but regarding this topic in particular (recent developments in Russian geopolitics and military aggression) there have been a string of socks that have been blocked trying to push perspectives from both sides through mass edits/reverts and votes on article proposals. So excuse me if I find it rather odd that a new account was made a few days ago that seems to be already accustomed to Wikipedia's editing procedures and only edits on a particular topic. CentreLeftRight ✉ 21:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't feel like Kuril islands belongs here, it is internationally recognized as part of Russia unlike the others which are considered to be under Russian occupation so putting them together is undue. The first sentence states that this includes territories which have been designated by the United Nations and most of the international community as under a Russian military occupation and this is obviously not true with Kuril islands. Other articles exist for list of territorial disputes. Mellk (talk) 11:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I am not very familiar with the Kuril Islands dispute. But if the above is the case, and there has been some kind of post-ww2 agreement, or other internationally carried consensus the four disputed islands to be transferred to (or governed by) the (then) Soviet Union, then the dispute does not belong to this page (and should be defined as an "ordinary" territorial dispute between two countries). If there is however no such internationally carried agreement, consensus, as part of ww2 termination, then it would fall under a unilateral annexation and therefore an occupation - and should be included in this page. Again, I don't know the exact history of this dispute, and haven't checked it prior to this response, but these are the two ways I see to deal with this particular case in two scenarios, and the way this page should be used. Labrang (talk) 12:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment I've sat here and I've wrote a book a number of times. You could go in so many directions here. Note for example the Europeans Unions position in 2005 that the Southern Kuril Island are occupied. Any position solely held by the EU is a significant minority POV which would suggest it should be included. That POV is also held by the USA and Japan. I'm not aware of who else may share it but this is the information sourced to the article. But what gives me pause are Israeli-occupied territories. As you may be aware these are the Territories occupied by Israel during the 6 day war. Not simply Palestine. So it makes me wonder what we have here. Do we have a dumb list that aimlessly collects all territories occupied by Russia or is it the title for a scholarly grouping prominently discussed by reliable sources. If it's not a simple list of territories occupied by Russia then some one should easily provide sources.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

We may have gotten on the wrong foot here, but I realised many misunderstandings between us may be due to the procedure I chose from the onset (RfC). Obviously I do not think that the two options I mentioned are the only two that we should consider. Those are what I interpret to be the predominant ones given this article's edit history prior to any contribution I have made.

You refer to WP:NPOV and the inclusion/exclusion of significant viewpoints, but in my opinion this is missing the point of the issue. I think what you are arguing is that, this should simply be a list of all territories described as "Russian-occupied" or "occupied by Russia", that regarding the Kuril Islands their inclusion is warranted because there are significant viewpoints that describe it as occupied, and if someone believes there is a specific categorisation to the contrary, then it should be easy for them to provide sources that give such a specific categorisation.

My contention is that when these organisations describe, for example, Crimea as "occupied" and the Kuril Islands as "occupied", the use of the verb "occupy" is different. This is apparent if anyone actually bothered reading the citations given for the Kuril Islands' section.

The first sentence in this article to this regard says, "Japan and the US maintain that until a WWII peace treaty between Japan and Russia is concluded, the disputed Northern Territories remain occupied territory under Russian control via General Order No. 1." If someone reads further into the citation given, the journal article "A Historical Reevaluation of America's Role in the Kuril Islands Dispute", they will realise that the circumstances are different. The Soviet Union was allowed by the other Allies to "temporarily occupy" the Kuril Islands until a formal peace treaty was signed between the Soviet Union and Japan. This never happened, and the position of the U.S. is that Russia and Japan should finally sign that agreement and Russia should end its "temporary occupation", not that Russia illegally seized and/or occupied these territories like it did in all the other entries. In other words, the Kuril Islands dispute is the result of a never-settled, World War II-era provision, whilst every other example in this article is of Russia occupying the territories by force through its military.

I think the most important quote in this regard from the journal article, although others can read the source too to confirm, is: "Although [U.S. President] Truman's change makes it appear that he ceded all of the Kuril Islands to Stalin, it is important to emphasize that General Order No. 1 merely discussed the occupation of Japanese territory, not its permanent cession" (p. 494).

Also, from the second citation given of the EU's 2006 journal: "The European Parliament calls for ... the return to Japan of the 'Northern territories' that were occupied by the then Soviet Union at the end of World War II and are currently occupied by Russia ..."

The actual problem at hand is an original interpretation of the sources given to make all the entries in this article seem related, when they are not. Context is important, not everything is related just because the same adjectives are used to describe them. Nuanced analysis of the material at hand is important when building an encyclopedia. CentreLeftRight ✉ 21:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Bit of a book you are writing there. The position of the US and Japan is that its occupied. Where you disagree with the US and Japan and try to compare and contrast it with Moldova or which ever other one is what we call Original research. It's not a view that should be used or considered in the editing of the article. As far as nuance goes read the source, Urges all countries in the Far East to seek bilateral agreements to resolve the outstanding territorial disputes in the region, in particular: (a) the return to Japan of the ‘Northern territories’ that were occupied by the then Soviet Union at the end of World War II and are currently occupied by Russia, If you are unclear at what they mean then issue isn't Original research but competence.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

And yes the NPOV policy applies..-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I was called here by a bot for the RFC. The RFC is done and I don't want to continue a conversation where there's a need to pretend not to understand basic English.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Again, the circumstances, context, and use of the word are different. Me occupying my house is not the same as Russia occupying Crimea, to use a more obvious example. Also, I personally do not see how coming back to Wikipedia once or twice a month to only comment on RfCs (often with, from what I can tell, a combative and dismissive tone from the onset) is constructive editing. CentreLeftRight ✉ 01:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

No one is denying that there are differences in the nature of the occupations though, yet this doesn't change the fact that the Kuril islands situation is literally called an occupation by notable governments, and this is widely reported by reliable sources. As no consensus has been found, I propose we shift our focus towards making the difference between the types of occupation as clear as possible in the article so we still address your concern adequately. UlyssorZebra (talk) 10:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

There's really no difference in the nature of the occupations. The Occupation that Japan, the USA, The EU is the very same kind of occupation they see in other occupations. What I would suggest is chopping the lead down to, Russian-occupied territories are lands members of the international community view as being as under a Russian military occupation. It's succinct but by all means someone suggest something else. I'd also suggest not attempting to force criteria thru the lead. While the lead article will still be incomplete it I'm sure it will be complete by the WP:DEADLINE to print.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

If the scope of this article is made consistent and becomes "any disputed territory with Russia described as 'occupied'", then it will open a whole can of worms as likely several entries at Foreign relations of Russia#Territorial disputes fit under the criteria "described as occupied by 'notable' governments as reported by reliable sources". Perhaps WP:RS will restrict entries adequately, but without more specific criteria, I do not see the encyclopedic utility of such an article given it would just be a list based on the use of the words "occupied" and "occupation" and nothing else, devoid of political and/or historical context.

The potential for a reader to skim the list and equate Transnistria / Abkhazia / South Ossetia / Crimea / Donbas with the Kuril Islands (and perhaps in the future, most if not all of Russia's territorial disputes) when no such equivalence has been made by "notable" governments or academic scholars is something that should be avoided, in my humble opinion. CentreLeftRight ✉ 18:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

We aren't talking about any disputed territory. We are talking about sourced occupations. You are arguing about potential original research and there's a policy against that.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@CentreLeftRight: I could care less what you find constructive. The topic here is Russian-occupied territories not what you find constructive or any other unrelated personal attack. You are not clear if the sources means Occupy as in how you occupy your house or Occupy as in military occupation, and that is simply a WP:IDHT. Yes I am dismissive because thats your argument and your quality of Argument. Apply your argument, lets apply the word inhabit. the return to Japan of the ‘Northern territories’ that were inhabited by the then Soviet Union at the end of World War II and are currently inhabited by Russia, This is your argument here, the one you just made, and the one you are willingly making. So yes I am dismissive The position of reliable sources is that the EU, USA, and Japan view it as a military occupation. It's preposterous to suggest that the EU is telling Russia to return the land it inhabits.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I do not see "military occupation" or "militarily occupied" in any of the sources given in this article when describing the Kuril Islands dispute, and I doubt it will be different with the sources at Kuril Islands dispute or Kuril Islands either given there is no mention of a military occupation anywhere in those article bodies either. Those two Wikipedia articles, as well as both sources highlighted above pertaining to the U.S. and EU's positions on the matter, both describe the Kuril Islands dispute as a territorial dispute, not a military occupation like the rest of the entries on this list.

"[The European Parliament] ... urges all countries in the Far East to seek bilateral agreements to resolve the outstanding territorial disputes in the region, in particular: a) the return to Japan of the 'Northern territories' that were occupied by the then Soviet Union at the end of World War II and are currently occupied by Russia." (emphasis mine)

This is a pointless loop because I am quoting what the sources given state, and you are replying by claiming the opposite is true and then assuming on the basis of that erroneous claim that my argument is an attempt at playing semantics.

"The position of reliable sources is that the EU, USA, and Japan view it as a military occupation" is an incorrect statement. The position of the EU, US, and Japan is that, at the end of World War II, the Allies agreed to "temporarily" give the Soviets the Kuril Islands and that the Soviets were supposed to return the islands to Japan shortly after Japan's surrender to the other Allies, but the Soviets (and now Russians) never did. The EU, US, and Japan have called for Russia to sign a formal peace treaty with Japan to end their de jure World War II-era hostilities, because the conditions agreed upon between Truman, Stalin, and Churchill were that the conclusion of such a treaty would begin the return of the southernmost Kuril Islands to Japan.

The most obvious difference between the Kuril Islands and the other entries on this list is that the Russian Army entered by force (either during a war or choosing to start one) Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Crimea, and the Donbas. The Kuril Islands were "given" to the Soviet Union in accordance with multiple treaties signed between the Allies, but due to disagreements between the Allies after-the-fact in the meaning of what was agreed to, the Soviet Union, and now Russia, have overstayed their welcome by treating the entire island chain as their own territory.

I do not know what else to explain my position, now that I have given the known context regarding the Kuril Islands dispute, quoted the two sources given, and pointed out how the de jure descriptions and de facto situations in the Kuril Islands and other entries on this list are completely different.

This is like trying to prove the Earth is round because I am not even stating a position really, but what is already well-known about the topic, but then a few editors reply that the opposite is in fact true and ignore everything to the contrary, including the sources they themselves provide. CentreLeftRight ✉ 18:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

This discussion at this point is pretty much just a waste of time for everyone involved because there are exactly three editors (myself included) participating, everyone relays their same points with little engagement, and there has not been a new opinion in over a week. I feel that I have stated my points and evidence clearly enough; others can review them and make changes accordingly or to the contrary, as I no longer have the time or energy to repeat myself in the discussion I started. CentreLeftRight ✉ 18:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes the discussion is a waste of time. You don't see where it says military occupation? There's no requirement that it should because it says either occupied, occupy, or occupation. And I invite you to use a dictionary regarding these words because military occupation is a common definition of each. Me occupying my house is not the same as Russia occupying Crimea and it also not worth commenting on. No one is under any obligation to consider such an appeal to ignorance because you want to post such an argument. You say that Japan doesn't view this as an occupation, [2] Bloomberg points out that the position of Japan is that this is an illegal occupation. You mention the US doesn't view it as an occupation [3] but the Japanese Ministry of Foreign affairs points out that the USA has consistently supported the position that its occupied. Finally [4][5]as bolded above, and while you may not hear Hear the position of the EU is The Southern Kurils are occupied.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Sources needed

UnitedStatesian, you've removed the {{cn}} tags writing that "the information is sourced further down in the article text." I can't find it, can you provide the sources here? They should say that these territories "have been designated by the United Nations and most of the international community as under a Russian military occupation" for the lede to be accurate. Alaexis_¿question? 07:00, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

the DPR, and Russian-backed separatists

So DPR are not Russian-backed separatists ? Who are they? Xx236 (talk) 12:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Possible Inclusion: Republic of Artsakh

Just shooting my shot here but should the Republic of Artsakh be included here? It's a member of the Community for Democracy and Rights of Nations which is Russia's collection of their militarily occupied pseudo states and without Russia's extensive diplomacy, threats to join the war first-hand, and stationed peacekeeping military in Armenia, Artsakh would have been overrun by Azerbaijan during the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war. Russian troops are currently stationed in the Lachin corridor and Dadivank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.166.1.4 (talk) 19:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh

@Mzajac: As you are the one that wants to add the section on Nagorno-Karabakh, I propose you add some reliable sources that straightforwardly call the Russian presence there an occupation. Currently, it's saying it's a peacekeeping mission. We can't expect readers to understand a hidden subtext. I do propose you do so over the next days; otherwise we'll have to remove the section until you can provide such sources. UlyssorZebra (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I’ll see what I can do, but WP:Wikipedia is a volunteer service. I stand by my edit-summary statement that Russian “peacekeeping” is not peacekeeping. If sources don’t call it an “occupation” and there’s a consensus that the title can only represent things literally called “occupation,” then we can consider renaming the article. But I’m reasonably certain Azerbaijan didn’t invite Russian forces onto its territory, so it obviously belongs here.  —Michael Z. 03:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Both Armenia and Azerbaijan signed a ceasefire agreement (with Russia) with terms including a Russian peacekeeping force along the line of contact and the Lachin corridor. Unless most RS call it an occupation, it should be removed. Mellk (talk) 05:58, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I also recall reading that Russia has been accused of violating some terms of the agreement. Wasn’t it supposed to be finished by now? It seems to be an aspect of Russian forces imposed presence in territory of a non-friendly state, and is definitely relevant to a broad article about Russian occupation.  —Michael Z. 19:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

If they start being called occupying forces then they can be mentioned. Otherwise it is not within the scope of the article. Azerbaijan (and Turkey) has benefited and been emboldened by Russian weakness in the region so we will see. From what I can see the the clause in the ceasefire agreement says a term of five years which is automatically renewed unless either party notifies about its intention to terminate the clause. Mellk (talk) 09:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I see that’s right about five years. But wasn’t there a dispute about some withdrawal or control of certain territory under the ceasefire agreement?

Anyway, this is an example of another frozen conflict secured by Russian forces in a foreign sovereign state that’s not friendly to Russia. Indeed, it appears less stable than it did before the disastrous Russian war in Ukraine.  —Michael Z. 11:18, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I would not say Azerbaijan is "not friendly" to Russia, in fact it is much closer to the opposite. But Russia also tries to play friendly to Armenia. There is a balancing act there and the current Russian strategy so far has undermined Russia's position in the region. For example Russia refuses to overtly assist Armenia militarily after being attacked by Azerbaijan (under CSTO). But this also means Azerbaijanis at times perceive Russia as being pro-Armenian. Anyway, the area could be considered as Armenian-occupied areas (see Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh for example). After all it is Azerbaijan and Armenia who have been fighting wars over Nagorno-Karabkh. Mellk (talk) 11:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I don’t have full access to this one:

• Losh, Jack (2020-11-25). "Russian Troops in Nagorno-Karabakh 'Clearly a Win for Moscow'". Foreign Policy. The Russian-brokered cease-fire that ended six weeks of fighting means soldiers on the ground—either as peacekeepers or as a vanguard of Putin's latest garrison state.

• "A Risky Role for Russian Peacekeepers in Nagorno-Karabakh". International Crisis Group. 2021-11-10. So far, no party to the conflict has pushed back on the broad range of activities taken on by Russian peacekeepers. However, experience from other conflict zones suggests this could quickly become an issue in the event of an escalation in tensions: in that scenario any disparity between the two sides' visions of Russia's role will come sharply into view.

Here’s a balanced article on the tensions, notably between Azerbaijan and Russian peacekeepers. Carnegie Endowment is generally reliable.

• Krivosheev, Kirill (2022-12-15). "Russian Peacekeepers Find Themselves Sidelined in Nagorno-Karabakh". Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Azerbaijan is becoming increasingly emboldened by the Kremlin's weakness, with the country's pro-government media now describing the peacekeepers as "occupiers," but Moscow's hands are tied: any response will only make its situation worse.

I agree that the Russian presence in Azerbaijan is not an occupation. But there are doubts about Russian political intentions (which are legitimate in light of the role of Russian “peacekeepers” in Moldova, Georgia, and especially Putin’s invasion to “perform peacekeeping functions” and also “demilitarization and denazification” of Ukraine), the peacekeepers’ mission in Azerbaijan is not well defined, and the parties disagree on their role. I still think the short section ought to remain in the article, and it should be improved to clearly distinguish the mission from United Nations peacekeeping. —Michael Z. 19:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Some sources use scare quotes for Russian “peacekeeping” and “peacekeepers.”[6][7][8][9]  —Michael Z. 19:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes that assessment is fair because in those other conflicts it is considered a pretext hence the scare quotes, however Nagorno-Karabakh is a different matter. If it is not considered an occupation then a section about it without any mention of occupation would look out of place in an article about Russian-occupied territories. Maybe the article about the mission can be linked in see also. Mellk (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

We could start an article on Russian peacekeeping about every time Russia purported to conduct “peacekeeping” missions, but it would certainly be criticized as a virtual content fork of “Russian-occupied territories.” —Michael Z. 03:23, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Do any similar articles exist? Mellk (talk) 08:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

See Category:Peacekeeping and Category:United Nations peacekeeping, notably:

• List of Canadian peacekeeping missions
• Iranian peacekeeping missions
• Latin American involvement in international peacekeeping
• List of African Union military interventions
• List of United Nations peacekeeping missions
• United Nations peacekeeping missions involving Nepal
• United Nations peacekeeping missions involving Pakistan

 —Michael Z. 16:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. But of course peacekeeping used as a pretext would not belong in such an article. Mellk (talk) 08:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Of course such an article would have to give whatever insight it could about operations called “peacekeeping.”  —Michael Z. 17:23, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Michael Z, you have failed to show any evidence that the peacekeeping is an occupation. Hence I am removing the section until you can prove this is an occupation with reliable sources. Do feel welcome to write an article about Russian peacekeeping. It's not that there's something wrong with the content as such, but it just doesn't belong in this article. UlyssorZebra (talk) 22:06, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Lead

The lead needs reworking. Currently it defines the scope of the article as lands outside of Russia's internationally recognized borders which have been designated by the United Nations and most of the international community as under a Russian military occupation or self-declared Russian Territories that are not internationally recognized as Russian territory. First issue is which UN designations is it referring to? Where are these designations referenced for everything that is currently included? Is it referring to UNGA resolutions? Because they are not "UN designations" (or at least this is highly misleading). So it looks like OR. Second issue is that it then mentions Nagorno-Karabkh (addressed above) but also Kuril islands, implying that the islands that are disputed are instead internationally recognized as part of Japan. Some rewording is needed, especially if the scope is currently defined as areas under Russian military occupation/not internationally recognized as part of Russia which makes certain inclusions questionable. Mellk (talk) 06:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it OR; just needs better writing and a better sectioning. I preferred the older section split, where the occupied territories in Europe were separate from the Kuril situation. The Kurils deserve inclusion; Nagorno-Karabakh doesn't. UlyssorZebra (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

UNGA resolutions guide UN operations. For example, UNGA resolutions have referred to the Russian occupation in Crimea as a “temporary occupation,” and “attempted annexation,” and Russia as the “occupying power.” UN agency reports use this terminology. For example, the OHCHR uses “Russian-occupied Crimea,” the Russian government’s “obligations as an occupying power,” and “temporary occupation of Crimea”.[10] Interestingly, the report itself says that the Russians have closed down Crimean Tatar media after accusing them of disseminating content they call “extremist” because it uses the same terms the UN does: annexation and temporary occupation.

[11]  —Michael Z. 17:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. But it still should not be written as "designated by the United Nations". At least it should be clarified as UNGA resolutions, and specific UN reports can be mentioned. Nor have there been UN resolutions adopted for all the items included, which the lead implies. Mellk (talk) 08:14, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

The UNGA used the legally significant term occupying Power with initial cap for Russia, and temporarily occupied territory for Crimea.[12] I think it’s fair to say it is considered, called, literally condemned, and designated as occupied territory. If you insist, I can probably find the court finding by the ICC and verdict by a Netherlands court that make Ukrainian territories’ occupied status a matter of law, too.  —Michael Z. 19:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

The Netherlands court said Ukrainian territory was occupied by the DPR in July 2014, and that Russia had had overall control (another legally significant term) of the DPR since mid-May 2014.[13]  —Michael Z. 19:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Can the same be said for all other occupied or disputed territories? But I think it could be just be simplified to something like: "Russian-occupied territories are lands under Russian military occupation... The term is applied to... Additionally the four southernmost Kuril Islands that are disputed with Japan are considered by Japan etc to be occupied...". What do you think? Israeli-occupied territories looks like something that could be used for inspiration. Mellk (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

In November 2016 the ICC found that Crimea is illegally occupied by Russia, and that there is an international conflict involving Russia and Ukraine in Crimea and in eastern Ukraine.[14]

So perhaps we can improve the wording by adding a criterion that includes territories that are occupied as a fact of law.  —Michael Z. 20:02, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be that complicated (mentioning UN, law etc). If we just say that it refers to territory under Russian military occupation and that the term is applied to territories in Ukraine, Georgia etc. And that way Kuril islands etc can also be mentioned without UN, international law etc complicating it. Mellk (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

This article is pure SYNTH

I don't know where to start. Should be a candidate for speedy deletion in my view. Qayqran (talk) 12:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I tried fixing the lede. Perhaps there is a way to save it from deletion. Would likely lead renaming though. --Qayqran (talk) 12:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Non-extended-confirmed User:Qayqran may not participate in internal project discussions (including Articles for deletion nominations) related to the Russo-Ukrainian war, per WP:GS/RUSUKR. —Michael Z. 18:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The lead needs expanding, but removing the relevant occupied countries is not an improvement. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Adding Ichkeria

The Chechen Republic of Ichkeria was de-facto recognized as an independent state when Yeltsin signed the 1997 Russia–Chechnya Peace Treaty, before the 1999 second invasion.

Ukraine also recognized it as Russian-occupied territory on 2022-10-18.[15][16]

What are the criteria for inclusion in this article? Partial international recognition seems to follow from articles such as List of states with limited recognition.  —Michael Z. 22:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Ukraine also recognized it as Russian-occupied territory on 2022-10-18. So what? Do you think Donetsk and Luhansk should have been included in the article about Ukrainian-occupied territories just because Russia recognized them as independent? Also, the Rada passed a resolution calling it occupied because of that recognition, basically petty revenge, no reflection in RS. Mellk (talk) 01:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

That logic is nonsense. The Chechens were a colonized nation that defeated Russia and forced it to sign a ceasefire agreement with them, before being attacked again. The DLNR were made-up Russian-controlled proxies occupying territory in Ukraine.

Meanwhile, this article should have a mention of territories that are considered Russian-occupied. In addition to the political recognition, there are plenty of sources discussing the Russian military occupation.[17]  —Michael Z. 01:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

It is not today considered territory under Russian occupation except in fringe circles. Mellk (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

It’s considered an occupation by significant parts of the Chechen diaspora, especially the generation born between 1950 and the early 1970s, and this narrative has been underscored by Ukraine’s recognition and remains a theme in recent commemorations and international events. (Le Huéreu & Merlin 2022, [18])

It’s also a theme in Chechen involvement in the Russo-Ukrainian war: “However, Kadyrov’s total engagement in the war can also be explained by domestic, intra-Chechen concerns: there is indeed a parallel war within the war going on, as the Kadyrovite battalions are fighting their Chechen opponents siding with Kyiv; the Ukraine-based Sheikh Mansur Battalion and the Džohar Dudaev Battalion are both populated by anti-Kadyrov soldiers who have been fighting against the Grozny regime from abroad and hope to take the war to Russia on Russian soil. This intra-Chechen struggle was reinforced by the Ukrainian Rada (Parliament) taking the decision, in October, to declare Ichkeria (the name for an independent Chechnya) as a territory “occupied” by Russia.” (M. Laruelle 2023, Russia at War and the Islamic World:7–8[19])

And potentially in the international response. (Jones 2023, “The Chechen Kadyrovtsy’s Coercive Violence in Ukraine,”:124, 129[20])

I agree we should say in what context this is spoken of as an occupation, or where its potential as a recognized occupation is significant.  —Michael Z. 03:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I am sure there are views among a significant portion of the Russian population and among Russian fighters in Ukraine we would not mention due to WP:UNDUE. Mellk (talk) 03:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The above are discussed in these reliable sources.  —Michael Z. 03:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

They do not state it is an occupied territory, this article is about occupied territories. Separatist movements can be mentioned in the appropriate article. Mellk (talk) 04:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

They do state it’s considered occupied. This article is about territories considered occupied. That Chechnia’s status recently changed by Ukraine’s statement is notable and belongs in this article. And yes, we do write and have whole articles about all kinds of Russian statements and beliefs, don’t we, including the status of Russian-controlled proxies in Ukraine?  —Michael Z. 18:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)