Jump to content

Talk:International sanctions during the Russian invasion of Ukraine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Map and article years different

[edit]

I don't understand the map that claims to describe countries that have sanctioned Russia (File:Sanctions against Russia and Belarus 2022.svg).

It seems to include numerous errors that should be somehow cited and corroborated if they are going to be featured so prominently on Wikipedia. Serbia appears to have sanctioned Russia, according to this map, though there is no citation for this claim and it is not reflected in news reports or the text on Wikipedia anywhere that I can find.

The map claims that "single restrictions", whatever that means, have been imposed by countries such as Chile, South Africa, Uzbekistan, and Krygyzstan. I have been unable to find a single news article reporting any restrictions imposed by any of these countries and no such restrictions are mentioned anywhere in this article. The list of nations participating in sanctions below this map does not match up with the map at all and does not include numerous countries colored various colors in the map.

Another example is Kazakhstan, which is colored purple indicating that it is not participating in evading sanctions. Yet a recent Silverado Policy Accelerator report on sanctions evasion lists Kazakhstan as a major transit point for the parallel import of sanctioned goods into Russia (https://silverado.org/news/report-russia-shifting-import-sources-amid-u-s-and-allied-export-restrictions). Turkey, one of the leading nations in re-exporting sanctioned products to Russia, is also colored purple.

I believe this map should simply be removed and replaced with one that reflects the nations listed in this article as participating in the sanctions regime. This map has featured prominently for months while being glaringly inaccurate, poorly designed, and corresponding in no way with the text of the article. Neumannk (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC) 22:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Map and article years different

[edit]

Article title 2022 map 2014 - confusing Chidgk1 (talk) 07:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-polytics/3446165-sandu-explains-moldovas-move-not-to-join-russia-sanctions.html

As moldova does not want to join, the sanctions. I believe the map features at least one mistake. --78.193.35.108 (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Use of image twice

[edit]

Why is the image and caption of the French Finance Minister being used twice in this article? Perhaps it should be replaced, or one of them removed entirely?Crazymantis91 (talk) 06:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and made the bold edit of removing the first image and caption. If anyone objects to this, then they can comment here or add a different image altogether. Crazymantis91 (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Colors in map image

[edit]

For me, in File:Sanctions against Russia and Belarus 2022.svg in the section "Summary of sanctions by regions", the colors that are supposedly blue and violet look nearly identical. I suggest to change these to two more distinct colors. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 10:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Russia cancelled" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Russia cancelled and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 27#Russia cancelled until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. MB 00:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bias in the Switzerland section

[edit]

The section about Switzerland was very biased. It was written as if Switzerland was the main safe heaven for sanction evasions although Switzerland follows the EU sanctions. I tried to make it more neutral according to the sources (and added some governmental sources as well). Some biases included:

-crucial information from the sources was left-out such as that the Swiss government rejects the claim of the Helsinki Commission.

-nowhere was in the ABC-news source stated that the report from the Moscow embassy was from 2022. It was also not stated in the AP primary source article (which was BTW already published 3 days after the start of the war). The whole purpose why the articles mention Switzerland as being important for transactions was because Switzerland implemented sanctions and this was also entirely left-out.

-there are multiple estimates on the total wealth of Russian people in Switzerland.

-nowhere was stated that Switzerland froze more money than other countries and how many individuals were targeted. Switzerland sanctioned all the people from the blacklist of the EU. Of course this is not every rich person and one can debate this, whether it is enough or not. But there is also a lot of Russian money in the EU or in the UK from people that are not on the blacklist. So as long as the EU does not put them on the blacklists, it is not "sanction evasions" and also not entirely Switzerlands fault. That is why I also removed the word "only".

I understand that criticism is valid but the sources were neutral and so should also be the WP section. Tensorproduct (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Osterluzei: Please stop just deleting whole passages and have first a discussion. This is vandalism according to WP rules. I noticed before that the bias that I mentioned here came from a couple of your edits. The position of the Swiss government as well as the backstory and the meeting with the people who mentioned the critic points (that I have linked in the sources by the news paper Tages-Anzeiger), you just simply left-out (and before you also quoted only half of the information of some newspapers) and now you deleted it for some reason. Besides the whole legal situation in Switzerland was entirely left-out. A Swiss bank is required to freeze money of sanctioned people, this gets done. The problem is with attorneys not with the banks itself, hence the money ends up in offshore entities. This should be mentioned since it is one of the critic points. And last but not least, in the Swiss media and politics there is also a legitimacy discussion (see for example: Der amerikanische Vorwurf), there is a whole economical backstory before that which has nothing to do with the invasion in Ukraine or Russia. Switzerland was already criticized before the war and some US politicians pressured Switzerland (not because of the money of Russians).--Tensorproduct (talk) 10:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Osterluzei: I warned you already before that undoing long edits without any discussion is against the WP rules and vandalism. I even wrote it again on your German user page de:Benutzer_Diskussion:Osterluzei#Unbegründetes_Löschen_=_Vandalismus. --Tensorproduct (talk) 17:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tensorproduct: Your expansions were only partly valid, and you bring up issues that have nothing to do with sanctions. We have early on defined the scope of these entries, Switzerland or the Helsinki commission do not account for such a big part in this discussion. I retained all your important content but edited due to bad style, and other issues. Please understand that content on wikipedia is edited. Maybe you should use your full expansions in another text. Thank you. Osterluzei (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Osterluzei: Read the artices I have posted, then you see that it has all to do with the sanctions. Your edits are full of biases towards Switzerland (and judging from your past edits aswell). The panama papers are mentioned in the conference by the Helsinki Commission in one of the sources, because they show the attorney legal problem which is the exact same problem regarding the sanctions. Again you don't read the sources.
An no - a separate title is not bad style and it should be made clear that there is only the Helsinki Commission who made this accussation and no one else publicly. You're only citing 1 single source! Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a political opinion making--Tensorproduct (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Entry on Helsinki commission badly written, too extensive

[edit]

I will try again to re-edit the entry on the Helsinki commission. We don't need a separate title here, and the style is awful. We can shorten this with the same amount of information. The panama and paradise papers have nothing to do with this. Avoid unnecessary bload. 73.240.74.203 (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia

[edit]

Georgia is listed in this article as having introduced sanctions against Russia.

What source is provided for this claim? Synotia (talk) 19:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for multiple issues

[edit]

Did my best to clean this up but it's still a mess. Tagged with multiple issues. The article repeated itself, in some cases repeating the same information over three times, and existing information (such as, arguably, the entire banking section) is often still redundant. Tons of unsourced opinions, citation links leading to opinion pieces, off-topic tangents, and unsupported assertions and quotes, especially those made by Russian officials. The article has/had a strong pro-Russian slant, with many aberrant paragraphs talking about Russia's economic power and importance with no discussion of sanctions. The topic is sanctions.

Other sections were written in narrative format, with conjectures about the reasoning for events or the intended effect, rather than simply stating the events as they occurred. Hopefully someone else can give this page some attention and improve things I probably missed. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 05:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Russia’s Association of Cinema Owners Bypass Sanctions with Digital Cinema Packages from Kazakhstan with Russian dubbing

[edit]
0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 10:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary headers

[edit]

The headers for wikipedia, "article too long", "dispute on neutrality", or "too long to navigate" are unnecessary, and redundant as they make the article even longer (calculated these messages make up 10% of the display area!), and it looks kind of lousy. Of course "neutrality" is always an issue when editing wiki, please let me remove those headers. It is more important that we write tightly, remove fluff (such as jpegs), and look for balanced sources. I am going ahead and delete these headers. Thank you. Osterluzei (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctions against Russia aren't working...

[edit]

It is doing more harm to Western economies than to the Russian one. We need a section "Effects on other economies", and mentioning the unintended effect of dedollarisation. emijrp (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is doing more harm to Western economies than to the Russian one.
Ummm... you can't just assert such an enormity without serious sources. Synotia (moan) 08:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep wikipedia open for global contributors

[edit]

I have been editing this page for years, and preferred to edit with my IP number rather than using a pseudonym. Why is this page no longer open for contributors to edit it? I have never encountered any vandalism of any kind for this topic. Please keep wikipedia open for global contributors outside of English-speaking countries, thank you. 213.55.225.15 (talk) 04:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Error on map

[edit]

The map for "Unfriendly Countries List" shows Danemark in red, but Greenland (which is owned by Danemark) in grey. Oversight? Dhrm77 (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"On 27 June 2022, Bloomberg reported that Russia is poised to default on its foreign debt (eurobonds), for the first time since 1918 after the Bolshevik revolution."

[edit]

The last time Russia defaulted on its debt was in 1998. 1998 Russian financial crisis 178.91.58.167 (talk) 23:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Sanctions by West during Russian invasion of Ukraine

[edit]

Since the sanctions are only by western countries and Japan. It would be better to rename to rename this article. Countries such as China, India, Turkey, Egypt, UAE, Israel, Malaysia, South Africa, Brazil etc. and many other countries are not part of these sanctions. Considering that Japan is also theoretically considered part of the west, it would be better to rename this article accordingly.

I understand since most of the contributors here maybe from west and could be influenced by western media, it is suggested that global mindset will be very useful in giving a more balanced output. Sarvagyana guru (talk) 10:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out to you elsewhere, the word "international" (a) is used by reliable English-language sources to describe these sanctions, and (b) is a neutral term with no particular connotations beyond pertaining to more than one nation. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some sections have excessive detail

[edit]

For example, the section on central bank assets has much detail on what looks like near enough every single opinion on whether it's legal, etc, etc. I'm not sure how much of it is actually encyclopedic, but if there's enough and it can't be trimmed down to what is directly relevant to the actual sanctions themselves, they should be spun out into another article. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This article is WAY too long. A lot of it is also conjecture, e.g. the subsection "Russia will retaliate". We should delete like 90% of this article and just stick to facts, e.g. what the actual sanctions have been and what their effect has been. Apc3161 (talk) 13:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, I think I more or less forgot about this (oops!), but Swood100, I think you wrote much of that section. Since nobody else seems to have a strong view one way or another, do you have any objections to spinning out, say, everything other than the first one or two paragraphs, or any alternative suggestions? Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections to spinning it out into a new article and leaving just an abbreviated treatment here. Perhaps the first paragraph would be enough, with a link to the new article. With respect to whether subsections such as "Russia will retaliate" are inappropriate as "conjecture", the ability of Russia to effectively retaliate is one of the issues that have to be considered by those who are deciding whether to confiscate the assets/income. "Confiscation of Russian Central Bank Assets" sounds like a reasonable title. Swood100 (talk) 21:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I broke the entire section out into its own page, leaving only the first paragraph. Added a ref to new main article. Swood100 (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 November 2024

[edit]

Change spellings of Zelenskyy's name to an acceptable standardized spelling (I noticed one instance of Zelenskiy) HelenaBertrand (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zelenskyy's name lacks an established Latin-alphabet spelling, and it has been romanized in various ways: for example Volodymyr Zelensky or Zelenskyi from Ukrainian, or Vladimir Zelenskiy from Russian. Zelenskyy is the transliteration on his passport, and his administration has used it since he assumed the presidency in 2019. Kindly check out the article Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The AP (talk) 05:21, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did scan that article, yes, and I get that the latin spelling is not standardized, but I thought it might be good for it to be consistent within an article. I believe his name is mentioned twice and it uses two different latinisations. (I hope I didn't come off as terse in my first request, I was trying to follow the format provided.) HelenaBertrand (talk) 14:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As per the discussion held to move the article Volodymyr Zelenskyy , I have gone ahead and changed it. The AP (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for making the change and linking me to that discussion! Have a good one HelenaBertrand (talk) 14:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 December 2024

[edit]

Change the sentence "However, sanctions and rising unemployment have contribute to Russian authorities as strategic advantages to boost localization and state conscription, increasing geopolitical fragmentation between third world and western nations enables Russia to exploit global trade networks to secure essential goods" to "However, sanctions have arguably increased geopolitical fragmentation between other states and western nations, which has enabled Russia to 'successfully leveraged global trading networks' in securing essential goods, effectively bypassing many Western sanctions"

The original sentence is poorly written and relies on a source which gives no mention of localization or state conscription Albie Smith (talk) 10:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_sanctions_during_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&oldid=1265150428"