The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
On 30 May 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations. The result of the discussion was moved to Peace negotiations in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. |
Kleinpecan, what are the problems with the sources I used here? Foreign Affairs is a well-known media outlet and one of the authors of the article is Fiona Hill (presidential advisor). The second source I've used ( Ukrainska Pravda) might be biased towards the Ukrainian side but isn't known for fakes either. When you wrote "Does not fully represent reliable sources" did you mean that I misinterpreted the sources or that they are not reliable? If it's the former you need to explain your reasoning. Alaexis ¿question? 17:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
This should go in the article: https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/exclusive-war-began-putin-rejected-ukraine-peace-deal-recommended-by-his-aide-2022-09-14/?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=twitter
- Vladimir Putin's chief envoy on Ukraine told the Russian leader as the war began that he had struck a provisional deal with Kyiv that would satisfy Russia's demand that Ukraine stay out of NATO, but Putin rejected it and pressed ahead with his military campaign, according to three people close to the Russian leadership.
Two of the three sources said a push to get the deal finalized occurred immediately after Russia's Feb. 24 invasion. Within days, Kozak believed he had Ukraine's agreement to the main terms Russia had been seeking and recommended to Putin that he sign an agreement, the sources said.
It says Putin rejected the deal because he had decided to annex parts of Ukraine. Kremlin denies it of course. — Ermenrich ( talk) 10:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Now that the war has dragged on well into 2023, and peace negotiations continue sporadically, the title: "2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations" is no longer accurate. Any suggestions for something better? Yadsalohcin ( talk) 20:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved to Peace negotiations in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. WP:BARTENDER. ( closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 00:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations → Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations – This article includes information about the Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations that did not occur in 2022, but rather in 2023. I would also support a move to 2022–present Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations OR Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations (2022–present) if disambiguation is needed in this article's title to differentiate it from previous Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations, such as the Minsk agreements. However, I do believe that Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations is the ideal title, seeing as it's parent article, Russian invasion of Ukraine, does not have disambiguation to differentiate it from previous Russian invasions of Ukraine. Treetoes023 ( talk) 19:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
What negotiations in 2023?
The subtopics "Peace talks" under the topic "Negotations" are confusing for me. Peace negotations stopped since 2022. There is indeed a lot of talking. Yet both parties (aggressor Russia and Ukraine) have not been in any known new peace negotations nor have they resumed any peace negotations yet. Might bee there is a phase of pre-negotations for a second round of negotations or whatever. 5glogger ( talk) 04:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I had deleted this as the relevance of the membership of scandinavian countries to this article about peace negotiations (regarding Russia/Ukraine) is not given in my opinion. Somehow my deletion was reverted in connection with a more general revert. IPs joined the actions and asked for arguments. 5glogger ( talk) 16:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
As events have worn on, this article has developed a WP:RECENTISM problem. I suggest block-copying most of it to a new "Timeline of..." article and refocusing this one on the key events and negotiating positions, so this can read like an informative encyclopedia article. Sennalen ( talk) 20:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
@ Manyareasexpert, thanks for adding this section. Some information is now duplicated in Timeline and in Istanbul communique sections. What are your thoughts about the proper structure of the article? Alaexis ¿question? 21:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
That's the narrative of pro-Kremlin propaganda, not reality. — Red XIV ( talk) 18:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
studied several versions of the draft agreement, interviewed participants in the talks and officials in several Western governments, and reviewed publicly statements by and interviews with Ukrainian and Russian officials, and compared their evidence with the timeline of eventsand the source (currently [7]) is provided. Whether or not Wikipedians think that Charap and Radenko correctly drew conclusions from the several versions of the draft agreement and their interviews and the public statements and interviews with UA and RU officials, this remains the closest thing to an objective, evidence-based analysis that we have so far. Boud ( talk) 14:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
This edit added a WP:UNDUE tag arguing for more balance with respect to the Charap and Radchenko analysis.
The analysis of Charap and Radchenko is based on several versions of the draft agreement, interviewed participants in the talks and officials in several Western governments, and reviewed publicly statements by and interviews with Ukrainian and Russian officials, and compared their evidence with the timeline of events
(Wikitext summary, but read the source to check). Are there any other analyses based on a fair body of evidence like this, rather than just educated guesses? This analysis of the data has attracted media attention and as far as I know is the only analysis of systematic collection of data that we are aware of. If there are other evidence-based analyses, then let's add them.
If there are no other evidence-based analyses but just "I don't like it" reactions (by notable people), I don't see how the UNDUE tag is justified. The Jakub Kumoch sentence is only justified by him being a notable person - it doesn't seem like he has analysed a body of evidence like Charap and Radchenko did. Boud ( talk) 15:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
@ Rwendland: I recommend that in parallel with preparing a summary of key points of the two NYT articles, you check and fix any errors in the table in Peace negotiations in the Russian invasion of Ukraine#Overview of key negotiation points. The geopolitical ecosystem in which peace and armed conflict takes place is a dynamical system with many parameters, with the number of parameters considered relevant varying since the early 2022 negotiations and depending on which parties define the list. Documenting the state of these parameters in the early 2022 negotiations helps see how these parameters have evolved in the views of the parties involved.
Depending on how much material you add, splitting off Istanbul Communiqué may start to be justified. I would propose the article scope to include the negotiations leading up to it and the April draft treaty together as a single topic, i.e. not just the Istanbul Communiqué, strictly speaking, on its own. Boud ( talk) 17:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)