Talk:Internal troops

Untitled

 * ''Discussion copied from User talk:AlexPU:

Legal status: I suspect that the Internal Troops are indeed legally Gendarmies, which means that they are subject to the same treatment as any other internal force. For example, American Police officers oath, is identical to that of soldiers, except for the "juridiction of". So, I "X" do solemnly swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States, agaisnt all enemies, foreign and domestic, in the jurisdiction "Y." In the unlikely case of an invasion, US police/sheriffs would act as the "light infantry. So Internal Troops would be treated as troops, rather than civillians. I am not 100% sure, but pretty sure. Other than that, i don't think they rate any official status as "soldiers," but again, I suspect they have the same status as the local border patrol/ coast guard. That they are civillian in peace, soldiers in war... --V. Joe 05:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I see... OK, thanks for sharing your thoughts. Let's keep in touch.AlexPU 10:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

AlexPU: Hey again
Reviewing over, I have additional thoughts about the status of the Internal Troops. If you have a gun and fight in an uniform, you are probably soldiers according to the laws of war. Therefore, gendarmes are closer in status to the United States Coast Guard (which assists the Navy during times of war). Most prominently, many of the bosun's at Normandy were Coastguardsmen, and not sailors. Additionally, part of the chain of command during John Kerry's stay in Viet Nam were USCG officers. If they are indeed deeply involved in the Chechen conflict/war/revolution/whatever, it doesn't surprise me that the international media has mislabeled them as "Russian Soldiers/ Russian Army". Especially as very few reporters outside of the US or UK have any expierence in millitary matters, and even in the US media, reporters are often dreadfully confused about the most basic "Army stuff." and occasionally mistake soldiers, airmen and Marines with each other, and even American and British troops at a distance. (They wear different variations of camoflauge and carry slightly different weapons. Also, the Union Jack on the sleeve is a dead giveaway :)). I'm going to do a minor edit for grammar, etc in this new addition. Thanks: V. Joe 05:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Performed minor edits and fixed English useage
V. Joe 05:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

National guard
Changed gendarmerie reference to that of a national guard, which see.--209.213.220.227 (talk) 16:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal with Internal Troops (Russia)
I oppose. A resulting article would be too large and inconsistent. 95.132.116.243 (talk) 06:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I also oppose. This has a nice split between Soviet internal troops and post-Soviet internal troops. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

What about GULAG?
The article as it is seems to be omitting the notorius GULAG-guarding role for purpose. Unacceptable.176.102.192.10 (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Nazi symbols
On both the Internal Troops of Russia and Internal Troops pages there is a German Nazi Iron Cross emblem having depicted over it the Coat of arms of Russia claiming it is the Internal Troops flag and emblem…which I’ve removed from both.

To understand this issue fully, the correct acronyms I’m using for this clarification are: Internal Troops (VV) and Ministry of Internal Affairs (MVD).

This emblem as it appears on these articles has listed as its reference an .ru domain that falsely claims it is the Official website of the Internal Troops of the Interior Ministry.

There can be no official website of VV troops because they don’t exist and were abolished by Federal Law No 3-FZ On Police in 2011.

That is why on the official MVD site their contact email is a Russian government one (ministry@mid.ru) while on this false website their Press Office email address (pressvv@yandex.ru) is from the Russian Internet company Yandex and fails WP:RS on too many other issues to list here.

As to the issue(s) involved in whoever created this fake emblem combining the racist Nazi Iron Cross with a symbol of Russia I won’t speculate on, but with the many issues involving Russia today there are many reasons that can be speculated upon.

Internally though, Putin has done everything in his power since 1999 to destroy the VV…and with his establishment of the National Guard of Russia the last preverbal nail in the coffin for the VV was hammered in…which their past members and leaders are not, and never have been, happy about.

Also to note, though some Russian VV troops, prior to 2011, did work under the MVD…this is NOT their emblem…this is.

Also, this is NOT the emblem for Police of Russia, or Vityaz (MVD), or OMON, or SOBR, or Foreign Intelligence Service (Russia), or Federal Security Service, or any unit of the Russian Armed Forces.

In fact…this emblem is entirely made up as the Iron Cross is a German Nazi symbol and there is no way whatsoever Russia would EVER allow such an offensive emblem for any of their forces.

The Iron Cross is, however, the symbol for the National Guard of Ukraine…which can be understood by reading the articles about Stepan Bandera, Svoboda (political party) (and many others).

Here is a list of the REAL symbols used by the VV when they existed:

Logistic Support units of the Internal Ministry of Russia—Winged Dog

Office for protection of important public facilities and cargo—Lion

Moscow District—Falcon

Northwestern District—Sphinx

Volga District—Deer

North Caucasian District—Horse

Ural District—Salamander

Eastern District—Tiger

Siberian District—Bear

And to be 100% accurate about this subject…the ONLY time Russia made an Iron Cross emblem was during World War II to put on the bodies of dead German Nazi soldiers that had printed on them: for murder and robbery.

Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 09:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Internal Troops. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071220025610/http://www.agentura.ru/dossier/russia/mvd/vv/ to http://www.agentura.ru/dossier/russia/mvd/vv/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 12 January 2024

 * 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) BilledMammal (talk) 05:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Internal Troops → Internal troops – No reason for title case, especially not when lead and article uses sentence case unless referring to a specific organization. Gaioa (T C L) 07:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Military history has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Law Enforcement has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Russia has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment The article itself seems to consistently use "Internal Troops" regardless of the context instead of "Internal troops" as implied by the nom. The first paragraph of the lede is the only time we see "Internal troops." Just putting that out there. Intothatdarkness 15:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC) 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.
 * Support per nom. Clearly a generic name, not a proper name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)