Talk:Nuclear risk during the Russian invasion of Ukraine

Add Disambiguation for China's final warning?
Russian nuclear threats are increasingly seen as a hollow threat similar to China's final warnings. The volume of threats is accumulating to CFW levels but CFWs occurred over many years. Approaching sufficient cultural relevance or too soon to add section linking China's Final Warning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.98.222.83 (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Two analytical sources to be discussed
Jr8825 •  Talk  11:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The West Worries Too Much About Escalation in Ukraine, Foreign Policy
 * Flawed assumptions hamper Western response to Russia’s Ukraine War Atlantic Council


 * https://www.economist.com/international/2022/09/29/could-the-war-in-ukraine-go-nuclear Jr8825  •  Talk  13:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


 * escalation/US response: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/02/us-russia-putin-ukraine-war-david-petraeus Jr8825  •  Talk  01:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Alleged Nuclear Weapons deal Between Belarus and Russia
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-says-moscow-has-deal-with-belarus-station-nuclear-weapons-there-tass-2023-03-25/

https://apnews.com/article/russia-belarus-nuclear-weapons-2d9584534da25c00c56dbf7b14694e0e

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-belarus-tactical-nuclear-weapons-3aed32661ae3c218c59117d1ce593777

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-security-chief-says-basing-russian-nuclear-weapons-belarus-will-2023-03-26/

Here is an ongoing allegation under investigation by Ukraine and NATO. This is one where Putin Administration agreed to have a deal Russia and Belarus. Note the articles fear escalations in the ongoing Russian attacks in Ukraine.2601:640:C682:8870:8BCF:AA77:4645:9A52 (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)


 * ISW covered this new announcement of an old plan yesterday. —Michael Z. 00:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 1 October 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: Not moved. As argued in the discussion, there has only been threats of nuclear weapon usage, which matches the current title. No actual nuclear weapons have been detonated in this conflict, as of this closing. If a nuclear weapon was to be used in this conflict, we might be able to start a new requested move. (non-admin closure)  Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 14:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Nuclear threats during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine → Nuclear warfare and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine – This is a more professional-sounding title. And the article should cover analysis and debate by experts on the possibility of russians using nuclear bombs, not only the threats they've done. Super  Ψ   Dro  13:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, there is no nuclear warfare. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, agree with Randy, no actual nuclear warfare has occurred. I'm not particularly set on the current title, but I don't think the proposed one is the right way to go currently. Jr8825  •  Talk  23:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, at this point only threats to use nuclear weapons have been issued, per the current title. Pdhadam (talk) 06:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose  At this point, the article “Nuclear warfare” informs us that it is only theoretical, at least since 1945, but it is a long article about potential use and risks (it doesn’t mention Russian threats during this war, and so needs an update). But to date, the Russian threats are vague innuendo, discussion about potential warfare speculative, and assessments of nuclear weapons’ likeliness to be used by Russia low, that it feels wrong to refer to this subject as “warfare.” It’s primarily threats, posturing, propaganda, gunboat diplomacy, and it’s still being used mainly as political pressure against the West and not directly affecting the military situation in Ukraine. This is underlined by the fact that much of the literature says nuclear weapons would not be useful for turning around the Russian military’s failure, but Putin might attempt to use them to save face and preserve his régime by turning a loss against Ukraine into a loss against NATO and the West (spinning it as a loss against the USA). —Michael Z. 15:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the proposed title is WP:CRYSTAL, per above. Nuclear warfare is the conduct of warfare through the employment of nuclear weapons, whereas the threat of use is just signaling, which means "threats" accurately describes the content of the article. Pilaz (talk) 21:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Actual nuclear warfare is only hypothetical at this present moment. Thriley (talk) 02:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - no warfare, just threats and potential risks only discussed at this stage. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - There is no present 'warfare'; these are mere threats. The current title reflects this and therefore should remain. GhostOfNoMeme (talk) 13:10, 8 October 2022 (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.

POV issues
This article, as well as the corresponding section in the main article, give undue weight to the POV of those analysts and reporters who take Russian saber-rattling at face value. Assessments to the contrary, or tending to the contrary, by observers and analysts such as the US DoD, or the ISW, are barely mentioned.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Referenced list of threats
The twitter account @cuthbert_shaw keeps up a list of references to specific Russian nuclear threats, going back to 1999, the large majority since the invasions of Ukraine. —Michael Z. 22:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 16 October 2023

 * 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. It's been 7 days since this was relisted and no oppose seems to come forth (closed by non-admin page mover) Reading Beans (talk) 09:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Nuclear threats during the Russian invasion of Ukraine → Nuclear risk during the Russian invasion of Ukraine – The article should cover the actual prospects of nuclear war brought about by the war in Ukraine, which countless sources have discussed. There’s no reason we should only cover the threats. Risk of nuclear war during the Russian invasion of Ukraine could be another phrasing with a slightly different scope, depending on whether we want to include the Zaporizhzhia NPP crisis or not. HappyWith (talk) 04:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Jenks24 (talk) 10:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Polyamorph (talk) 09:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. In addition to actual threats of nuclear combat, the article addresses things like the safety concerns at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, so the "nuclear war" alternative doesn't seem appropriate (since a potential plant melt-down would be a nuclear disaster but not a nuclear war). "Risk" is a more encompassing term and seems suitable here. ╠╣uw [ talk ] 10:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The “safety concerns” are literally all Russian threats. Russian forces seized the plant, occupied it with arms, planted explosives in it, risked disaster with nearby artillery strikes, falsely accused Ukraine of planning a nuclear disaster, tortured and killed staff and use them as human shields, and deny full access and control to the IAEA.
 * Such a change in scope would also make this a parent article of Capture of Chernobyl. —Michael Z. 17:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment. This would be a significant broadening of scope. The article is currently about Russian threats, and the Zaporizhzhia section is an appendage. The change would make this a parent article to Capture of Chernobyl, Impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine on nuclear power plants, Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant crisis, and bring in Depleted uranium.
 * I think it could be better to create a new parent article Nuclear technology in the Russian invasion of Ukraine and move the Zaporizhzhia section there, leaving this as a focussed article on a single subject. —Michael Z. 22:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Seems like a better title overall, and I wouldn't be concerned by the possible broadening of scope if any. The article isn't particularly limited to "Russian threats" anyway. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Military history has been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE  04:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Ukraine has been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE  04:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Russia has been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE  04:49, 2 November 2023 (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.

Editorializing Should be Removed
The term “baselessly” (in the 6th paragraph down from the subtitle “2022”) is a form of editorializing, which is not justified by evidence, and should be removed. Putin’s interpretation of “threatening” activity by NATO may seem well founded, if more was said about his POV. There may be words or circumstances that he had in mind, which are not stated in this article. DrWJK (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)