Talk:Russia–NATO relations

Sources?
This page is not accurate, has no sources or official information so far. If anyone else would like to do this please feel free. I just wanted to start this so as to list all of the "close encounters" and drama that has gone between NATO nations and Russia over the past years.

Note: This page is in need of a skilled user to create, so far only events can be listed of which perhaps someone else can arrange. This is merely intended to begin a listing of the tensions that are ongoing and have already passed. This is not an official page yet*(Comments removed from main and added here, please sign your posts)PB666 yap 22:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If anyone could help adding the sources as references, I do not know how. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordxehenniar (talk • contribs) 01:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The title should be changed to Nato-Russian Tensions (Post-Millenium)  or something of the sort. I dont know if that is possible
 * The page should be just rewrited to make sure it won't be entirely about tensions. NATO-Russia council works for a decade, and sides did tons of work regarding huge amount of security threats, and there's nothing about that in the article.FeelSunny (talk) 10:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Page Rewrite
I rewrote the page because it was a mess. It is now at least a rough draft that can be used to make a respectable article. What really needs to be done: add information about NATO actions. The article is HEAVILY slanted against Russia. NATO forces are not saints. What have they done? I've included the U.S. defense shield (we'll bomb you while keeping you from bombing us!) and the suspicion that the U.S. is planning missile bases in Poland. -- k a i n a w &trade; 05:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The page is still completely awful in general:


 * 1) It desperately needs some reliable sources (not just blogs).
 * 2) It has to be improved regarding the NATO-Russia council.
 * 3) The main problem with the SOI-style defence shield (as of now) is that the radar, which is to be based in Czhech Republic, is going to be able to collect information about all movements in the Russian airspace up to the Urals mountains, which is all Eurpean part of Russia. That's not just some hypotetical threat to the country's defence capabilities.
 * 4) The page, as is, should rather be called "NATO-Russia conflicts", or something like that. I think that is a page about cooperation, not (at least, not entirely) about misunderstanding. FeelSunny (talk) 10:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"On NATO territory"
I.e. in NATO member countries airspace? Over NATO member countries 12-miles territorial waters? Or just on NATO member states planet? Could you please specify, or I will have to do it myself, basing on the resources you've provided and other sources, esp. reliable ones. P.S. Please consider a USS does not create a U.S. airspace or "NATO territory" around itself. "Whithin a few hundred miles" is what BBC says, and it is clearly not "over US bases", as the blog author cited writes. "Frequent flying [...] near American airspace" that is mentioned in the Denver Post is not "Russian bombers over Alaska" from Anchorage Daily News, that gives Daily Post as a source of information. Thus I would propose deleting the blog source and the Anchorage Dayly News for being not reliable/ ignorant.FeelSunny (talk) 12:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

SCO-NATO relations
Should this be moved to SCO-NATO relations?  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 09:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, because there is a Russia-NATO council, and there are relations between the country and organisation outside of the SCO. In fact, I don't think SCO-NATO have any official relations at all. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 10:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I object for the same reasons.FeelSunny (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Restored
I restored a number of sourced segments that have been removed for an unknown reason.Biophys (talk) 05:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Your source nowpublic.com |here is just an internet blog, saying Russian bombers flew over US territory, which Alaska is. Another source adn.com is some kind of a local newspaper, whose staff just doesnt see the difference b/w flying 'over Alaska' and 'flying 50 miles offshore Alaska'. Both sources redirect to original information, one - for Moscow times, another - to Denver Post. If you follow, you find 2 clearly credible sources, both telling Russian planes flew near Alaska, not over it. Both sources you used to support your opinio, I presume, are not worth placing on WP. Therefore, I have rewriten the part about Russian sorties. I hope you chose those sources b/c you're somehow close to them, maybe live in Ancorage or something. However, please consider your sources choice better when posting to the next article. PS. Just imagine TU-95 fly over U.S. territory and noone ever hears any protests from U.S.?:)FeelSunny (talk) 19:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There are no my sources here. I will check this later.Biophys (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You suppose to debate the question first. But since you are making unilateral changes without waiting for response, this debate simply does not make sense.Biophys (talk) 00:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Please check the previous section of discussion for my reasons for deleteng information based on biased/ lying/ ignorant blog and local newspaper sources. It was there quite some time before I made changes. Maybe you should have just read it, and it all would have sence once again.FeelSunny (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note that Biophys stalked my edits and enacted a heap of unilateral wholesale revisions of mine almost immediately after I was banned for 48hours for breaching 3RR (due to Muscovite's POV-pushing on Alexy II article). It was disruptive on Biophys' part as he had not an ounce of good faith with my edits, and couldn't even be arsed to check the validity of the edits as can be seen from above...it was all reverted because I edited it. --Russavia Dialogue 17:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

There are many users ready to use any voluntary or involuntarily violation of 3RR to ban an account that does not share their views. You just should not rely on any good faith presumption, as they may, and most likely, will not have one. Welcome back, anyway. Don't give them an occasion. FeelSunny (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Pre-1991 relations
Modern relations have evolved from longer history of the XX century. There should be some history about pre-1991 relations between Soviet Russia and NATO. There was even a moment in 1954, when Khrushov bidded to join NATO, although the bid was refused and he established Warsaw Treaty Organisation instead.Garret Beaumain (talk) 14:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Rename?
We have NATO-Russia relations and Ukraine-NATO relations. Should we have NATO first or the country first? LokiiT (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

We should have:

NATO control of Ukraine and NATO aggression towards Russia.
 * Troll. 50.111.6.149 (talk) 06:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

NATO-Russia.org
Dear WP-Russia and Wikiproject-NATO colleagues, this is my first time editing an article. I haven't done anything yet, but wanted your collective opinion. I am the author of a site that I have recently completed on this exact topic: www.nato-russia.org I was wondering whether it would be acceptable to add this link to the "External Links" section at the bottom of the article? Being a researcher on NATO-Russia relations I empathize with your efforts to create an article that is at the same time representative of the state of diplomatic relations, as well as unbiased and fair towards both parties. If you check out the site, you will see that it tracks the news on NATO-Russia relations based on these principles, and as such could be a useful external resource for anyone reading this WP article.

Thanks for considering this fellow NATO-Russia watchers. I thought it would be considerate to ask first. All comments are welcome. By the way, I agree that there needs to be a pre-1991 section on the article. Let me know if I can help by contributing to the article in any other way. Regards, Natorussia (talk) 09:29, 28 May 2010

Hello again ladies and gentlemen, I've added the link to the bottom of "External Links", because I wasn't sure if anyone was still working on this project and available to comment. Please reply here if you disagree with this, or wish to comment at all. Thank you kindly, Natorussia (talk) 00:42, 29 May 2010
 * Looks like a decent site. I don't see anything wrong with having it listed as long as you're not trying to sell something, which doesn't appear to be the case. LokiiT (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much LokiiT. No I am most definitely not trying to sell anything (except perhaps a balanced viewpoint on NATO-Russia relations, which is obviously not a profit-motivated activity). Please let me know if I can be of any help in adding to the existing article on NATO-Russia relations. If I come across anything useful in my research, I will throw some sources into this discussion to consider for addition to it. Natorussia (talk) 12:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Link non-working, removed. --31.207.67.188 (talk) 02:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

NPOV - conflicts of interest section
I've added an NPV tag to the conflicts of interest section. While the first few paragraphs strive for balance, it is clear that more recent material has been added from a heavily pro-Russian standpoint. I do not feel qualified to fix this in person, but the need for proper attention seems clear. Without wishing to get too partisan, the argument that NATO expansion to include the Ukraine would "negatively affect European stability" would seem to miss certain other factors currently affecting stability in that region. 86.141.146.142 (talk) 22:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The entire article has a pro NATO slant. 86.173.64.184 (talk) 09:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on NATO–Russia relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/5-reasons-why-russia-will-never-join-nato/423840.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

crimea is a disputed area
crimea is considered to be a ukranian territory temporarily occupied by russian federation. please change the color of the map to make it more visible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anton9999 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Unlike Golan and Hawaii, the people in Crimea were given a say. I know people who travelled there in 2017 and I know Australians having relatives there. Crimea became Russian over the centuries, just like Golan became Israeli and Hawaii American. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:45E7:982E:3805:E9C7 (talk) 04:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The people of Crimea were not given a choice in 2014, unless you count armed Russian soldiers coming to your door and asking if you want to join Russia as a “choice”.
 * Perhaps you mean the choice that was made in 1991 when 54% of Crimeans voted in favor of Ukrainian independence from Russia? Tiduszk (talk) 03:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

New/missing info as of Oct 2016
Should the news of a NATO troop build up along Russian borders be added to the article? ThatGuyJabbles (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Svalbard is not NATO
The archipalego of Svalbard is demilitarised, tax free, and does not require a visa to get in. Russians live there too. There's a Russian town (and another abandonnés Russian town) as well as a Polish settlement. In any case: Norway belongs to NATO, but Svalbard doesn't. I hope someone can correct the map. 143.178.178.20 (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Sweden and Finnland
are missing in the enlargement plans section. --2A02:908:C32:3940:7AD5:A02B:D136:39A6 (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If you meant File:NATO 30 Members.png, I just updated it, though actual applications will be submitted on 22 May. -Vipz (talk) 00:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Section ordering and repetitive content
There are several areas of repetitive and misordered content in the flow of this article. For example, the section on 'Post Cold War cooperation' did not include mention of the NRC, a pivotal part of NATO-Russia relations prior to the suspension of cooperation in 2014. Given the majority of this article is written as a timeline of events highlighting Russia-NATO relations in chronological order, I have moved the NRC section from the bottom of the article to the Post Cold War section to reflect the correct order of events.

There are also two sections on Russia's opposition to NATo enlargement. First mention is in the conflict of interest section under "Future enlargement plans...". Second mention is a new section labeled "Opposition to NATO's enlargement". The content in both of these sections overlaps (and also needs updating) I propose we streamline this information under the conflicts of interest section to keep the organization of this article intact.

Schwinnspeed (talk) 02:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I have merged the sections as outlined above. Schwinnspeed (talk) 13:57, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Proseline
I think User:Micga's edits in September were supposed to improve this further, but I'm not sure that the changes are an improvement as bulk of the article became WP:PROSELINE that is a lot harder to read and also makes it impossible to link specific topics (such as the opposition to enlargement). If the consensus is to structure the article around the timeline, would propose a move to the Timeline of Russia-NATO relations. PaulT2022 (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't think you can get away from a chronological approach given the complexity and evolution of events year over year. Most pages on geo-political relations are structured in a similar way. The 2010-2013 sections stick out most prominently as WP:Proseline, but would suggest converting to prose vs moving to a timeline. I do agree the article lead as well as section intros could do a better job of linking the key issues. Schwinnspeed (talk) 12:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think arranging entire article and discussing diverse sides of the relations along a single timeline masks certain key issues unfortunately. I was summoned here by a bot notification saying that the Opposition to NATO's enlargement section was deleted and it's indeed quite odd to see that one of the key issues in Russia-NATO relations appears to be reduced to a passing mention in the 2008 section. The topic isn't constrained to 2008 obviously.
 * I've had a look at the most recent changes by Micga, and just in one day, 31 January there are:
 * addition of Anna Politkovskaya's warnings ignored by "the Western elites" - I couldn't find a mention of Politkovskaya in GazetaPrawna.
 * addition of theory about Duginism; no mention of Dugin or Duginism in the Carnegie Endowment for Peace source referenced. In fact, no mention of "Russian world" "dominating" or "governing" anyone either.
 * I don't see how these edits comply with WP:NPOV/WP:V. I didn't look any further; it'd be quite concerning if all 6 months of Micga's edits were done like this. PaulT2022 (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The deletion of the "opposition to enlargement" section is concerning. (Though looks like the entire 'conflicts of interest' section was deleted and integrated into the year-by-year approach) My guess is that the previous approach oversimplified and gave the impression that a period of cooperation was followed by immediate dissolution of the relationship. I agree its much harder to read without the key thematic categories- after a closer look, perhaps conversion to a timeline isn't a bad idea.


 * I took a quick dive into the earlier round of edits (september timeframe) from, seems like the majority of edits were to restructure the article in a timeline approach, lots of moving around of previously written content. Not seeing any major WP:NPOV issues but I have not looked at the more recent round of edits. Schwinnspeed (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I mainly meant that when it's structured as a timeline, but the sources used are about relationship in general and individual issues rather than the overall timeline, evaluating WP:WEIGHT is near-impossible as it effectively would require someone to go through entire article.
 * In case of this specific section appears that the first and the last paragraphs of the removed section describing long-standing Russian opposition to enlargement were removed entirely and are not currently present in the timeline. PaulT2022 (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Maps are outdated
I lack the capability of doing this myself, but this page has some maps that require updating to reflect Finnish membership in NATO. LordofChaos55 (talk) 14:31, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 13 February 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) Silikonz 💬  03:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

NATO–Russia relations → Russia–NATO relations – Please place your rationale for the proposed move here. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support (STRONGLY).
 * To clarify: usually, there's a rule of alphabetization for a "CountryX–CountryY relations" title on Wikipedia. I'd say the alphabetization rule makes complete sense when it's between two nations — BUT multinational organizations generally supersede the alphabetization rule and come last in titles.
 * For example: see Serbia–NATO relations, Sweden–NATO relations, Switzerland–NATO relations, Ukraine–NATO relations, and the FIFTY+ (50+) pages in the "[NameOfCountry]–European Union relations" format in Category:Third-country relations of the European Union. The multinational organization comes after the country name, consistently, across all of these page titles.
 * "NATO-Russia" breaks the established format consistency, and should be fixed to match with the above. Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment - Also, I'm just pinging, who voted on the Talk:Ukraine–NATO_relations requested move where this page title's consistency-breaking was brought up. Paintspot Infez (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Good thinking. Thanks. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)


 * support per paintspot and norm DarmaniLink (talk) 22:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support WP:CONSISTENT  Dank Jae  23:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

On the NATO “promise” not to expand east
This section as presented in this article is misinformation. There is no direct evidence that such an agreement ever existed, only claims from Russian propaganda sources that have been recycled by media organizations.

NATO leaders and even Gorbachev himself have denied that any such agreement ever existed and any such agreement would have been included in the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany, but the only restriction is that nuclear weapons cannot be deployed in the former GDR territory. That’s it. The only other restriction was that NATO troops could not enter the former GDR territory until the Soviet troops left, but this has been defunct since then.

This section should be removed or at the very least reworked to reflect the dubious nature of the claims alleging any such agreement. Tiduszk (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Chechnya
Chechnya (1994-2009) is at least as important as Georgia, and the destruction and subjugation of Chechnya is a direct precursor to what Russia (Putin) is now doing to Ukraine. John Navas (talk) 00:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Google Gemini AI:
 * Yes, the Second Chechen War was a significant factor in worsening relations between Russia and NATO. Here's why:
 * Disagreements over intervention: NATO's bombing of Serbia in Kosovo just before the Second Chechen War rankled Russia. Russia argued for respecting state sovereignty, while NATO emphasized humanitarian intervention. This highlighted a fundamental difference in their security views.
 * Criticism of Russia's tactics: Western countries strongly condemned Russia's use of force in Chechnya, particularly the civilian casualties caused by heavy artillery and air bombardments. Russia felt this criticism was hypocritical after NATO's actions in Kosovo.
 * Strained trust: The whole situation created a climate of suspicion and distrust. Russia felt NATO was encroaching on its sphere of influence, while NATO viewed Russia's actions as heavy-handed and a violation of human rights.
 * Overall, the Second Chechen War added to existing tensions and contributed to a downward spiral in relations between Russia and NATO. John Navas (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Additional context:
 * Russia's Putin: US agents gave direct help to Chechens - BBC News
 * War brought Vladimir Putin to power in 1999. Now, it must bring him down | Jonathan Littell | The Guardian
 * Ukraine invasion: how Vladimir Putin built his career on waging war | Ukraine | The Guardian
 * John Navas (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding sources to the article and starting the discussion here. There are still some problems with the lede.


 * 1) Per WP:MOSLEAD, the lede should summarise the article. In our case, the impact of the Chechen conflict is nowhere discussed in the article. Therefore we should first add this information to the article and then only have a summary in the lede.
 * 2) Of all the sources you've added, only this one is pertinent. Though it doesn't say explicitly that the relations suffered, it simply notes NATO's criticism of the Chechen campaign and the Russian response. Still, it's a good source, and we should have it in the article. Other sources aren't relevant at all. #1 and #3 do not mention NATO at all, whereas #2 mentions it once when talking about Georgia. The fact that they mention it when discussing the conflict with Georgia but not earlier when describing the Chechen war actually strengthens my case. The Georgian conflict certainly impacted the relations. Alaexis¿question? 21:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * See my Google Gemini AI for content. I'd be happy to add such a section.
 * With respect, all of my citations are relevant. The U.S., NATO and the West are equivalent in Putin's mind, and those citations all shed light on how he turned away from NATO because it interfered with his agenda.
 * John Navas (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * My thought is to add "Second Chechen War" immediately following "NATO bombing of Yugoslavia" with content derived from the Gemini AI text with citations.|
 * LMK if you have any objection or even if you would like to see a draft before I add it. I would like to avoid disagreements. John Navas (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've just realized that I'm wasting my time. I used to contribute to Wikipedia long ago, but endless grief from arrogant a******s drove me away. I had heard that Wikipedia had cleaned up its act, but I see that's not really true, and I don't care enough about Wikipedia to waste any more time. I have deleted my contribution, and I'll try to remember to not waste more time, or to take Wikipedia content seriously. John Navas (talk) 05:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Unlike you I don't know what goes on in Putin's mind. I could argue with your points (the golden age of Russia-NATO relations, with an American base in Russia and Putin wanting to join NATO was in the early 2000s, well after the First Chechen War and well into the second one), but it's your responsibility to find reliable sources which support the content you want to add or retain. Gemini AI output and articles which don't mention NATO don't cut it. Alaexis¿question? 13:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Your insult (contrary to Wikipedia guidelines) does you no credit, only serves to confirm my assessment. Again, I have deleted my contribution, and I'll try to remember to not waste more time here, or to take Wikipedia content seriously. John Navas (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)