Talk:Special military operation

It is an official definition
The lede must clearly say that it is the official designation, not merely a propaganda schtick in Russian media. Yes it is an intentionally deceptive euphemism, and the text below explains that such euphemisms are common. - Altenmann >talk 18:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Does other articles also say like this. Like that CIA is euphemism for "World domination and destruction of the meek", that NATO is "The brute force that is coming down on you if you don't give us your money and do what we say", etc... Mike 91.148.87.210 (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * haha. but if seriously, in Wikipedia all statements are supported with references to reliable sources. Also please keep in mind that wikipedia is not for idle chats. People are rather busy here, and if you are not suggesting article improvements based on information taken from reliable sources, then please find another place in the internets for discussions. - Altenmann >talk 01:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

This page is a nakedly-biased propaganda piece
Recommend you check the actual facts instead of parroting the (false) western media narrative. Fact number one: it has been confirmed by numerous figures involved in the negotiations that the peace agreement signed by Ukrainian and Russian negotiators by the beginning of April, 2022 was extremely generous to Ukraine and would have permitted them to retain most of their territorial integrity, with provisions for possible inclusion of the self-declared Republics in Donbass and for future discussion of Crimea, primarily in exchange for Ukraine's political and military neutrality. Clearly this destroys the assertion that the SMO was anything other than exactly what the Kremlin described it to be, and for the most part remains so. Moreover, Russia's subsequent actions have been entirely consistent with their stated objectives, their stated legal justification and the "rules" of war. This information and most of the details are readily available and verifiable. I leave it to you to do some actual research and find them. Along the way you'll doubtless come to the realization that it is not Russia which has been deceiving you, but your own "reliable" sources which have been blatantly lying to you about virtually everything for most of your life. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:10AE:10:9E66:61AB:C8E8:3B2:4C25 (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

'Analogous euphemisms from other countries' section onward is confused and incorrect
The premise 'euphemisms are used to palatize unpleasant statements of fact' is not in question; However the examples used do not validate or demonstrate this premise by other countries, or at all. LBJ calling US involvment in Vietnam a "limited military action" was technically and factually accurate. Congressional authority granted to Johnson to use military force in Indochina was explicitly limited and the inability of the US to fully engage the Viet Cong on a war footing was hotly debated as a reason for inadequate results at the time. Operation Enduring Freedom is not a euphemism, it is the offical project name for the military action of invading Afghanistan and deposing the Taliban by the US. The Daito Seisen, as the translation shows,is emphatically not a euphemism, the Japanese Empire was quite explicit about its motivations and justifications for colonization and warfare in Asia. Similarly, 'Shina Jihen' is not a euphemism, it is part of the title of a photojournal booklet ("Shina Jihen Shashincho') celebrating the invasion of China, and not a common term in official Imperial communications or the popular media. All of this should be deleted as inaccurate, irrelevant and misleading. The following section 'Analogous phrases' consists of specific examples of euphemisms used for similar purposes and can reasonably and accurately replace the entire section 'Analogous euphemisms from other countries' The next following section 'Related topics' is scattershot, speculative, original research/author's opinion and needs to be reworked or deleted as well. 74.104.130.145 (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2024 (UTC)


 * For more than a hundred years it has been commonplace to give a military operation plan a secret name, such as Operation Michael or Operation Coronet. I don't think these terms were euphemisms intended to sugar-coat an act of war for public consumption. In later times we get such terms as Operation Just Cause or Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Shield and Arrow or Operation Uphold Democracy which are indeed created for public consumption, but I don't think they are euphemisms either; rather they are propaganda to justify an action but without being used to present a war as being something else. The "Special Military Operation in Ukraine" is another matter, as it is forbidden under penalty of law to call the action a "war". Jim.henderson (talk) 05:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I believe that "On conducting a special military operation" should be merged here, given that they talk about the same subject. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose The Special military operation article only talks about the address by Putin in a single paragraph in the lead. In contrast, the On conducting a special military operation article goes into great detail and analysis about the address. In addition, the speech itself was the speech announcing the invasion, and it started the use of the term special military operation, meaning it has substantial historical significance. With those facts in minds, this is notable enough to have its own article. Gödel2200 (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - two different topics, with lots of material about each of them. Putin's speech is of great importance historically and deserves a separate page. GreatLeader1945  TALK  15:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)