This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Russia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives (index) (index): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, a contentious topic. The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article: This page is protected. You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days) Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. 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.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Russia was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones Date Process Result January 13, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted March 1, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed July 16, 2007 Peer review Reviewed July 24, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted September 2, 2007 Good article nominee Listed December 7, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted January 22, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted September 18, 2010 Good article reassessment Kept September 29, 2010 Peer review Reviewed October 10, 2010 Good article reassessment Delisted January 30, 2022 Good article nominee Listed April 30, 2022 Good article reassessment Kept February 7, 2023 Good article reassessment Delisted Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 12, 2004, June 12, 2005, and June 12, 2006. Current status: Delisted good article

This  level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Russia: Human geography Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the human geography of Russia task force. Countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry WikiProject Countries to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess. Europe Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Asia Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Other talk page banners

This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 86 million views since December 2007. This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2010 and 2022. This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 3 times. The weeks in which this happened: February 20 to 26, 2022 February 27 to March 5, 2022 March 6 to 12, 2022 Section sizes Section size for Russia (61 sections) Section name Byte count Prose size (words) Header Total Header Total (Top) 19,373 19,373 563 563 Etymology 9,413 9,413 367 367 History 42 116,337 0 4,872 Early history 15,045 15,045 525 525 Kievan Rus' 6,100 6,100 397 397 Grand Principality of Moscow 4,182 4,182 256 256 Tsardom of Russia 6,752 6,752 444 444 Imperial Russia 6,381 12,906 317 687 Great power and development of society, sciences, and arts 2,800 2,800 174 174 Great liberal reforms and capitalism 2,711 2,711 135 135 Constitutional monarchy and World War 1,014 1,014 61 61 Revolution and civil war 8,320 8,320 413 413 Soviet Union 238 29,395 12 1,193 Command economy and Soviet society 3,319 3,319 145 145 Stalinism and modernisation 3,137 3,137 138 138 World War II and United Nations 9,774 9,774 375 375 Superpower and Cold War 2,368 2,368 92 92 Khrushchev Thaw reforms and economic development 2,964 2,964 116 116 Period of developed socialism or Era of Stagnation 1,641 1,641 92 92 Perestroika, democratisation and Russian sovereignty 5,954 5,954 223 223 Independent Russian Federation 182 33,595 0 957 Transition to a market economy and political crises 5,062 5,062 185 185 Modern liberal constitution, international cooperation and economic stabilisation 4,617 4,617 138 138 Movement towards a modernised economy, political centralisation and democratic backsliding 7,517 7,517 191 191 Invasion of Ukraine 16,217 16,217 443 443 Geography 11,466 21,218 414 989 Climate 4,455 4,455 340 340 Biodiversity 5,297 5,297 235 235 Government and politics 6,656 83,022 128 1,921 Political history 10,989 10,989 229 229 Political divisions 7,847 7,847 179 179 Foreign relations 22,383 22,383 509 509 Military 6,569 6,569 172 172 Law, corruption and crime 11,851 11,851 278 278 Human rights 16,727 16,727 426 426 Economy 15,578 60,954 297 1,777 Transport and energy 16,181 16,181 449 449 Agriculture and fishery 5,546 5,546 230 230 Science and technology 11,018 18,913 314 620 Space exploration 7,895 7,895 306 306 Tourism 4,736 4,736 181 181 Demographics 11,445 45,263 362 1,312 Language 7,883 7,883 154 154 Religion 10,963 10,963 339 339 Education 5,516 5,516 226 226 Health 9,456 9,456 231 231 Culture 6,648 79,763 160 2,531 Holidays 7,778 7,778 250 250 Art and architecture 11,169 11,169 440 440 Music 6,008 6,008 214 214 Literature and philosophy 17,568 17,568 606 606 Mass media and cinema 8,639 8,639 350 350 Cuisine 9,913 9,913 187 187 Sports 12,040 12,040 324 324 See also 58 58 0 0 Notes 26 26 0 0 References 18 1,098 0 0 Citations 31 31 0 0 Sources 1,049 1,049 0 0 Further reading 5,098 5,098 0 0 External links 3,129 3,129 0 0 Total 444,752 444,752 14,332 14,332 On 21 August 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Russian Federation. The result of the discussion was not moved.

The Gini coefficient figure is from 2020, I think it should be updated. CmsrNgubaneArise (talk 08:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of CmsrNgubane, see investigation)[reply]

Good idea - go ahead if you have a reliable source Chidgk1 (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Swoonfed I think that it is not worth correcting the ranking because it is too much of a simplification. I think better to remove the ranking, because they are spending the forex they can access but another part of it is frozen (see https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-is-the-status-of-russias-frozen-sovereign-assets/) This can be better explained in a more detailed article. Perhaps Nabiullina is more valuable than the forex so should be mentioned instead? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to implement a compromise version of our edits because although User: Ramsense made some valid criticism (too many footnotes in my version) which I am going to heed and incorporate in my new edit, my version had some merit as well which I am going to explain below. As far as the compromise version, I am going to pare down the number of citations I put in my version plus keep more of the original wording.

The reversion notes by User: Remsense at Reversion of my edit related to Russia's brain drain which stated "Restored revision 1298838364 by Citation bot (talk): There is really nothing added here! what else was meant to be communicated by "shrinking labor force", brain drain is also plainly noted in the atlantic council paper already cited. there's almost zero possible value heaping on a couple news articles for these claims".

In the reversion, one of the dead links was put back into the article that I replaced with a live link. This is the good link: https://web.archive.org/web/20241215195325/https://zenodo.org/records/8409563/files/RUJEC_article_113503.pdf This is the dead link that was put back into the article https://zenodo.org/records/8409563/files/RUJEC_article_113503.pdf

Also, if you look at one of my footnotes it indicates that Russia's brain drain is called the most severe problem that Russia faces. The citation is: Russia's brain drain has become its economy's biggest problem, London Business School, September 2, 2024. This makes perfect sense. There is a big difference between a general labor shortage and a brain drain in our technological age as society and the individuals themselves spend a lot on advanced training to produce workers such as engineers, scientists, software engineers, doctors, etc, and to have these people leave a country is very damaging to a country if they are in short supply. It more damaging than say losing a restaurant cook because "brain drain" positions require more training. For example, Russia is short 25,000 people in the gas/oil industry and it cannot fill engineers easily because these positions require expertise. Russia is very dependent on its oil sales so this is very harmful to its economy.

Also, there are over 700 footnotes to this article and its not realistic to expect people to read all of the footnotes. It's better to have it in the text. Knox490 (talk) 05:42, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Knox490, just a short comment. There are not 700 footnotes in this article, there are eleven. The 700 footnotes you mention are in fact 700 sources that were used, and you are quite right that readers are not expected to read the sources - the information should be in the article. Lova Falk (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect 러시아 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 21 § 러시아 until a consensus is reached. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 11:09, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many historians write that RUS is the history of Ukraine and Russia claims the history of this "State" as a pseudo successor, it is not so. This is all just Russian propaganda, Ukrainian-Russian specialists, candidates of historical sciences, historians refute this myth.

Tatiana Gennadiivna Tairova-Yakovleva (before marriage Yakovlev), (born May 5, 1967, Leningrad) is a Russian scientist, historian, doctor of historical sciences, professor. Specialist in the field of history of Central and Eastern Europe and Ukraine of the early modern period. Researcher of the political, social and economic history of Ukraine of the XVI-XVIII centuries, biographies of leading figures of the Ukrainian Cossack state, its international situation and foreign policy[1]

Https://glavcom.ua/amp/interviews/tetjana-tajirova-jakovljeva-bilshist-rosijan-vpevnena-shcho-korinnjam-voni-jdut-u-kijivsku-rus-a-tse-ne-tak-876394.html

Oleksiy Petrovych Tolochko (born June 7, 1963, Kyiv) is a Ukrainian historian-medialist, doctor of historical sciences, corresponding member of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine.

Http://www.irbis-nbuv.gov.ua/cgi-bin/ua/elib.exe? Z21ID=&I21DBN=UKRLIB&P21DBN=UKRLIB&S21STN=1&S21REF=10&S21FMT=online_book&C21COM=S&S21CNR=20&S21P01=0&S21P02=0&S21P03=FF=&S21STR=eng0001359

Https://vsviti.com.ua/society/31910

Dmytro HORDIENKO, Candidate of Historical Sciences, Senior Researcher at the Institute of Ukrainian Archeology and Source Studies named after M. Hrushevsky National University of Ukraine.

Https://www.golos.com.ua/article/376911

Https://glavred.info/culture/amp-rossiya-ne-imeet-otnosheniya-k-kievskoy-rusi-istorik-raskryl-maloizvestnyy-fact-10670354.html

Oleksandr Anatoliyovych Alferov (born November 30, 1983, Kyiv) is a Ukrainian historian, radio presenter, public and political figure, candidate of historical sciences, researcher at the Institute of History of Ukraine of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Chairman of the Ukrainian Institute of National Memory

Ihor Mykolaiovych Danilevsky (rus. Igor Nikolaevich Danilevsky (born May 20, 1953, Rostov-on-Don, USSR) is a Russian historian, specialist in Kyivan Rus (until the end of the 16th century), doctor of historical sciences, professor.

https://www.lants.ru/books/History/Danilevsky%20I.N. %20-%20Ancient%20Rus%20eyes%20contemporaries%20s%20potoms.pdf

Danilevsky writes: Kyiv region, Pereyaslav region, Chernihiv region - these lands belonged to the "state" Rus page 171 188.191.76.47 (talk) 08:28, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Kievan Rus' is not part of Russian history; it's a part of Ukrainian history, of a different state – therefore any mention of Kievan Rus' as part of Russian history should be removed. Kievan Rus' is actually Kyivan Rus'. Incraine (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Day Creature (talk) 02:31, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• No, on the contrary, it should be noted that, according to the legend (Calling of Varangians), Russian statehood was founded in 862. Traditionally and officially, years are counted from 862. Therefore, 882 cannot be the first date in the article anyway (it's also a legend). I have already repeated this several times. This should be mentioned in the article. The notions of Rurik's state and the Northern Confederation of Tribes are sometimes used for the explanation. _ruASG⁺¹  11:47, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 
  East Slavic tribes in circa 850
• 
  Rurik's state (dark green) in 862 (Calling of Varangians). Kiev is not under his control.
• 
  Rus' in 882 (Oleg of Novgorod ventured south and conquered Kiev but the rest of the tribes' territories were not under his control)
• 
  Rus' in 988 (in the year of the Christianization of Rus')
• 
  Rus' in 1054 in the year of Yaroslav the Wise's death (dark green) and tribute-paying dependencies (light green)
• 
  This 2012 coin shows years of statehood from 862 to 2012.
• 
  This 2012 Russian Post stamp celebrates 1150 years of statehood.

The lead should be easy to understand. This sentence is not:

It is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council; a member state of the G20, SCO, BRICS, APEC, OSCE, and WTO; and the leading member state of post-Soviet organisations such as CIS, CSTO, and EAEU.

The SCO should stay in as important but most of the others should be relegated to the body of the article I think: for example the WTO is powerless nowadays. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:25, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed. I quite agree with you that this alphabet soup is not necessary for the lead. Lova Falk (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Put the wikimedia commons file of the flag on the infobox because the one on the infobox is for the Wikipedia image file of the flag or Russia 2600:4040:2821:D500:85D3:187D:633:4D4C (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: Why are you requesting it be changed? The image is uploaded here "to ensure protection because it is one of the 100 most-used files on the English Wikipedia." Nubzor [T][C] 23:11, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect @Russia has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 11 § @Russia until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 04:12, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect RussianFederation has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 11 § RussianFederation until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 04:13, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The status of regions annexed by Russia are "internationally unrecognized" according to the infobox template and various other sections of the article. However, there are several countries that recognize the 2022 annexation of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts and more countries that recognize the 2014 annexation of Crimea by Russia, even if they make up a small minority. The status could be changed to "partially recognized", "mostly unrecognized", or "annexed regions by Russia that are partially recognized" instead, however I am interested in seeing other opinions and what other people have to say about this topic. KeymasterOne (talk) 22:52, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Mostly unrecognised" makes sense to me seeing as it is only North Korea, Assadist Syria which now doesn't exist, Iran and Venezuela who recognise it. If I'm correct. Adonnus (talk) 10:03, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remove references to the Union State in the "Formation" (history) section of the infobox, as the Union State is not relevant to the formation of Russia. TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 07:01, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Day Creature (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The description of Russia as an "authoritarian dictatorship" is both clumsy and redundant. It should be changed in the article lead and in the infobox. The reason for this is, is there a dictatorship which isn't authoritarian? Of course, there is none. Rather replace it with "dictatorship" or "authoritarian state" or "authoritarian regime". Or simply "autocracy". Adonnus (talk) 10:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://uollb.com/blogs/uol/dictatorship-authoritarianism-and-totalitarianism Moxy🍁 12:16, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So from that link it seems that simply “dictatorship” would be enough for the lead to make it easier to read, rather than the current "autocratic dictatorship" - more details of it can be in the body of the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:41, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Adonnus (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't have edit permissions, so... Adonnus (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the lead Chidgk1 (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The shift toward autocratic rule is covered in the body. And per your edit summary, "easy to read" is great and we should avoid things like unnecessarily complex structure. But autocratic here is a technical term. Those who do not understand it can click through to the main article. GMG^talk 18:35, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Autocratic and dictatorship essentially mean the same thing: One person has absolute or near-absolute political power, so just choose one and not both since they literally (essentially) mean the same thing. Ligh&Salv (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They're not the same thing. You can for example have an autocratic monarchy or a limited dictatorship . GMG^talk 19:30, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Autocratic monarchy is the same thing as an absolute monarchy, the monarch has absolute power and limited dictatorship is not Russia. May I ask how "They're not the same thing."? Ligh&Salv (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Autocratic monarchy is the same thing as an absolute monarchy Okay?

limited dictatorship is not Russia Yes, Russia is an autocratic dictatorship. GMG^talk 19:42, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not man, an autocratic dictatorship means one person has absolute dictatorial political power which is not Russia's political system. Russia is a dictatorship, not an autocratic dictatorship like the Empire. Ligh&Salv (talk) 19:49, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then I guess you should write into The Routledge Handbook of Autocratization and set things straight. GMG^talk 20:15, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenMeansGo Guess I should what? Ligh&Salv (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenMeansGo Look dude, what I'm trying to say here is that Russia is a dictatorship, not an autocratic dictatorship. It is a dictatorship because:

• President Putin amended the Constitution to open a path for him to stay in power until 2036
• Opposition candidates arrested or barred
• Judiciary subordinated to the executive
• Power personalised around one leader (Putin).

Collectively, what I'm trying to say is don't put "autocratic dictatorship" in the lead section as two separate links to autocracy and dictatorship. Not only is it a violation of MOS:SEAOFBLUE but Russia is not an autocracy and a dictatorship at the same time.

Rather, put dictatorship alone in the lead as that is what Russia is, not an autocracy combined with a dictatorship. Ligh&Salv (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then that's a disagreement you have with the source. GMG^talk 21:06, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenMeansGo Which source? Ligh&Salv (talk) 23:29, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Routledge Handbook of Autocratization, the source used in the article. GMG^talk 23:35, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenMeansGo So sources override the Manual of Style? Ligh&Salv (talk) 02:08, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t have any objections to using that source in the body of the article but the lead is supposed to be readable without most people having to click through links. In my opinion “autocratic” is an advanced (C2 in Common European Framework of Reference for Languages) level word. It doesn’t help a high school graduate, or even someone with a first degree in an unrelated suject, understand Russia so if it is reqiured at all should be relegated to the body of the article. Even if the reader goes to the work of clicking the link it would still take them at lot of time to understand if they ever did. Chidgk1 (talk) 05:39, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same @Chidgk1, I do not oppose using that source, as sources are always good, but I do support a readable, non-MOS violating lead section. The lead section should only have dictatorship instead of autocratic dictatorship, that can be relegated to the Government section for further clarification and explanation. Ligh&Salv (talk) 05:53, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SEAOFBLUE is general advice and is violated when convenient. It is in fact violated in exactly the previous sentence, but nobody seemed to notice because it is fairly obviously being applied in this instance as a consolation prize for failure to make a substantive argument. Yall spent the first of half of this discussion arguing that autocracy and dictatorship are the same thing, then abruptly shifted to arguing that they're not the same, and now you're arguing stylistic preference because you've apparently given up on figuring out what it is you're arguing for or against. GMG^talk 07:29, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am argueing that the adjective before "dictatorship" should be removed. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Provide an accessible overview says “It is even more important here than in the rest of the article that the text be accessible. Editors should avoid …… overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article.” and “ Make the lead section accessible to as broad an audience as possible. Where possible, avoid difficult-to-understand terminology ……” Chidgk1 (talk) 08:24, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that difficult. You can find lesson plans on basic forms of government starting in middle/grade school and into high school. GMG^talk 11:09, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenMeansGo Dude, you're out here arguing that middle schoolers and high schoolers know what an autocracy and dictatorship is, do you think teachers will be teaching students autocracy and oppression in grade 11? Ligh&Salv (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Middle schoolers and high schoolers are not the only people who read this article or Wikipedia in General. Ligh&Salv (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My kid's in third grade and she's reading about the Roman Republic. Is there a point here or is this just a stream of consciousness exercise? GMG^talk 17:16, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenMeansGo Alright buddy I understand and God bless your kid but not every third grader is reading about the Roman Republic. Ligh&Salv (talk) 17:44, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's a good thing there's a free encyclopedia article. GMG^talk 19:17, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenMeansGo And that means? Ligh&Salv (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I propose two things:

• 1. We remove autocratic but keep dictatorship (for the reasons above)

Or

• 2. We keep autocratic there but remove the link to autocracy and explain it in further detail in the Russia#Government and politics section.

Or

• 3. Compromise, if someone can come up with one.

Ligh&Salv (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or do nothing. GMG^talk 00:57, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's preposterous, this talk discussion is near 30 (if not 30 or higher) replies long and you propose doing nothing? Ligh&Salv (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Adonnus@Chidgk1@GreenMeansGo, I propose five (5) options to conclude this discussion:

• 1. Remove the word "autocratic" from autocratic dictatorship from the lead section of the article.
• 2. Remove the link to autocracy through autocratic and explain autocratic dictatorship in further detail in the Government section.
• 3. Compromise, if someone can come up with one.
• 4. Replace "autocratic dictatorship" with just autocratic or dictatorship.
• Or 5 and last: Do nothing.

If anyone has any other idea (s), please reply. Ligh&Salv (talk) 01:13, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remind me what the score is? Are we rolling with it being redundant, inaccurate, overly technical, stylistically annoying? Is there a part here that someone actually believes or are we just tossing things out there? GMG^talk 01:38, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What score? Dude I'm trying to conclude this discussion cuz it's going nowhere right now. Ligh&Salv (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I favor option 1 Chidgk1 (talk) 09:46, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chidgk1 So do I Ligh&Salv (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

5, do nothing. The sentence is fine as it is, and the original suggestion was based on a misunderstanding (that the text said "authoritarian" rather than "autocratic".) I don't see why we would want to make the article less informative. --bonadea contributions talk 09:40, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously do nothing. If anything, this discussion demonstrates that a link is useful because people need to refresh themselves on what these terms mean. GMG^talk 15:35, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, this discussion is over Psalm 27:1 (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Favour option 1. As for my original suggestion being based on a 'misunderstanding', I regret to inform that this is itself based on a misunderstanding. The original sentence at the time of my original post read "Since the turn of the century, Russia's political system has been dominated by Vladimir Putin, under whom the country has experienced democratic backsliding and become an authoritarian dictatorship.".

Not that there is much fundamental difference between "autocratic" and "authoritarian" dictatorship. You simply can't run a dictatorship without it being the former two. Adonnus (talk) 17:09, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Adonnus Hmm, well, two people still oppose so option 1 doesn't have consensus until other editors give input. Light (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For example per person income to the nearest dollar. See User:Femke/crime against significant digits Chidgk1 (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I rounded some numbers to make them more readable Chidgk1 (talk) 09:11, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good job! 👍 Lova Falk (talk) 09:14, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only a quarter of the country is located on the European continent, Russia is mostly in the Eurasian land mass and is not a direct European country. ~2025-41144-56 (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-41144-56 The lead says Russia is in Eastern Europe and North Asia, as the significant portions of the country are in each region in Europe and Asia and not Eurasia. Light (talk) 17:37, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Swoonfed Made this revert claiming that adding the fact that Russia is making slow progress while taking heavy losses in Ukraine is recentism, along with a forum-esque comment about attrition and I guess some sort of attempt to big up Russia's territorial gains in their edit summary.

I think this is quite strange, obviously the main article for this are the specifically war related articles, but the last thing about the war we have is this:

"In June 2023, the Wagner Group, a private military contractor fighting for Russia in Ukraine, declared an open rebellion against the Russian Ministry of Defence, capturing Rostov-on-Don, before beginning a march on Moscow. However, after negotiations between Wagner and the Belarusian government, the rebellion was called off. The leader of the rebellion, Yevgeny Prigozhin, was later killed in a plane crash. Putin won his third consecutive term in the 2024 presidential election, by winning 88% of the vote, the highest percentage in a presidential election in post-Soviet Russia."

So we can include election trivia about Putin, but not the general consensus in WP:RS about the progress of the war? It has gone on for years at this point, and there should at least be a brief summary that is more up to date than what we currently have per WP:NPOV. TylerBurden (talk) 22:50, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support @TylerBurden's stance Abni (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how a statement by a foreign defense minister may fall under WP:NOTNEWS. Perhaps there is another way to mention this? Mellk (talk) 09:12, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recentism is certainly a unique argument in a section on a current event. GMG^talk 13:25, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need to mention the Estonian Defense Minister in the history section of another country article again? Secondly, that was not a mainstream media source.

I've found one from the BBC which states, "According to Thomas Graham in Foreign Affairs, in this year, Russia has seized only 1% of Ukrainian territory at a cost of more than 200,000 dead and wounded."^[1]

Though what I find particularly absurd is how there's no mention of how much territory Russia occupies in its entirety in Ukraine, and yet someone's trying to insert the Estonian Defense Minister there. Swoonfed ^(Ping) 19:51, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying we have to use that particular statement, even though it is accurate and as you can see is not only stated by the Estonian Defense Minister (I'm not sure what implication you're trying to make here, Estonia is a democracy with a high press freedom ranking and this individual would have access to more information than say your average journalist or blogger). There is nothing "absurd" about it, the conensus in WP:RS is that the Russian advance is slow, and possibly too slow to even be sustainable given that Russia still projects annexing the entirety of Ukraine.

DeepStateUA which is widely used on Wikipedia confirms the same thing, I suppose we can add that Russia currently occupies around 20% of Ukrainian territory if that would make you feel better. TylerBurden (talk) 23:30, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the opinion of the Estonian foreign minister is notable enough for inclusion. However, what I find missing from that section is a basic statement on the military outcome. It's all about the political consequences. It needs a military summary (probably just a sentence or two). Something like (not necessarily these words):

After a failed initial attempt to complete the invasion quickly by seizing Kyiv, Russia's military operation became a war of attrition. Russia's forces have made slow progress advancing from the east, while suffering exceptionally high levels of casualties.

(I don't think there's any point n talking about amount of territory - there's already a map which does a much better job than words for that.) It should be easy enough to source something like that. As far as the 1% since 2022 is concerned that feels like a bit of a factoid. I tend to agree with Swoonfed's edit summary that that is no surprise in a war of attrition - only problem is that it doesn't currently explain that it is a war of attrition. DeCausa (talk) 09:05, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @DeCausa: that such a sentence addressing the whole situation in the battlefield from the beginning until now should be covered in a short summary, instead of timely assessments such as "only ___ has been conquered in 2025" - well what about 2023, 2024 then? What percentage of the territory did they capture then? That's what I was trying to point to with the usage of the word "recentism" in regards to referring the percentage of land conquered only in 2025. I still find it surprising that there's no mention of how much of Ukrainian territory is currently sitting under Russian control since 2022, since that landmass (114,450 km² (44,190 sq mi)) is larger than most European countries.

This is a war of attrition—someone looking at the map of the conflict from 2022 and comparing it to 2025 won't even be able to point out a difference because the frontlines are largely frozen besides occasional Russian gains and the failed Kursk offensive. So slow Russian gains aren't anything new and is known to pretty much everybody. Nobody cares about what the Estonian Defense Minister has to say about the conflict by the way. So its amusing that he gets namedropped in the history section of the Russia article while someone like Georgy Zhukov doesn't. Priorities I guess. Swoonfed ^(Ping) 20:50, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said the map covers what territory has been taken. No point in trying to parse that into words. The important points are (a) the initial Russian "decapitation" strategy was a humiliating failure, repulsed by the Ukrainians (b) followed by slow war of attrition and slow advance drom the east(c) causing massive Russian casualties. Each of these needs equal weight, however they are expressed. DeCausa (talk) 21:28, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understand and read; this entire discussion so far is debating whether to insert or not insert a statement of the Estonian Defense minister, and that no need for any update on the amount of land Russia has taken from Ukraine in the war as the map does justice. I think we don't need any update in regards to the war as everyone knows Russia is just sending men in the battlefield to die for no real gains. Abni (talk) 02:22, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think it's moved on from that. To have an update you need a statement of what the prior position was. That's missing. What's needed is a summation of the entire war from beginning to now per my last 2 posts. DeCausa (talk) 11:41, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added it here, cited to two BBC articles. DeCausa (talk) 12:49, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the overview given is a fine summary of what ensued following the invasion on 24 February 2022 up until now; unlike the vague assessments of "____ has been taken over in 2025 or quoting what the Estonian or Nigerian Defense Minister has to say on the matter. I've also added on the southern front. Swoonfed ^(Ping) 17:13, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you are so fixated on this, I already said we don't have to use one particular source, I'm also not sure why you appear to have replaced the content concerning the war deepening Russia's demographic issues (something not only confirmed by WP:RS, but indirectly by the Kremlin) with not only the percentage of Ukraine captured, but putting extra emphasis on it by also including that it's a fraction, despite the consensus here clearly being that the map is sufficient to show territory. TylerBurden (talk) 08:06, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What? You need to be a bit more careful while constantly nit-picking and blaming others. I didn't remove the content about the demographic crisis, @DeCausa did here. In fact, I kept that in my revision. Something he later removed as excess. Be a little mindful okay?

Secondly, the demographic crisis is mentioned in the demographics section directly with more emphasis and yet you are adamant to mention it in the history section awkwardly merging it with the summary of the war. Good. Swoonfed ^(Ping) 09:46, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then I apologize for being wrong about you replacing that portion, still doesn't explain why you inserted the "fifth (20%)" despite the map being right there and consensus here being against it. TylerBurden (talk) 09:54, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I wrote: "Russian forces have been accused of committing numerous war crimes during their invasion, as they continue to occupy a fifth (20%) of Ukraine's total territory." Perfectly in order. Its amazing, I added about the failed Battle of Kyiv, the frozen southern front (seemingly without any consensus)—no issues? And yet you seem to have a lot of trouble comprehending this particular sentence which is thrown around like candy in every online news article about the war (while they show large HD maps in tandem).

Veeeery absurd. Surely suggests something. Swoonfed ^(Ping) 10:25, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, actually it was me that first added in the "fifth" of Ukrainian territory. (Swoonfed added the 20% in parentheses.) I originally thought (and stated above) that it was unnecessary to add in the proportion of Ukrainian territory taken because the map was sufficient. However, when I was looking for sources for this summary, the RS giving overviews of the last 3 years of war almost invariably concluded that a fifth of Ukraine was occupied. It seemed to me that WP:DUE required that to be included in summation, and my original thought was wrong. DeCausa (talk) 11:09, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Russia controls less territory now than it did in 2022, the amount of percentage that Russia controls of Ukraine is not notable, because it's 20% of the country, and if we want to give a WP:RS summary we should focus on the summary of the progress, which is a slow advance at the cost of high losses, not giving trivia that can change at any moment on an article meant to be about the entire country of Russia. TylerBurden (talk) 07:42, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, I also removed the sentence about the possible impact on the demographic crisis. It doesn't belong in a short overview of the war. I didn't see any of the RS overviews making any reference to it. It seems to me omitting the proportion of territory taken but including that somewhat obscure point is a clear WP:DUE/WP:BALASP failure. DeCausa (talk) 11:29, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Getting back to the point... let's not get into the WP:OR of what we personally think is or isn't important. Can we keep this tracked to the reliable sources? TylerBurden, When I survey overview articles on the war I don't see references to the demographic issue you are keen on keeping but invariably I see references to Russia having taken a fifth of Ukrainian territory. See the BBC citations that I added. We should be analysing RS providing an overview of the last 3 years to give us a yardstick of what's important or not important enough to be included overview text. That's WP basics. Can you support your view with RS giving similar overviews (they need to be overviews of the whole war) that support your argument? DeCausa (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DeCausa:, @Ababajoni: pretty sure we can make the changes as necessary per WP:RS since TylerBurden has been recently active and is ignoring this talk page? Swoonfed ^(Ping) 12:05, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah we can Abni (talk) 19:14, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was just wondering if the claim aspect within the russia map maybe be changed around a little. Since in actuality Russia does Technically occupy these parts of Ukraine (Regardless of it being a legal or illegal occupation) maybe it should be changed to occupied but not internationally recognized or something along those lines? AlbanyParkChicago (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I will agree with this, as, under Russian law, the Ukrainian oblasts of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia are integral territories of the Russian Federation and "Russia is defending its territory from the Ukrainian invaders and occupiers."

However, no country (except Russia itself I'm assuming) recognises the annexation of the oblasts or what Russian law has to say about them. Every other country still recognises the oblasts and Crimea as part of Ukraine.

As a result of the above, I would support changing the caption below the image displaying Russia and its occupied lands in Ukraine from what it is now: "Claimed but internationally unrecognised", to something like "Claimed but internationally unrecognised and recognised as illegal under international law" or something like that. Abni (talk) 02:34, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that would be nice since it is more specific without being too wordy that would work!! AlbanyParkChicago (talk) 02:43, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]