Talk:List of conflicts in territory of the former Soviet Union

Orange Revolution

Why is the Orange Revolution not listed on this page.--WhyHellWhy (talk) 03:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

inclusion criteria?

So what is inclusion criteria and timeframe here? Osh riots don't really qualify as "post-soviet". Bronze Night is hardly a "conflict" unless every somewhat significant riot is considered to be one. Would various post-Karabakh war Armenian-Azerbaijan border shootouts also qualify?--Staberinde (talk) 17:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Conflict in Crimea was pre-empted by RussiaTC

The reintegration of Crimea into Russia had no qualities of a conflict. In military terms, the Russian operation in Crimea after the turnover of power in Kiev was a peacekeeping operation: there were no tanks or artillery; no shots were fired. Including the 2014 Crimean crisis in this list makes no sense. The Russian response prevented what happened in Euromaidan and Donbas from happening in Crimea. Thus, a conflict in Crimea was averted; there was no conflict.

April 2021

Wasn't there a border incident in uzbekistan in which dozens were killed? How does one nominate? Bokoharamwatch (talk) 19:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Why did Russia and Ukrain go to war?

I need to know why 2601:484:C000:5260:F9F3:94E4:5EDE:9289 (talk) 04:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

"Frozen" conflicts in the Donbass

The frozen conflicts in the Donbass really shouldn't be considered as frozen anymore 207.107.159.62 (talk) 02:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

New 2022 clashes

New clashes btw Tajikistan and Kirghizistan this week. 41.58.231.95 (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 18 August 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. Clear consensus against the current title. There is no consensus on what title to move to, but a slight majority of editors preferred List of conflicts in territory of the former Soviet Union, and the concerns that they expressed about List of post-Soviet conflicts - that it is insufficiently precise - is a greater concern than the concern that List of conflicts in territory of the former Soviet Union is insufficiently precise.

As such, per WP:NOTCURRENTTITLE, I am moving the article to the proposed title without a consensus. Editors who prefer a different title are encouraged to open a new move request at any time. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

---

Post-Soviet conflicts → List of conflicts in territory of the former Soviet Union – 1. This is a list, not an encyclopedic article. List of is needed. 2. “Post-Soviet” is an anti-definition: it defines a number of countries by what they are not, and stereotypes of a lot of nations that have more differences than things in common. An explicitly geographical description is better (but still begs the reason this list exists, when we have List of conflicts in Europe and List of conflicts in Asia).  —Michael Z. 19:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 11:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

AP Stylebook, for example, counsels writers to avoid the shorthand “former Soviet republic(s) . . . for any of the group of 14 countries besides Russia that existed within the former Soviet Union, unless clearly relevant the story.”[1]  —Michael Z. 17:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

To rephrase that, the defining inclusion criteria is not any special “post-Soviet” qualities or nature unifying the listed conflicts, but merely, per the lead, that they are in a geographical region defined as “in the countries of the former Soviet Union.” —Michael Z. 17:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Clarifying that it's a list with a specific geographical scope makes sense. ╠╣uw [talk] 13:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Support: This is the list. Parham wiki (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• I would suggest List of post-Soviet conflicts instead. Proposed title is unnecessarily long. Not sure how "former Soviet Union" would be better than "post-Soviet" but in this case the "Soviet" factor is indeed relevant to the conflicts. Mellk (talk) 20:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  These conflicts took place in the absence of whatever is meant by a Soviet factor. The lead specifically defines the subject as not Soviet: “of the former Soviet Union following its dissolution on 26 December 1991,” in contrast to the distinct subject Ethnic conflicts in the Soviet Union. The body only refers to the Soviet Union once, referring to the pre-post-Soviet phase of a single conflict.  —Michael Z. 20:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: I would support this change if it was with the suggestion Mr. Mellk stated, "List of post-Soviet conflicts". SusImposter49 (talk) 18:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support List of post-Soviet conflicts as being more concise. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: There is currently a consensus that the current title is not appropriate, but there is no consensus on what an appropraite title would be with editors currently considering two options; List of conflicts in territory of the former Soviet Union and List of post-Soviet conflicts. Editors in favor of the former argue that it is more WP:PRECISE, editors in favor of the latter argue that it is sufficiently PRECISE and more WP:CONCISE. Further discussion may be helpful in determining a consensus and preventing the need for a WP:NOTCURRENTTITLE close. BilledMammal (talk) 11:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

If that were the sum of the argument, and both positions were uncontested, then the choice can be based on WP:CRITERIAORDER, wherein concision is subordinate to precision.  —Michael Z. 17:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• Move to List of post-Soviet conflicts per WP:CONCISE. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support as proposed. Proposed name better fits WP:Articletitles as a more precise and unambiguous name for the article.  // Timothy :: talk  22:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
• support moving to "List of conflicts in territory of the former Soviet Union". The alternate suggestion "List of post-Soviet conflicts" is not clear about what type of conflicts with who. The original proposal is good. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:00, 3 September 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.

Requested move 7 September 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: not moved. Participants expressed concern that the article's scope is already ill-defined and ambiguous, and largely agreed that the proposed move would further exacerbate those issues.

Participants also expressed concern that the page in its current form fails WP:LISTN; proposals for how to address that issue included narrowing the list scope, merging it into a related article, or deleting the page entirely. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

---

List of conflicts in territory of the former Soviet Union → List of post-Soviet conflicts – "Post-Soviet conflict(s)" is a well-established term. It is widely used in Wikipedia [2] but also in academia. "Post-Soviet conflicts" amasses 1,370 Google Scholar results, with several books and articles using the term on their titles [3]. "Post-Soviet conflict" has 464 Google Scholar results and yet again articles using the term in their titles [4]. I do not see the benefit of replacing the shorter, well-established and used proper name of "post-Soviet conflicts" for a long and descriptive "conflicts in territory of the former Soviet Union". The title is not even grammatically correct. It should be "in the territory...". Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 08:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support as more succinct, current title is needlessly verbose. WP's own article is at Post-Soviet states. Brandmeister^talk 12:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. “Post-Soviet” is an anti-category, defining its subject by something it is not. It may sometimes be useful for something directly related to the Soviet Union, but not for any and every thing in the entire historical period following it and for the foreseeable future. AP Stylebook, for example, deprecates the use of “former Soviet republics” to denote the diverse group of former colonies of Moscow in Eastern Europe and Central Asia:[5]

former Soviet republic(s)

Avoid this shorthand for any of the group of 14 countries besides Russia that existed within the former Soviet Union, unless clearly relevant to the story. For example: Belarus’ security apparatus retains elements of its past as a Soviet republic.

The Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, and the countries that emerged have identities, histories and governing systems that transcend their years within the Russia-dominated USSR. This applies to Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan.

This ring of states around Russia was brought together for 50 to 70 years by an external colonizer, and this grouping has no meaning in the broader context of history (these conflicts are variously in the Baltics, Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asia), and most importantly it is not defining of these conflicts. What is “post-Soviet” about the 2022 Kazakh unrest, the blockade of the Republic of Artsakh (2022–present), or the Wagner Group rebellion? Imposing the category on the affected nations represents a colonial WP:BIAS and is somewhat offensive.

Similarly, we don’t define Germany, Austria, Slovakia, and Poland among the “former Nazi countries,” count Finland and Poland among “post-Russian-empire states,” Canada and the USA as “post-British,” etcetera. We don’t even have a List of post-Yugoslav conflicts.

It should be treated as strictly a geographical reference, not a some kind of common characterization falsely applied to the conflicts or to the countries they occur in. The cited sources don’t seem to even support WP:LISTN, and maybe it should be split up to lists in historically established lists in Category:Lists of wars by region like List of conflicts in Europe and List of conflicts in Asia.  —Michael Z. 20:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion here shouldn't be of whether it is appropriate or not to use this term, but whether it is used or not. And the truth is that it is widely used by scholars and analysts. At times the Soviet context is clearly important for the topic. The wars in Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, or the clashes in Central Asia, they originate by the way borders were deliberately drawn by the Soviet tsars to cause conflict in case any of the republics ever wanted to break free.

To be honest, I don't think many of the listed conflicts should be here. The 2022 Kazakh unrest for example is unrelated to this article no matter the way it is titled. We shouldn't list absolutely everything that happens in the 15 former republics here. One day we'll have to stop. There are probably certain events that literature commonly refers to as "post-Soviet conflicts" and others that are never referred to as that.

Using a uniquely geographical perspective is quite counterproductive. We don't have articles like List of conflicts in territory of former Nazi Germany or List of conflicts in territory of former Yugoslavia. So why have one for the former Soviet Union? I believe it is better to use a common and already defined term than a broad list without purpose for existing. I don't think we need a list for everything that has happened and will happen in the territory of these 15 states since 1991, but a term with over 1,800 Google Scholar hits is probably worth an article. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 23:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Well I think you’re right about the situation. But I question whether changing the inclusion criteria in the lead to justify a shorter or more stereotypical desired title is the right way forward. Seems to me that then List of conflicts resulting from the Soviet collapse would better satisfy the naming WP:CRITERIA (recalling that concision is a low priority), but the necessary determination of LISTN might be more difficult to accomplish.

The more we discuss, the more I think to propose deletion of this dubious collection.  —Michael Z. 13:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

By the way, see also the CFD for Category:Post-Soviet alliances.  —Michael Z. 14:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

And Category:Post-Soviet Russia was renamed Category:History of Russia (1991–present).  —Michael Z. 14:15, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Adjective "post-Soviet" is not intended to project Russian colonialism or bias, it's a widely accepted term in academia used rather as a shorthand for certain commonalities in those states that remained after the collapse of the Soviet Union (in fact, the term is used by many anti-Russian sources too, Western or otherwise). Inventing some other title would make such pages less accessible and erode WP:COMMONNAME. Brandmeister^talk 17:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

That's a possible proposal, at least it would be shorter than the current one, though it's more awkward. To be fair I believe that if we were to exclude all conflicts that cannot be reliably (with sources) connected to the dissolution of the Soviet Union we would end up with a list of conflicts commonly described as "Post-Soviet conflicts". So practically it'd be the same. At this point an analysis of what sources say is becoming necessary. I might take a detailed look in some time.

I've also thought of the deletion of this article but for now that might be a drastic measure. I can imagine a discussion like this taking place over Post-Soviet states if the article was as poorly written as this one. I thus also think this article probably has more potential. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I will say with firmness however that including the term "post-Soviet conflicts" in the lead seems warranted to me. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per Wiktionary, the term "post-Soviet" means "after the dissolution of the Soviet Union." It refers to a historical period, not a geographic region, and could encompass any conflict occurring after the fall of the union, even those that take place far outside the borders of the former USSR. Syria, for example, was never Soviet territory, yet it's easy to find sources discussing situations and conflicts in Syria — and many other nations — during the "post-Soviet era" (e.g.). Our article makes it clear that its focus is conflicts within the territory of the former Soviet Union, not conflicts anywhere during the period following the union's dissolution, so the current title is appropriate. ╠╣uw [talk] 19:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

That's an absolute stretch of the situation. The Syrian civil war and for example the 2008 invasion of Anjouan are conflicts that have taken place after the dissolution of the USSR but sources do not discuss them as "post-Soviet conflicts" (the example you included is not equivalent to this). It was never necessary to define the geographical scope of this article, so that shouldn't suddenly become a problem now. Here the nuance is that "post-Soviet conflict" is an already existing term and it is used for some conflicts and not for others, if someone created Post-Nazi conflicts the situation would be different as there are no sources definining or using this term in the first place so it would just be a WP:OR list. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Afghanistan is perhaps a clearer example: it was not within the Soviet Union's boundaries, yet references to "post-Soviet Afghanistan" are plentiful, as you can see for yourself. It seems clear that the term is indeed often used to denote the period of time following the dissolution of the union, consistent with Wiktionary's definition, and can apply to things that are outside the stated scope of this list. As such, "post-Soviet conflicts" is misleading, or at best confusing; the current title, though longer, is more precise and less likely to confuse. ╠╣uw [talk] 09:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

You're equating "post-Soviet" to "post-Soviet conflict". "Post-Soviet" is not a defined term, it just means after the Soviet Union. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:18, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

It sounds like you both agree that post-Soviet means a time period, not a geographical or political region.

I would add that it is usually used to place the immediate post period into the context immediately following the previous one for contrast, and probably shouldn’t mean the entire era following into the indeterminate future.

It seems key to this move proposal that it aims to newly define the inclusion criteria as conflicts in some way related to the Soviet period, although that is not stated in the OP, and the criteria are so far not stated in simple, clear terms.  —Michael Z. 14:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Most general dictionaries do not define post-Soviet,[6][7][8][9] and as I mentioned above at least one prominent style guide recommends against its broad use.[10] The OED does define it: first attested in 1929!: “(a) (In early use) subsequent to the formation of the Soviet Union; (b) (now) following the dissolution of the Soviet Union.”[11] So, for example, the Syrian Civil War or the conflicts in territory of former Yugoslavia do fit the dictionary definition of post-Soviet conflict.  —Michael Z. 21:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• I've taken a look at some of the first sources that show up to me when searching "post-Soviet conflicts" in Google Scholar. Sasse 2016 states on the opening sentence "The violent post-Soviet conflicts that erupted during and immediately after the collapse of the USSR..." in the first place. The conflicts are connected by the author to the dissolution of the USSR. Transnistria, Abkazhia and South Ossetia and Nagorno-Karabakh are given as examples of post-Soviet conflicts, which are clearly connected to the USSR's dissolution, but so are the Crimean annexation and the war in Donbas, in which I'd say the connection is more indirect. Matsaberidze 2007 states on the second sentence (I can't copypaste it) that the sudden increase of liberties following decades of Soviet totalitarian rule, which eased interethnic violence, is generally considered to be the cause of the post-Soviet conflicts, though he is focusing on the Caucasus. Hughes 2001 states on page 11 "The conflict in Chechnya, like some other post-Soviet conflicts, involves secession and territorialized ethnicity". Tajikistan is also listed as an example apart of the other ones I mentioned above. I assume this refers to the Tajikistani Civil War, of which I know nothing about. Kapitonenko 2009 states "All that is important for internal post-Soviet conflicts. They result from an interaction of factors, among which structural and political factors are the most important." He names decentralization of the state, political instability, ethnic conflict and a difficult economic situation as common causes.

Vaguely we can establish some criteria for defining what a post-Soviet conflict is. But I must say most sources didn't really bother giving an explanation of the term. I went through four pages of results (10 each) and only amassed these sources, maybe a deeper research can find authors with a more elaborate analysis but making a criteria list out of what I've found so far would be synthesis and original research. It seems that the term is simply widely used but nobody has bothered to explain it. "Post-soviet era" is also a common term (22,500 Google Scholar resutls) but we don't have an article equivalent to it I think. So, maybe the best option is deleting or merging the article. It doesn't look like there is a well-established list of "post-Soviet conflicts", and I don't think that simply a list of every violent event that has taken place in the former USSR since its dissolution is notable or a defining topic.

I also want to say it appears that the conflicts in Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia and Nagorno-Karabakh seem to be universally included among lists of "post-Soviet conflicts", other ones are not always included. However some of these wouldn't even fit the vague criteria of above, for example in Transnistria there was no ethnic violence.

I think merging to Post-Soviet states or Dissolution of the Soviet Union might be the best course of action. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 16:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Looking at this list, much of it is covered by events that are part of the Russo-Ukrainian War or the Georgian-Abkhaz and Georgian-Ossetian conflicts, these three are already mentioned so in theory we shouldn't include minor episodes of them. If we removed these redundant entries the list would be shorter. I also don't think we should include some entries like the 2010 Kyrgyz Revolution, the 2020 Dungan–Kazakh ethnic clashes, the 2020 Kyrgyz protests, the 2022 Kazakh unrest or the 2022 Karakalpak protests. It doesn't look like they're connected to the dissolution of the USSR. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus, this proposal has merit, but it still represents redefining the scope in a way that could be subject to infinite debate over our own interpretations. I can’t tell from the above which sources are merely using post-Soviet generally, to refer to conflicts after the Soviet Union’s dissolution, or whether any of them actually define what the set of post-Soviet conflicts is, hopefully with explicit criteria. If is is the case that “post-Soviet conflicts” doesn’t include every conflict in former Soviet territory, but does include ongoing ones like the Russian war against Ukraine, then this would constitute an open set, forcing us continually reevaluate its membership. I am skeptical that we can conclusively define it.  —Michael Z. 15:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

The conclusions from my comment above is that most sources do not define the term, unlike I had mistakenly assumed. We also completely lack criteria so far, there might be a source out there, I only looked through possibly 15-20 open-access results (I don't remember well anymore). I am not as convinced by the proposed title as before. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Comment: At the very least, it needs to be moved away from its current title to something grammatically correct. Just adding a "the" would fix that. HappyWith (talk) 16:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

It is grammatically correct. Territory in “territory of the former Soviet Union” is used as a mass noun, and is perfectly appropriate to denote territory whose boundaries changed numerous times over its seven-decade existence. This change would be a matter of style only, and wouldn’t change the meaning significantly. I’m neither for nor against adding the, but on its own it’s not a sufficient reason to rename.  —Michael Z. 16:50, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn’t "on territory" be the right wording if it's being used as a mass noun? I'm not sure what the actual standard is, but as a native English speaker, the current title immediately struck me as odd in terms of grammar. HappyWith (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Both in and on sound natural to me, although the former appears to be more common.[12]  —Michael Z. 01:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose, with a caveat: I would actually be strongly for the move, if not for the fact that the article includes a bunch of things that are not universally considered "post-Soviet conflicts" as a common name. Currently, it literally does include every single conflict in a formerly Soviet country, like the 1993 Russian constitutional crisis, random anti-government protests in Central Asian countries, and most bizarrely, the Wagner rebellion. If the scope of the article is changed to only include the ethnic and territorial conflicts directly arising from the breakup of the USSR - which I think it should be - I would support the move, but as of now, no. The Wagner rebellion isn’t a post-Soviet conflict. HappyWith (talk) 22:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

After reading through this discussion more, I might also agree with proposals to delete the article entirely if the scope isn’t tightened up to have a concrete, limited meaning. HappyWith (talk) 22:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I think we're going to have a new entry in the list, another duplicate of an already listed conflict, pretty soon [13]. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• Clearly this is going to end in a no consensus or in an oppose result, however maybe it would be useful if the user closing this request mentioned the suggestions of deleting this article in their closing note. For my part I will not start an AfD after this RM is over. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:57, 19 September 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.