File talk:NATO affiliations in Europe.svg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Abkhazia and South Ossetia[edit]

(reaction on last revert) This map shows NATO affiliations in Europe, no Europe by NATO eyes. And there should be NATO affiliations with Abkhazia and South Ossetia.--Dag13 (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, this image is designed to depict NATO's relationship with the states of Europe. NATO has voted to grant various states different statuses, and these are what are depicted. As such, it necessarily must be based on its view of the world. NATO has no affiliation with Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and according to NATO they don't even exist so how could they have an affiliation? NATO's affiliation with Georgia is that it recognizes its territorial integrity, and considers the entire territory to be an ID country, so this should be depicted on the map. While you might think that there should be an affiliation with the separatists states, the fact is that as of today there isn't one. If one day such an affiliation is formed, then of course we should depict that.
If you would like to create an image which depicts all the separatists states in Europe, then could you please upload it under a different file name as per COM:UPLOADWAR? That way each file can be used in the relevant context. TDL (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks TLD, I think that's right and very diplomatic!-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 01:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that there should be show Abkhazia and South Ossetia. NATO too hasnt any affiliation with Kosovo which is show. But ok i will upload that image under different name. But please write reasons why this two "states" arent show to description of this map.--Dag13 (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but Kosovo is recognized by the vast majority of NATO members and has applied for PfP status,[1] so I don't think the comparison to Abkhazia and South Ossetia is valid. A better comparison is with Transnistria or Nagorno-Karabakh Republic which are not depicted either. I've changed the file description, so hopefully this addresses your concerns. TDL (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kazakhstan[edit]

What's up with all that yellow in Russia? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's Kazakhstan. TDL (talk) 23:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's Kazakhstan, unless there was some referendum and now the Urals are part of the Great Kazakh Empire.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, no referendum but the Urals have always extended into Kazakhstan: "Ural Mountains: Mountain range, Russia and Kazakhstan." That's definitely Kazakhstan located where it is usually depicted hugging the Caspian Sea. It must be a map projection or orientation you're unfamiliar with. Rotate this by +30 degrees and you'd get the same map as used here. TDL (talk) 08:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crimea[edit]

Crimea belongs to Russia, so please change the map! --80.108.153.176 09:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree: we should change map to reflect actual formal status of the peninsula territory (Крым по факту был и будет российским). Mahairod (talk) 10:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
None of the other Russian occupied territories in Europe are depicted, so I don't see why Crimea should be an exception. Likewise, we don't depict Israeli occupied territories, ISIS or any other "actual formal status" situations. The map uses internationally recognized borders consistently. As I said in my edit summary, perhaps we should depict territorial disputes, but in that case we should depict the disputed territory in a different colour, and do so consistently. Otherwise it isn't an improvement, it merely realigns the map with one's preferred POV in an inconsistent way. TDL (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are no any occupied by Russia territories at all. Abkhazia and South Ossetia are not occuped: they are separate countries as a result of USSR's breakdown where they were autonomous republics. And Crimea now is not an "occuppied territory". It's a part of Russia, as people dicided and by historical reasons (since XVII centure). Mahairod (talk) 14:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course that is the official position of the Russian government, but as you are no doubt aware that position is not accepted by the international community by and large. The position of the majority of the international community (as elucidated by the US government at [2]) is that it is occupied Ukrainian territory. Only a few states have recognized Russia's annexation of Crimea. Meanwhile, 100 states voted for en:United Nations General Assembly Resolution 68/262 which recognized the territorial integrity of Ukraine under its 1991 borders, said the referendum was invalid and refused to recognized Russian claims to Crimea. All the other Russian occupied territories are likewise mostly unrecognized by the international community. TDL (talk) 16:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We can't take into an account opinion of US goverment because US goverment is NOT international community. It's obvious that there musch more people living in China and India then in US, so US is just a tiny piece of international community. In the same way I can say that international community accepted reunion of Russia and Crimea as elucidated by goverments of Armenia, Bosnia, Kazahstan and Siria. There is another argument: General Assembly of UN does not agree with private opinion of individual countries. And one more time: there are no ANY occupied by Russia territories. Mahairod (talk) 08:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously never suggested that the US IS the international community. But they are most definitely a part of the international community, and you can't ignore their perspective just because you don't like it. Likewise, Russia and the few countries who support them are equal members of the international community and their perspectives should be considered, but as I said above the VAST majority of the international community did not support the annexation. Neither India nor China have recognized Russia's annexation, so your point here is irrelevant.
Finally, your point about "General Assembly of UN does not agree with private opinion of individual countries" is nonsensical. Each country had the option to freely vote on the GA resolution and voice their opinion. Thus it is by definition a representation of the opinions of individual countries who voted for it.
You are pushing the position that we should represent a fringe view held by a few states at the expense of the mainstream view held by most states. That is not a neutral presentation. As I said above, I'd support depicting the Russian occupied territories in some different colour to indicate their disputed status, but without international legitimacy we should not be depicting Crimea as unilaterally Russian. TDL (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
About GA of UN - sorry, my mistake, I mean Security Council of UN - the only UN department which decisions have real formal meaning and power. GA of UN has no such meaning. And to be clear. You should know that neither opinion of single states goverments nor opinion of their sitizens nor opinion of GA UN have no such meaning as judgement of Crimea people. And those people decided that they want to be part of Russia. And that's all. All other arguments weight almost nothig, zero. Mahairod (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But now you're just making an emotional argument that you think Crimea should be considered legitimate Russian territory by the international community, not that it actually is. But international law does not work that way. (Just ask the Chechen or Tartar people who have decided they don't want to be part of Russia and yet have been denied that opportunity.)
The UN GA resolution made it clear that a majority of states consider the referendum invalid and the occupation illegal. Perhaps one day the world will accept Russia's annexation of Crimea and the territory will cease to be considered disputed, but for as long as it is only considered legitimate by Russian irredentists and a handful of other states, we should not promote this fringe POV as undisputed fact. As I said above, a balanced approach would be to present the Russian occupied territories in Europe as disputed (neither Russian nor the occupied state's), but it seems you don't even accept that. TDL (talk) 00:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't put any emotions into my statements. I just talk about the fact: Crimea people live in Russia at the moment. They use rubles, get social welfare from Russia, pay taxes to Russia, speak russian, watch russian tv, use primarily RuNet, serve in russian army. And most of all - they consider themselves as russians and always did. And that's why it's not fringe but major POV we should take into account. What international law do you talk about? They just ignore that far stuff. And they are right. We can do the same because it's in accordance with opinion of people this map shows in Crimea peninsula. And your comparision with chechens is incorrrect because not all chechen people wished to separate from russia in the beginnig of 90th. And their tradition of making decisions are far from democratic if you don't know. And tatar people have never announced they wish to leave Russia. It was just private assertion of single politicians. Now it's not popular. Mahairod (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anyways, this discussion is not going nowhere. You keep making your point that you think Russia's annexation of Crimea should not be disputed, but you have not produced any compelling evidence that this is in fact the case. I'm not going to argue with you about whether Crimea should be internationally recognized as Russian or not, since it's not relevant and I don't have an opinion on the issue. All that matters is the fact that it has not. You've got ru:Файл:Отношения с НАТО в Европе.svg now anyways to promote your POV on ru.wiki. TDL (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't say that there could not be a discussion. By the way we discuss right here. But we need to define the subject of our discussion. First of all terms "annexation" and "occupation" are a subject of discussion. I call this event as voluntary reunion. Next we can mark status of Crimea as arguable from POV of different states (not the Crimean people). If you insist that this map does not reflect actual status of goverment ownership but reflect vision of situation by third-party countries. We can designate that status of Crimea territory as disputed among those third-party countries. But then we also need to reflect this in the name and description of map itself - clear sign that map does not show actual status. Mahairod (talk) 10:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also don't place links to sites of british state propaganda (BBC) if you want to prove something - it's a bad idea. I also may place links to Russia Today statements which are also arguable. Use some independent sources. Mahairod (talk) 11:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously Ukraine is not a "third-party" to the dispute over the annexation of Crimea. TDL (talk) 12:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Kazhanstan Yellow?[edit]

It should be gray, it isnt even part of europe.--Crossswords (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See the legend. Kazhanstan is coloured correctly. The colours have nothing to do with geography. TDL (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with viewing[edit]

When I view this file using the Wikipedia Image Viewer, Montenegro is light blue. But when I view it on Commons, or as a thumbnail on Wikipedia, Montenegro is dark blue. Does anyone know why this is? --Numberguy6 (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PfP[edit]

Are Russia and Belarus still members of the Partnership for Peace? Are they suspended? 2A02:908:C38:D3A0:B1ED:AA69:1163:4D5 17:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NATOs Website still lists them Daniel Maak (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:NATO_affiliations_in_Europe.svg&oldid=747054235"