File talk:Crimea reaction clean.png

Note from the author

Note from the author: if i missed some official statements or forgot to add some sources to the "References", please write me, I'll add the old sources (they're all in my browser history) and update the map if you have a new one --Zhitelew (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I see two major flaws with how this map is laid out:

1. It puts considering Russian actions as a "military intervention" as a higher level of condemnation than explicitly condemning them. However, this doesn't necessarily reflect reality. A state may very well see it as an intervention and consider it justified.

2. It equates the stance of interstate organizations (NATO, OSCE) to be exactly equivalent to each of its members' stances which isn't how it works, as you can see from what various countries have said of their own positions.

That all being said, I think the map has some outright mistakes too: for example, Georgia explicitly called for support of Ukraine's territorial integrity but is colored as if it merely called for peace, while Armenia, which still has no position, is colored as if it condemned Russia's actions as an invasion in the same way the most Western countries did (and it obviously didn't). --Yalens (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response!

1. I think we can postpone this. There are no such statements up to date.

2. I'm agree, it's a simplification. But official statements of supra-/intrastate organizations in most cases are done with explicit consent of their members, so I think this simplification is justified.

3. I'm agree, Georgia and Armenia have wrong colours. I'll correct it. --Zhitelew (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Corrected --Zhitelew (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

On 1, even if that never happens I still think the political value of statement considering it an "intervention" isn't at all higher than condemnation. Perhaps if the word is changed to "invasion" I could see it a little but nevertheless it's a pretty odd distinction.

On 2, I would argue that not only is it a simplification, it's actually wrong. An organization doesn't require the consent of each of its members for its stances. NATO's intervention in Libya was against the will of Germany, while it's support of Kosovo was against the will of Greece, for example... Plus, if we want a good map, why not show each country's reaction with the appropriate color, as that conveys more information? Or at least do so if they do have a separate, different reaction (unless its whether they called it "intervention" or not...). I think we at wikipedia can do a lot better than this. --Yalens (talk) 02:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

More errors:

The Philippines is currently colored like it underlined Ukrainian territorial integrity. While it makes sense that the Philippines would say this (given Mindanao), as per the current version of our page (and as far as I know) the Philippines has only called for dialogue and thus should be colored like Kazakhstan and so on. --Yalens (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Malta explicitly condemned Russia (and is part of NATO btw) but is left blank on this map. --Yalens (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Azerbaijan only called to support Ukraine's territorial integrity; it did not explicitly condemn Russia's actions or call them "intervention", but it is colored like it did.

Uzbekistan has now condemned Russia's actions, but is currently left uncolored.

Indonesia: same story as above.

I will make updates myself too... once I have access to picture-editing software again :(. --Yalens (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)--

1. If we get more supporters of the Russian actions, we can add a new category. Something like "support of the Russian actions AND interpretation of the Russian actions as a military intervention", with a shade of red.

2. We can use this principle: if the official position of the member-state contradict the official position of the organisation, we mark it with different colour.

3. Ok, I'll correct this. --Zhitelew (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

corrected. --Zhitelew (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

But I think the question is really whether its actually significant if they call it "intervention" or not. And I would argue it is not significant.

Okay, I could go with this. In that case, we should probably mark off Turkey and Hungary, whose stances are less condemnatory than NATO (or the Visegrad group)'s stance. Both supported Ukraine's territorial integrity and independence, but neither explicitly condemned Russia. --Yalens (talk) 20:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Some more news:

Colombia and Vietnam express concern.

Also, I think we might need to talk about the stances of Australia, New Zealand and Japan. All three specifically condemn Russia's use of military force. While they don't use the word "intervention", I would argue that such statements are at least equivalent to using the word "intervention" in terms of their content. For example, Australia's line is "unprovoked aggression"... which if anything is more of a condemnation than "military intervention". I would suggest coloring the three the same color as Georgia, which by the way also never used "intervention" but said "aggression" (and this color should be the darkest shade of green, as Georgia currently is).--Yalens (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

1. I think it's of critical importance, because Russia called it "humanitarian mission".

2. I'm not sure about Turkey and Hungary. There is no contradiction here, because NATO supported Ukraine's territorial integrity too. I think we can use the "strongest statement" rule here (see description of the image).

3. Which color should we choose for Colombia and Vietnam?

4. I fully agree about Australia, New Zealand and Japan. Corrected.

I think I shall add you to the list of the authors, because of your many helpful suggestions and ideas on improvement of the map. If you don't mind, of course. --Zhitelew (talk) 00:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

1. I guess we'll have to see what other people think about this (I would say that an intervening power claiming they are on a "humanitarian mission" - whether or not that is actually the case- is pretty standard in the history of such events and isn't really notable).

2. In the case of Hungary, apparently the difference is enough to result in political controversy over the government's perceived "weak" stance toward Russia. People are alleging it's because of recent deals over a nuclear plant, and that Orban is "selling" himself to Russia (see here, for example: [[1]]). As for Turkey, a similar story of energy dependence (55% of imports being Russian) has led to a stance that analysts are describing as divergent from the standard Western stance (for example, see here: [[2]], [[3]]). Perhaps we'll have to wait and see though... still people are speaking of their stances like they are separate.

3. I think the color they currently are suits them best, as they only voiced concern.

As for adding my username, I have no problem with that :). Thanks for making the map. --Yalens (talk) 00:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, more news: Israel ([[4]]) voices concern. There was also a statement one one sight about an interview by India in which the minister spoke of Russia's "legitimate interests", but I'm not sure what we should make of this (it's an interview for starters), and so maybe we should wait for more to come out from India. --Yalens (talk) 01:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The Indian official set both sides had legitimate interests, so it wasn'tan unqualified endorsement of Russia. At least that is how I interpreted it.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I tried to add Syria as bright red, but upload commons won't let me for some reason.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Iran

Where is our source for Iran's stance? --Yalens (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is the source (in Russian) --Zhitelew (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Some territorial corrections

1. Currently the map has Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank colored the same as Israel. As far as I know, neither Lebanon nor any Palestinian government has taken a stance yet, so unless there's sources for this (I don't see any) they should probably be changed to gray.
2. Currently the map has the Isle of Mann, Guernsey and Jersey colored gray. These are crown territories of the United Kingdom, and share its foreign policy, and they should be colored like the rest of the UK.
3. Currently Naxcivan (the little part of Azerbaijan to the southwest of Armenia) is colored gray; it should be colored like the rest of Azerbaijan.
4. This map's borders are outdated; they fail to show newly established states such as Kosovo and South Sudan... I would recommend transferring the data onto a more updated map. --Yalens (talk) 03:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, this should be corrected.--Zhitelew (talk) 09:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

done --Zhitelew (talk) 09:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Now Kosovo has condemned Russia's intervention (should be colored darkest green)... but it seems someone sneakily removed it from the map :(. --Yalens (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'll correct this. --Zhitelew (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry, I've got it now :). --Yalens (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

"for peaceful resolution of the conflict"

Why are the countries in this category colored in light green? It is strictly a neutral position which doesn't support neither side. I suggest we color these countries in darker gray and countries that have not (yet) stated their position in lighter gray. I'll upload my version soon. --Yerevanci (talk) 04:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Because many countries see the actions of Russia as a military invasion, "for peaceful resolution of the conflict" position is not strictly neutral. Light green is suitable color --Zhitelew (talk) 11:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's take Armenia. Its President made no comments supporting or condemning Russia. Why should it be colored in light green, which is a shade of the color used for countries supporting Ukraine or clearly commending Russia? --Yerevanci (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Green <> supporting Ukraine or condemning Russia, only dark shades of green indicate this. I think no one would be confused - shades are clearly different. Green means "not supporting Russia" as the alternative to "supporting Russia". --Zhitelew (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Neither these countries are tacitly supporting Kiev, so if a green color is used, it implies both that they support Kiev and that they are against Moscow.

I agree with Yerevanci, it is a neutral position and should be marked by different color (yellow). Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: Color "concerned" reactions yellow, not light green

Because (a) it's hard to tell the difference sometimes between the two lightest shades of green and (b) this better reflects reality as such bland statements of concern (Armenia, Kazakhstan) aren't necessarily condemning Russia's actions to any degree at all, implicitly or explicitly. Note also the pattern that these sorts of statements are all coming from countries with either no stake in the issue at all (Pakistan, etc.) or countries that are very close politically to Russia (Armenia, Kazakhstan, etc.). --Yalens (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I already have a map on my computer with all these countries colored yellow. I'll upload it soon unless anyone states any objections here :). --Yalens (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Please bring a different colour scheme, most Wikipedians always forget or are not aware about Daltonism (no distinction between green-red); I suggest yellow, cyan, and violet, for each side (pro-ukr; pro-rus) and the neutral one (not necessarily in that order). Inhakito (talk) 15:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll make a cyan=pro-Ukraine, magenta=pro-Russia map...--Yalens (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

If you have made color corrections, you should edit description in summary as well. Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

For colourblinds the colour¹ used for countries like Venezuela, Cuba, Syria... looks similar to the colour² used for China, Turkey, Indonesia, Mexico, etc.: if one subtract the amount of red added in the ¹magenta (#d93cd9) and change it for green, it will become this colour (#3cd9d9), which looks very similar to ²this one (#57d2d2). That’s why I suggested violet instead of magenta, since violet has more blue on it than magenta (so it would be distinguishable for colourblinds). I changed the map to correct that, but it was reverted. Inhakito (talk) 06:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay then. But I have two requests/proposals:

1. Switch the yellow and purple shades, because (a) yellow is commonly used as a neutral color, (b) we may eventually have to use a range of shades for various levels of supporting the Russian side (just as we have done for the Ukrainian side), and the darker shades of yellow don't really look that pleasing to most people and (c) as it stands its really hard to differentiate between the various yellow shades when they're not next to each other. --Yalens (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

2. Make the intermediate shade of cyan darker because (a) right now it is hard to tell from the lightest shade when they are not next to each other (as is the case with, say, Bosnia and Moldova, people could easily think they have the other's position) and (b) in content that position is much closer to the position that the darkest shade represents, as it explicitly condemns Russia rather than just vaguely giving lip service to Ukraine's territorial integrity.--Yalens (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Alright I'm going ahead and implementing these. If we're gonna use this version, we might as well make it so that people can tell the difference between the different shades (as right now they can't) and whatnot. --Yalens (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Please do not change colors on the map without consensus on the talk page. By changing the colors you'll make this map useless in 9 different language editions of Wikipedia (because of the contradictions with the corresponding map legends). --Zhitelew (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point... I guess I'll just change back the colors for the map and upload it, to keep the updates. Really sorry about all this chaos :(. --Yalens (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Colours don't match

The colours in the image description don't match those in the actual image. JIP (talk) 09:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll correct the image description. --Yalens (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Added color boxes to legend, is it ok? I think for India etc. should be choosen other color, it is barely visible. Jirka.h23 (talk) 05:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, thanks :). I can see the color no problem but if others can't I guess it would be a problem. --Yalens (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

China and India

User Yalens changed again back color of China and state that reason is: they haven't repeated their support for Ukrainian territorial integrity DOESN'T mean that their previous statement is invalid. In source i have provided is clearly China has stopped voicing support for Ukraine’s territorial integrity and pioritizes Ukraine's 'Ethnic Groups: http://thediplomat.com/2014/03/china-prioritizes-ukraines-ethnic-groups-over-its-territorial-integrity/ Any state simply can change its statement. Yalens, please stop reverting my edits or provide newer reliable source. Thank you. Jirka.h23 (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Same for India, provide source or keep the color. Jirka.h23 (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

As I explained in my edit summary, your source does not actually change what matters for the chart. The source doesn't say China retracted support for Ukraine's territorial integrity, all it says is that it hasn't repeated itself. Surely we can have a discussion about this, but I think it's pretty clear in this case that you need more sourcing to show that it's previous stance has actually been nullified (otherwise we have SYN issues).

As for India there's been discussion here about that before, and it's pretty hard to tell what that statement means ("recognizing Russian and 'other' interests"). Is it actually support for Russia or is it more akin to the statements Kazakhstan and the Philippines made. Previously here at least one other editor thought India belonged in a neutral column. I think we would do well to have a discussion of if we really want to keep this category (the light red) that only India has at all. for now though I wouldn't be against you coloring in India again, Jirka.--Yalens (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok India is, for now, colored. As for China, i think that these articles explained it very clearly: March 04, March 07. But ok, if you have doubts, lets wait for some time (week?) and then we can provide again some sources about China's point of view. Jirka.h23 (talk) 05:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm waiting for China to say something different that refutes its earlier statement on territorial integrity, not for pundits writing for The Diplomat to say something. In any case, I think it's certainly possible for China to "tacitly support" Russia (even if this "tacit support" boils down to little more than writing anti-US/anti-Ukraine-interim-gov't articles in Xinhua and I don't think Xinhua articles count as official statements as you can never tell whether they reflect the gov't's views, the writer's or both) and still support Ukrainian territorial integrity, even if it is an awkward position to hold. --Yalens (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that the legend should state the position of India more correctly ("recognition of Russan and other interests"); currently it stresses only support for Russian interests. 193.40.31.83 09:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree --Zhitelew (talk) 12:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

This still leaves two problems: one, the coloring still makes it look like a pro-Russia position while the text makes it look neutral ("Russian and others"), leading to a dissonance, and two, the person who said this was not India's Prime Minister or Foreign Minister, but rather the National Security Advisor, who doesn't have a dominant say in foreign affairs (calling into question whether the statement even represents India at all, or rather is it just his personal opinion?). --Yalens (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

National Security Advisor is not a part of the cabinet, and it was not an official statement ("However, when questioned, national security adviser Shivshankar Menon said..."). I agree, we should colour it with yellow ("for peace").--Zhitelew (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done--Zhitelew (talk) 22:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

So if the India's Prime Minister or Foreign Minister represents India better, what is their statement? If we have only that of National Security Advisor - we must accept it as official position of India and color should stay. So do you have official statement of these persons? Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

We have an official statement by Ministry of External Affairs of India--Zhitelew (talk) 08:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC).

Further India made it clear that it will not support any "unilateral measures" against Russian government. "India has never supported unilateral sanctions against any country. Therefore, we will also not support any unilateral measures by a country or a group of countries against Russia."[5]

best, Sunil060902 (talk) 01:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC) (talk)

You missed "Prime Minister Manmohan Singh who underlined India's position on "unity and territorial integrity" of countries and hoped a diplomatic solution would be found to the issue" in the source. Literally India's reaction is rather neutral instead of leaning towards Russia. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 03:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Kazakhstan

Kazakhstan supports the territorial integrity of Ukraine. According to the official Presidential website:

"The Presidents of Kazakhstan and the US confirmed the need for a peaceful settlement of the crisis in Ukraine through diplomatic means, which would ensure territorial integrity of this country and contribute to bringing closer the positions of all parties concerned."[6]

and again with Chancellor Merkel:

"During the conversation, the President of Kazakhstan acknowledged the importance of a diplomatic solution to the crisis in Ukraine for a dialogue between all interested parties, use of possible mechanisms of international cooperation in order to provide territorial integrity of this country and renounce mutual threats and ultimatums."[7]

So the colour should be updated. --Nug (talk) 08:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done--Yalens (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Действия России на Украине поддержала КНДР и Аргентина

"Последние тревожные события в Украине, спровоцированные по заранее подготовленным заговорщическим сценариям США и стран Запада и при их подстрекательстве, убедительно показывают, кто на самом деле является зачинщиком всех бед на нашей планете, кто добивается свержения средь бела дня суверенного государства и жестокого попрания прав народов на самоопределение", — заявил посол КНДР в Москве Ким Ен Дже.

Дипломат подчеркнул, что КНДР радуется стремлению России "к отстаиванию национальных интересов и суверенитета и построению сильного государства", сообщает "Интерфакс". Ссылка на новость: http://www.rosbalt.ru/main/2014/03/15/1244456.html

Так что перекрасьте КНДР на карте!

This is English forum. But as i see from my smaller knowledge of Russian, Kldr should be marked same as India - "Recognition of Russian interests". Jirka.h23 (talk) 17:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Use translate.google.com and be happy. Yes, it's all about DPRK.--Korvatunturi (talk) 13:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Argentina - Support for Russian actions and/or condemnation of the Ukrainian interim government: Президент Аргентины Кристина Фернандес де Киршнер напомнила, что в уставе ООН прописано право народов на самоопределение, и эта норма должна применяться ко всем странам.

Киршнер сравнила ситуацию в Крыму с другим случаем в современной истории. Так, год назад референдум провели на Фолклендских островах - это спорная территория, на которую претендуют Аргентина и Великобритания, в 1982 году противостояние даже вылилось в открытый военный конфликт, уточняет Первый канал.

Британия тогда силой оружия отстояла Фолкленды, а в марте прошлого года за то, чтобы остаться в составе королевства высказались еще и почти все жители на плебисците. Тогда, как напомнила Киршнер, в ООН не стали оспаривать законность этого голосования. «Многие крупные державы, которые закрепили за народом Фолклендов право на самоопределение, сейчас не хотят сделать то же самое в отношении Крыма. Как вы можете называть себя гарантами мировой стабильности, если не применяете ко всем одни и те же стандарты? Получается, крымчанам нельзя изъявлять свою волю, а жителям Фолклендов можно? В этом же нет никакой логики!» - заявила она.

As i see, Argentina should be changed to: "Recognition of Russian interests" because of support to referendum and Russian position. Лидер Аргентины: Запад лицемерен в отношении референдума в Крыму Kldr should be changed to same, because from a statement above i do not see that it does condemned the new Ukranian government. Jirka.h23 (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Which a more binding demonstration of a country's position? Lip service you say to a Russian media station, or how the country votes in the UN? I'd say the latter. Nevertheless, perhaps we should make a note regarding Argentina's two-facedness. --Yalens (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree, we should prefer political actions to political statements--Zhitelew (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC).

"We should support the integrity of all countries. At the end of the day the Malvinas have always been Argentine while Crimea belonged to the Soviet Union and was handed to the Ukrainians by (former Soviet leader Nikita) Khrushchev." Sławek Borewicz (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Lo siento pero voy a escribir en Spanish: El 15 de marzo la representante argentina ante el Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU, María Cristina Perceval votó a favor de una resolución patrocinada por Estados Unidos condenando el referéndum del 16 de marzo. Ella explicó que había votado a favor de la resolución, ya que afirmó «el principio de la integridad territorial y esto habría contribuido a un diálogo constructivo para lograr una solución pacífica que participen todos los actores políticos». Mientras tanto, instó a abstenerse de «acciones que pudieran obstaculizar una solución de este tipo», y dijo que los ucranianos deben decidir sus propios asuntos.Security Council Fails to Adopt Text Urging Member States Not to Recognize Planned 16 March Referendum in Ukraine’s Crimea Region La Cancillería Argentina también afirmó que actuó «con cuidado de no mostrar una posición contradictoria respecto de la que mantiene en Malvinas», un territorio reclamado por Argentina y donde se celebró un referéndum en el 2013 que el gobierno lo consideró como «ilegal».Un encuentro en el Palacio del Elíseo

El 17 de marzo, luego de la reunión con el papa Francisco en el Vaticano, la presidenta Cristina Fernández de Kirchner hizo mención al conflicto con el Reino Unido por las islas Malvinas y aprovechó para hacer un paralelismo con el referéndum de Crimea. Critcó la «doble moral» de los países occidentales al afirmar que «un referéndum realizado por Crimea es malo, pero uno hecho por los kelpers es bueno».Cristina comparó el referéndum en Crimea con el de los kelpers Dos días después en una reunión con el mandatario francés François Hollande, aseguró que Crimea «históricamente pertenece a Rusia» y consideró que la situación política que enfrenta Ucrania tras el derrocamiento de Viktor Yanukóvich, debe ser resuelta en el marco de la negociación. También volvió a rechazar que se subestime la realización de un plebiscito por las Malvinas, tal como se llevó a cabo en Crimea y dejó expresada la «voluntad político-territorial de los habitantes» de la península."Grandes potencias" tienen doble discurso al rechazar plebiscito en las Malvinas

In short, Argentina president said the Crimea is Russian and the UN voting was a strategy on the Malvinas/Falklands issue. Cristina Kirchner: "Malvinas siempre fueron argentinas, y Crimea siempre fue rusa". For me, Argentina supports Russia. --Gastón Cuello (talk) 02:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, vote was just strategy, but they support Russia, as state sources above.Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

They do not support Russia as this is against their own interests in Folkland irelands. They compare Crimean abruption with analogical situation in Folkland irelands. They blame western world about position on Folkland irelands, but not about Crimea. Voting clearly shows position of Argentina. We can't say that Argentina even acceps Russia interests. I'd reccomend to get back Argentina's color accordingly to their vote.Kartman Erik (talk) 10:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

She herself (president) said that "Crimea is Russian" and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs acknowledged the strategy in UN.--Gastón Cuello (talk) 12:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The source you present is biased, because Telesur TV is the Venezuelan government news agency, and Venezuelan government supports Russia. I would like to ask you for another sources that mention that Cristina Fernandez said "Crimea is Russian". The only Argentine official statement about the issue is the vetoed resolution, in which Argentina supports Ukraine. Source: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2014/sc11319.doc.htmGermanxv (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Sources: La Voz de Córdoba, Clarín (very opposition newspaper), La Nación (oppositor), Infonews “Si carece de valor el de Crimea, a escasos kilómetros de Rusia, mucho menos puede tener valor uno de una colonia de ultramar a más de 13.000 kilómetros. Es fundamental para preservar la paz en el mundo y el respeto al derecho internacional no tener doble estándar a la hora de tomar decisiones” ... “no se puede estar de acuerdo con la integridad territorial en Crimea y en desacuerdo con la integridad territorial en las Malvinas. O estamos de acuerdo con todas las integraciones territoriales y el respeto a la soberanía de todos los países... “por eso apoyamos la integridad territorial y votamos como votamos en el Consejo de Seguridad, pero reclamamos que todos sean coherentes”.

"La Cancillería Argentina también afirmó que actuó «con cuidado de no mostrar una posición contradictoria respecto de la que mantiene en Malvinas», un territorio reclamado por Argentina y donde se celebró un referéndum en el 2013 que el gobierno lo consideró como «ilegal»" Página/12. And, "Crimea is Russian" she said at the meeting with French President: Russia Today (video), Crónica, Official site of Cristina Kirchner, Télam (government agency), La Radio del Sur. --Gastón Cuello (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

In the video of one of the news web-sites you linked, you can watch Cristina Fernandez mentioning two things:

* UK and US are not coherent because of the doble standard,

* Crimea was part of the URRS and then given to Ukraine in 1954.

But those statements are not enough to conclude your point is right. She never said Crimea is Russian, but she supports for the vetoed resolution. Germanxv (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Kazakshtan again

As you say above, Zhitelew, political actions should be preferred to political statements. Given that Kazakhstan has recognised Crimea's sovereign status (and is the only country other than Russia to do so as of right now), I believe its status should be updated since it manifestly no longer supports Ukrainian territorial integrity in that sense. --131.111.184.8 13:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to the corresponding official statement? --Zhitelew (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

It appears I was mistaken and there wasn't an explicit statement of official recognition, but in any case the new statement is by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, so is presumably more official than the informal remarks by the president that were cited earlier. Link is here (in Russian), machine-translated version: "In connection with the holding of a referendum in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, March 16, 2014 Kazakhstan reiterated its commitment to fundamental principles of international law in accordance with the UN Charter. In Kazakhstan apprehended in Crimea last referendum as a free expression of the population of the Autonomous Republic and are sympathetic to the decision of the Russian Federation under the circumstances. We stand for peaceful ways out of the crisis in Ukraine and overcome it through the negotiation process under the auspices of the UN and other international organizations." I believe this is much closer to the yellow category (peaceful resolution) than the light blue one. --131.111.184.8 17:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it is more closer to yellow.Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Brasil

Luiz Alberto Figueiredo (Minister of External Relations of Brazil): "“Ucrania es un país amigo de Brasil, seguimos con mucha atención y apoyamos todos los esfuerzos del secretario general de las Naciones Unidas (Ban Ki-moon) para negociar el problema”, señaló el jefe de la diplomacia brasileña." [8], [9]. Sławek Borewicz (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Brazil should be colored yellow.Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Why did Sri Lanka become gray?

I see no explanation. Altes (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Someone blind reverted it I think... I'll fix it later today. --Yalens (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Coloured. Jirka.h23

Yalens, Jirka.h23, what source are you reffering to? Are you talking about business-standard from the reference list? On that page I see that Lanka "acknowledge the justifiable concerns of the Russian Federation" and "welcome attempts at de-escalating the tension". So, you should look for better source as currently it is more like 'Recognition of Russian and other interests of the conflict'. Kartman Erik (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion by: "The Sri Lankan government Wednesday expressed regret over Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych's removal. In keeping with Sri Lanka's consistent policy of recognizing democratically- elected heads of state, the unconstitutional removal of President Viktor Yanukovych from office is regretted", they also condemned the new government. Don't you think? Thanks for reply. Jirka.h23 (talk) 06:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Jirka.h23Truly speaking i do not know position of Sri Lanka. But basing on this article I can't say about absolt support of Russian actions. Remaval of Yanukovych and support of Crimea abruption are not the same. There is really signigicant difference.Kartman Erik (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Read it again, pink sentence have words "and/or" included. Jirka.h23 (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Belarus

"Lukashenko: Crimea is part of Russia now": As for recognition or not recognition, Crimea is part of Russia today. You can recognise or not to recognise this, but this will not change anything. Sławek Borewicz (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

But still had not recognized it.Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Mongolia

...Kazakhstan, Mongolia and Venezuela which unofficially have acknowledged Crimea’s independence. Pls, check it. Sławek Borewicz (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Mongolia? Thats suprising, do you have some other sources? Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Afghanistan

Afghan president Hamid Karzai backs Russia's annexation of Crimea. Sławek Borewicz (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

more sources. Sławek Borewicz (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Iraq

Iraq calls to respect Ukrainian sovereignty. I don't know this source. Pls check it. Sławek Borewicz (talk) 08:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Uruguay

Look at svg version. Sławek Borewicz (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Switzerland

It looks like Switzerland should be updated. The Wall Street Journal: The Swiss government condemned the Russian annexation of Crimea. I think use of word annexation mean 'Condemnation of Russian actions as a military intervention or invasion'.--Kartman Erik (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I dont think that "The Swiss government calls on all sides to seek a political solution to the conflict and respect the human rights of all the minorities, without discrimination on the grounds of race, sex, language or religion," mean this, title is always excessive. For me this doesnt even mean Support for Ukrainian territorial integrity, maybe it should be yellow, because only calling for peaceful resolution. Or you have some other sources? Jirka.h23 (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

First line of the article posted by Erik above: "The Swiss government condemned the Russian annexation of Crimea in a statement Wednesday". I'd color it the same as Ireland, unless we have something calling it an invasion. --Yalens (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It is not a title, its a quote of Swiss Federal Council. Here is another article with quote:
It has condemned the breaches of national and international law that have taken place such as the referendum of 16 March 2014, which it considers to have been in violation of the Ukrainian constitution and therefore illegal. Furthermore, Russia’s annexation of Crimea contravenes international law and the principle of the territorial integrity of states in particular. With this action, which also runs counter to the Helsinki Final Act, Russia has violated its international obligations under several bilateral and multilateral treaties.--Kartman Erik (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

GA UN Resolution

So, that's time for massive map update: Camshot of results.--Kartman Erik (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

So, I have done some recolouring actions. Default recolouring:

Gray or Statements only voicing concern or hope for peaceful resolution to the conflict + positive voting => Support for Ukrainian territorial integrity.

Negative voting => 'Support for Russian actions and/or condemnation of the Ukrainian interim government'

There are some special cases:

Not found on the map: Kiribati, Samoa.

In accordance to the speach some countried got 'Condemnation of Russian actions': Liechtenstein, Costa Rica, Guatemala.

Some countries that were previously gray and abstained in voting got Statements only voicing concern or hope for peaceful resolution to the conflict as result of their speach: Uruguay, El Salvador, Botswana, Paraguay.

Belarus voted against resolution but according to the speach in was coloured as Statements only voicing concern or hope for peaceful resolution to the conflict.

Sri Lanka abstained from the voting, so was reverted to Recognition of Russian and other interests of the conflict.

Kartman Erik (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

As per UN resolution

The following countries should be changed to Ireland's color, as they explicitly condemned Russian actions in supporting the UN resolution (if that's how we're gonna do it): (see chart at 1:07 here- http://www.nytimes.com/news/minute/2014/03/28/times-minute-crimea-transitions/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0)
Currently gray: Libya, Peru.--Yalens (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC) Currently not dark enough cyan (should be same color as Ireland and Uzbekistan): Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Benin, Bhutan, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Colombia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Guinea, Honduras, Iceland, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia, Monaco, Niger, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Qatar, Samoa, San Marino, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Thailand, FYRMacedonia, Togo, Tunisia.--Yalens (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• It's important to see the text of this resolution. We should choose between support of integrity and condemption of Russian actions on the base of this resolution. I haven't found this text, and here I found reinterpretation. But I see only notes about support of integrity. So, i'm not sure what colour would be better to put. See my announcement above.--Kartman Erik (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

As per your link, the resolution calls Russia's annexation "illegal", that's what many of the statements said to, and condemnation is the pretty widespread reading of it, by the headlines and all. I suppose we could discuss this though- UN resolutions are often very implicit and diplomatically worded. In any case, Libya and Peru should be fixed- as should Armenia, which supported Russia. --Yalens (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)