File talk:International reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg

Territories

@Chubit: I don't think territories should be visible, unless you're going to color them the same color as their main government. --Semsûrî (對話) 12:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Greenland

Is part of Denmark, and so should be colored as Denmark. 2A02:A03F:8B4D:8800:FD38:193F:6E0C:3AA2 17:47, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

3 countries neutral

@Semsûrî: , Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan have become neutral. --Firdavs Kulolov (對話) 09:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

We need a source. --Semsûrî (對話) 09:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Semsûrî, Brazil said they will remain neutral. Can you update this? Thanks. 122.170.22.65 03:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Timor-Leste

@Semsûrî: Timor-Leste is one of 87 countries condemn Russia's invasion of Ukraine at the UN. [1] [2] --minhhuy ^(talk) 17:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Timor-Leste wasn't mentioned in the official text. --Semsûrî (對話) 17:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Brazil

Brazil voted to condemn Russia in the UNSC, but now Bolsonaro says they won't condemn Russia in the General Assembly vote. Should its colour be changed to "neutral"? --Deinocheirus (對話) 03:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Deinocheirus I raised this issue just above. See File_talk:International_reactions_to_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine.svg#3_countries neutral. It should be changed to 'neutral' since the president has the authority over foreign matters in Brazil. 122.170.22.65 04:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Lets just wait and see how they vote in the UNGA vote. Is that fine? Semsûrî (對話) 09:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

No. The president of Brazil has the highest authority over foreign matters in that country. They should be marked as neutral. User:Pandakekok9 what do you think? 122.170.22.65 12:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I say we change depending on what happens. So Brazil voted to condemn the invasion at SC, mark that as cyan. Then Bolsonaro says the country won't condemn Russia at the GA. Change that to orange. If Brazil votes YES in the GA, then change it back to cyan. Abstain? Change to yellow. Votes NO? Keep it orange. Only change from that point to the respective color if Bolsonaro contradicts the GA vote, unless we get local consensus that this map should be about the UNGA vote first. pandakekok9 14:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

User:pandakekok9 can you change it given Bolsonaro's statement? Brazil is a huge nation and as such impact is big (at least on map). Make it yellow for now as also suggested by User:Deinocheirus. 122.170.22.65 15:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree to wait for the vote. In several hours there is going to be more clarity. Deinocheirus (對話) 15:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Well, nothing actually changed. Brazil voted for the resulution at the UNGA as well, so keep it blue. --Deinocheirus (對話) 00:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Sudan, Kyrgyzstan, and Central African Republic

Sudan: The Deputy Head of the Sovereign Council Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo stated: "Russia has the right to act in the interests of its citizens and protect its people. It has the right under the constitution and under the law. The whole world must realize that it has the right to defend its people"

Kyrgyzstan: Kyrgyz President Sadyr Japarov stated: “Perhaps it was a necessary measure to protect the peaceful population of the territories of Donbass, where a large number of Russian citizens live. I would like to point out that it is the sovereign right of any country to recognize a state."

Central African Republic: President Faustin-Archange Touadéra stated on RIA Novosti news “I believe that this decision will undoubtedly save lives and prevent a lot of violence. According to our analysis, this decision aims to save people’s lives. This decision is supported by many because it aims to avoid violence and the loss of human lives.” — 以上未簽名的留言是由該使用者加入的： Fenetrejones (留言 • 貢獻) 15:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Fenetrejones (對話) 15:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The CAR statement about Luhandk/Donetsk is from before the invasion and Sudan rebuked Dagalo's statements[3]. --Semsûrî (對話) 17:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Pacific

The map has Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu in blue, but I haven't actually found any statement by those governments condemning Russia's invasion of Ukraine. (By contrast with Australia, Fiji, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, New Zealand and Palau who have all done so.) Aridd (對話) 12:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

PNG sponsored the UN bill, but Vanuatu and the Solomons should be gray. --Semsûrî (對話) 14:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Bolivia, Yes or no??

In a historical fact, the government led by Luis Arce has turned to a formal agenda, where due to the last UN meeting, it was decided to vote against Russia and in favor of Ukraine in this latest geopolitical conflict. (wink, wink. Probably he is going to borrow some money, to sustain his economic model and receive more public budget for benefit through free market). I understand if you are still neutral because of the position taken by the ""governing party"" MAS-IPSP and its coca grower leader Evo Morales (his friend, Maximiliano Davila, has a price of about $5 million from the DEA) Papucrak (對話) 23:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Kosovo

Republic of Kosovo is shown as part of Serbia on the map which is wrong. The government of Kosovo adopted sanctions against Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.22.42.5 (talk) 09:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Myanmar and Afghanistan should get dashes

Myanmar and Afghanistan should get dashed shading that marks both stances. like this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Reacció_al_cop_d%27estat_de_Myanmar_de_2021.svg

Afghanistan:Blue and Grey Myanmar:Red and Blue — 以上未簽名的留言是由該使用者加入的： Fenetrejones (留言 • 貢獻) 17:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Fenetrejones (對話) 17:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree even if I can’t change the picture. Torukmato (對話) 22:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@User:BlackShadowG, can you please update it to be that? Fenetrejones (對話) 18:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fenetrejones: Could you please provide some sources? According to the English Wikipedia, Afghanistan only maintained a neutral stance. --BlackShadowG (對話) 14:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

he spokesperson for Myanmar's State Administration Council, Zaw Min Tun, supported Russia's decision, stating that "Russia was acting to protect its sovereignty" and praised Russia's role in "balancing global power"

https://www.irrawaddy.com/news/burma/myanmar-regime-backs-russias-invasion-of-ukraine.html

The UN Government which is not the Junta, voted to condemn Russia.

so the colors for that country should be dashed both orange and blue Fenetrejones (對話) 17:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

South Africa is explicitly neutral

So as not to keep rewriting the same things, please see the discussions here and here for sources. (Regrettably in my opinion) South Africa is maintaining an explicitly neutral stance. Francoisdjvr (對話) 17:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree it should be changed per the very recent UNGA vote that happened recently per table here. 27.57.171.32 18:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah seems pretty clear. Honestly though it might be better to replace the current map with a map of the UN Emergency General Assembly vote or at least use that as a base for categories. Øln (對話) 21:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Deinocheirus, User:Semsûrî, User:Pandakekok9 where are you guys? Can you do the edit suggested above?122.170.148.24 12:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Done I guess. Thanks! 122.170.148.24 17:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Presumption of Neutrality

To simplify the map, I think it may be reasonable to replace the countries shaded as unknown with neutral because if they haven't given a clear leaning, surely that's the definition of neutrality (although I understand showing them as unknown is itself a neutral depiction for Wikipedia). Something comparable is the UN General Assembly vote, where it's for/against/abstain, which could be used as a point of reference for the change; the difference being this map highlights belligerents. — Bacon Noodles (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I vehemently disagree with the the above proposal, but I may be having a conceptual misunderstanding. I will try to explain. "Unknown" means that us Wikimedia Commons/Wikipedia editors do not have the information or data point about a given country's position on this issue. "Neutral" means that some data or source has been collected which has indicated that a given nation has stated its position that it neither condemns the invasion nor believes the invasion is justifiable. That is a beautful level of clarity and distinction which it would be a mistake to erase on the basis that "if they haven't given a clear leaning, surely that's the definition of neutrality". This is similar to the difference between saying of a person they are a theist, an atheist, an agnostic (in the commonly understood sense of "neutral" on God) or that we do not know which position they are in. For instance, the North Sentinel Island people are a religious unknown (I presume). They will be one of the three positions, but we just don't know what they are. Hence in my mind, this is an absolutely wonderful map because it tells which nations are affirmatively saying they are neutral, and which we don't have information about their position. This "unknown" status may be due to Wikipedia editor research paucity, due to a government's policy of maintaining opaqueness on the question, or due to unawareness of the issues or lack of formation of an opinion in the governments of those nations. But we cannot assume active neutrality or assume they are not taking a position (passively assumed neutrality), because they may be taking a position that we don't have a source for. The answer may just be truly "unknown"- not "philosophically unknowable", but just "unknown to Wikipedia atm". Do the Sentinelese believe in God? They either do or don't or 'are neutral on the question' (there is some philosophical issue with whether you can be an actual neutral). But we here on Wikipedia do not have a source to make the determination about the Sentinelese. It is an "unknown". --Geographyinitiative (對話) 18:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam

How are Thailand and Cambodia "opposed" but Vietnam "neutral"? They all seemed to say both sides should resort to dialogues and deescalate tension. None explicitly criticized Russia.Jmouritz127 (對話) 00:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Thailand and Cambodia voted in favor of Resolution ES-11/1, so they officially condemned the invasion. BrightRaven (對話) 14:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Serbia

Hi. Serbia recognized itself as neutral in this conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2001:738:811:8FF3:C956:200E:40E:F0B6 (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

President Vucic condemned the invasion (see [4]) and Serbia voted in favor of Resolution ES-11/1. BrightRaven (對話) 12:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Addition of countries as 'support' outside UN votes

Taiwan is supporting Ukraine, and also not a part of China Jjfans (對話) 14:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Taiwan changed to blue. Jirka.h23 (對話) 12:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jirka.h23Your edit has been reverted because in that version the color of TW is right and PRC is still maintaining a neutral stance. SD hehua (對話) 13:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

My edit is sourced by the Voice of America (VOA).1 Chinese Foreign Minister warns US over Russia’s ‘legitimate security concerns’. China also criticized sanctions against Russia, and said it understands Russia's 'security concerns' regarding NATO's eastward expansion. Therefore, the image is now colored correctly, there are other changes as well. Jirka.h23 (對話) 14:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

But the official stance by PRC is neutral. SD hehua (對話) 14:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

According to the VOA, is it right. If someone say that he is neutral, at the same time the other thing is not excluded. Jirka.h23 (對話) 15:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I think VOA usually spread the stance of American Government so maybe it is not neutral.

And what I mean is PRC only want to criticize the action of the US,but not support Russia to invade Ukraine.China has also provided necessary help(humanitarian relief) to Ukraine. SD hehua (對話) 15:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this map does not mention support, but criticism. Also, there is another map for humanitarian aid in category Commons.Jirka.h23 (對話) 15:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

There is also another problem:In the VOA source,TW was also marked as supporting Russia. SD hehua (對話) 15:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

This is Chinese official stance: https://www.mfa.gov.cn/web/wjbzhd/202202/t20220226_10645790.shtml SD hehua (對話) 15:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

En version:https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/wjdt_665385/wshd_665389/202202/t20220226_10645855.html SD hehua (對話) 15:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I think Chinese government wants to express their neutral stance to the invasion. SD hehua (對話) 16:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I do agree with Taiwan, everything can change over time if it is properly sourced. Although we do not have to agree with this position, China blames NATO expansion and sanctions, any change would be possible, if it will issue a statement that this is no longer valid. BTW, China's neutral stance is also expressed on the maps with the UN statements.Jirka.h23 (對話) 18:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

But Chinese Spokespersons express "China’s position and statement on the Ukraine issue is completely objective, just and constructive. We have a clear goal, that is, to deescalate the situation and put an end to the conflict as soon as possible. We believe China’s position will receive understanding and support from more and more countries." on 3.15 https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/xwfw_665399/s2510_665401/202203/t20220315_10651967.html SD hehua (對話) 22:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean by"BTW, China's neutral stance is also expressed on the maps with the UN statements"? SD hehua (對話) 23:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

China never "blamed the invasion on Ukraine or NATO provocation".If you found the official source,please give that to me. SD hehua (對話) 23:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

It is also in your first En version. UN statements I mean these: 1 2. Anyway, my edit is sourced.Jirka.h23 (對話) 12:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The statement just said China voted abstention in the UN.This vote cannot prove China support Russia.If you think that can prove,you should also mark India as orange.But that is not the same as the fact. SD hehua (對話) 13:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I think my edit is sourced too. SD hehua (對話) 13:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

No, I do not mean that it supports Russia, but that the neutrality is expressed by abstention in the UN in these maps. Anyway, this is correctly sourced by VOA and Chinese government. Also both UN voting and humanitarian aid maps are correct. You can create a map with countries that support Russia or Ukraine, but that would be a different matter. Jirka.h23 (對話) 16:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

So What do you mean? SD hehua (對話) 23:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

cc @Kethyga and Ericliu1912: who reverted to previous version. Also even we are not Wikipedia, I think we should follow Wikipedia policy en:WP:OR and en:WP:RS. Thanks. SCP-2000 03:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I did. VOA stands for USA gov. At least, its viewpoinrt is not suitable to represent the whole world, or single source. Kethyga (對話) 03:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know, maybe another category with a different color could be the solution, countries that were neutral in the UN and which also fall into the orange category.Jirka.h23 (對話) 06:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jirka.h23 By the way, if the map come's from VOA, it should cleary show that it's VOA's view. However, We can't see any mark which show that it comes from VOA. Kethyga (對話) 10:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

also cc @AltendoYT: SD hehua (對話) 07:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I do not think VOA as a government agency is suitable for citing in this case. This is a picture showing the official position of countries themselves, not what the United States think of them. And also, Myanmar (and Afghanistan) has two governments with different position, so it is ridiculous to unilaterally mark it (them) as orange. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 09:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

These states did not take positions regarding the conflict, and also did not speak out or took the position of not supporting both sides.

https://eurasianet.org/azerbaijan-tries-to-balance-between-ukraine-and-russia https://eurasianet.org/armenia-keeping-head-down-as-war-in-ukraine-rages https://thediplomat.com/2022/03/how-ukraine-could-remake-kazakhstans-relationship-with-russia/ — 以上未簽名的留言是由該使用者加入的： Malikvinogradoff (留言 • 貢獻) 09:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Seeing the position of Kazakhstan, I almost got a heart attack. The authorities of Kazakhstan did not make any accusations against NATO and did not draw any conclusions. Position is neutral. The same goes for blaming Ukraine and supporting Russia in the conflict. - "The Kazakh foreign ministry has stressed its neutrality in the conflict..." (https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220306-russia-ally-kazakhstan-permits-large-pro-ukraine-rally-amid-sanctions-fears) (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/02/central-asian-countries-now-have-two-big-worries-about-russia) — 以上未簽名的留言是由該使用者加入的： Fomuta (留言 • 貢獻) 21:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

SD hehua and User:Kethyga Can you guys remove China, Kazakhstan, and Iran as support or restore to last stable version? To debunk Jirka.h23, this is the actual table that needs to be followed. To say that China is supporting Russia is misleading since China's controlled bank has also sanctioned China and Belarus.[5] Kazakshstan has banned Z symbol of Russia from appearing on cars.[6] If Jirka.h23 really wants to engage in ORIGINAL RESEARCH then he won't win in that department as well because there is enough evidence that China and Kazakhstan are not supportive of Russia. I also ping User:Semsûrî and User:Pandakekok9 to join in reverting back to stable version. We must not add countries outside the UN voting results. It would be outright original research and pretty baseless too. 122.170.74.176 10:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

not a good picture

1, From the picture, most viewers may think that China support the invasion. It's clearly wrong. China should be neutral, just like India.

2, VOA stands for US government. It can be used as a third-party/reliable viewpoint in this picture. By the way, US is still sanctioning China. Wikipedia should not stands for VOA or any govs.

3, China has alwarys stated that Russia-Ukraine should come together and negotiate for a peaceful result. Just like someone has posted above[7].

4, This Bloomberg piece says "China ‘deplores’ outbreak of conflict, calls for resolution". [8]

5、This's PRC's president's recent statement "State-to-state relations cannot advance to the stage of confrontation, and conflicts and confrontations are not in the interests of anyone".[9][10]. Whether you like or not, China's status is much more complicated than a orange color, at least it has not thought about a war.--Kethyga (對話) 00:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it should be reverted to the previous one. Kethyga (對話) 12:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

This is true. See my reply to this concern above. This is the version that needs to be restored. 122.170.74.176 12:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

 支持 SD hehua (對話) 12:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

 支持. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 19:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

China status

Hi, China status is ambiguous, and will certainly stay that way. May be we need an other color? Regards, Yann (對話) 12:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, maybe yellow? People are here confusing the UN resolution and other things. UN statements are here: 1, 2. Another category with a different color could be the solution, countries that were neutral in the UN and which also fall into the orange category.Jirka.h23 (對話) 15:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that we should just stick to the OFFICIAL position of state governments instead of trying to "research" the issue ourselves, that's better suited for another picture. The more important issue now is how are we going to color countries with 1. multiple governments and 2. them having different opinions on the issue. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 20:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

If you are taking about PRC and Taiwan, it is really not useful nor reasonable to consider them as one country (specially when their opinions differ). There are de facto for the last 70 years two countries with two governments, whatever the PRC tries to make you believe. Yann (對話) 21:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

He probably mean Myanmar and Afghanistan. Anyway, basically he proposes to copy the map with the UN vote, but here is something else shown, why to have two identical maps?Jirka.h23 (對話) 23:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I did NOT intend to copy the map straight from UN voting results. In fact it should be the opposite, since Afghanistan and Myanmar both vote in UN in favor of condemning Russia, but their respective parallel governments do not think so. Stripes should be a good choice, but I really don't know how to draw those things on a map. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 12:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

No, I'm not talking about those two Chinas. I do not consider it as a valid question today. (BTW, why would I believe what the communists say?) —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 12:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

On China's stance, I believe it should be dashed. While it's clearly neutral in the conflict (supporting a peaceful resolution to the conflict, abstained on the UN resolution, stated it won't give military aid to Russia, etc.), it did blame the invasion on NATO, so both apply. [11][12] Daydreamers (對話) 00:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Dashed color is not possible in svg. We can only change those countries to another color (like yellow). Jirka.h23 (對話) 13:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I suggest we have a discussion and reach some sort of consensus before changing the picture right away. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 07:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, Jirka.h23's version is a good compromise. Yann (對話) 08:07, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Yann, Eric Liu can you keep Afghanistan and Kazakhastan grey? They haven't blamed it on NATO and Kazakhastan has refused to help Belarus and Russia evade sanctions.[13] Abhishek0831996 (對話) 12:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

You see, that's really not a solution that can be implemented without discussion. But I don't want to have an edit conflict with an administrator, I am scare of you blocking me, so I'm not gonna revert that seriously mediocre change to the picture. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 12:42, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

@Jirka.h23: Well, I found out that stripes are actually possible. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 15:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, they are possible. I'll happily do it if there is consensus to implement this solution. M.Bitton (對話) 15:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, May be we can have a vote to see what's the best solution:

1. China in gray;
2. China in yellow/dashed;
3. China, Afghanistan and Kazakhastan in yellow/dashed;
4. Other options?

Thanks, Yann (對話) 20:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Also we can upload test or demo versions on File:International reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine - testing.svg to avoid unnecessary reverts. Yann (對話) 20:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think anyone was against China to be dashed, and three are for. Similar to Afghanistan and Myanmar. Kyrgyzstan should be orange.1 I am not sure what is the position of Kazakhstan, I know only about VOA source, otherwise was neutral?.Jirka.h23 (對話) 22:25, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

So after two weeks, the image was updated.Jirka.h23 (對話) 09:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, there is view to D. Kuleba by Xinhua News Agency, in April 30.(http://www.news.cn/world/2022-04/30/c_1128610853.htm) In this view, Kuleba thanked the aids from Chinese government."我对王毅部长关于支持乌克兰主权和领土完整、愿通过外交努力推动停战等表态表示感谢。也感谢中国红十字会提供价值500万人民币的人道主义援助，感谢中国政府表示愿继续提供帮助。我们的确非常需要这些帮助。借此机会，我请中方继续提供支持。I would like to express my gratitude to Minister Wang Yi for his remarks on supporting Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity and his willingness to push for an armistice through diplomatic efforts. I also thank the Red Cross Society of China for providing humanitarian assistance worth 5 million yuan, and the Chinese government for expressing its willingness to continue to provide assistance. We really need this help very much. I take this opportunity to ask China to continue to provide support." If Chinese Gov. support Russia, would D. Kuleba say so? So I support that China in gray. Not only de jure, but also de facto, China is nature in the 2022 Russia-Ukraine War.--超级核潜艇 (對話) 09:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

超级核潜艇, again, this is not about if Chinese Gov. support Russia. Although I do not share this view, I agree with what showed User:Daydreamers and others, that China did blame the invasion on NATO provocation, and that what is this image showing. You don't question this, do you? Jirka.h23 (對話) 18:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Jirka.h23, hello. 1. Well, "this is not about if Chinese Gov. support Russia"--But this is about if Chinese Gov. support Ukraine. China provided humanitarian assistance worth 5 million yuan, this is a fact, isn't it? So how abaout painting China as light blue? LOL(half-joke saying). And also, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi keeps talking with Ukraine Foreign Minister Kuleba. So, I think China still treated Ukraine naturally.

2. You said "China did blame the invasion on NATO provocation". Is this a fact? Chinese Gov stated her view, "在北约连续五轮东扩情况下，俄罗斯在安全方面的正当诉求理应得到重视和妥善解决。(Under the circumstance of five consecutive rounds of NATO's eastward expansion, Russia's legitimate security demands should be taken seriously and properly addressed.)" Ref: https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/web/wjdt_674879/wjbxw_674885/202202/t20220226_10645790.shtml In this statement, NATO's eastward expansion is not blamed but stated as a backround.

3. Maybe, there are some error between Chinese statement and western media. I advise you should both reading original statement and global reports(not only VOA, BBC, et al.) 超级核潜艇 (對話) 02:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

超级核潜艇, um, I don't know if I understand you, so you don't argue that China is criticizing NATO in this regard? The world media must be taken seriously in this context and CNN etc. are not blocked here in any way. Many countries around the world provide humanitarian aid, but that is a different picture. What you say about Kuleba is irrelevant, as is what Russia or Ukraine says, because they are a direct participant of the conflict. Even in your fmprc.gov.cn source, they says that Russia's legitimate demands and security concerns expand NATO eastward should be taken seriously and properly addressed. As war breaks out in Europe, China blames the US, China blames NATO for pushing Russia to 'breaking point' over Ukraine and warns US not to 'undermine its interests' in handling the Ukraine war, China blames US, NATO growth for Ukraine war, Why China thinks the West is to blame for Russia's war in Ukraine, China Fires Back at NATO Over Russia-Ukraine War Criticism. I'm waiting for your answer so we can finally work it out.Jirka.h23 (對話) 11:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

After four days, you do not question these quality sources, so I updated the picture.Jirka.h23 (對話) 13:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

How about make a new colour (for example, white or green) for China? "Countries that maintained a neutral stance, but balme on NATO provocation", and the orange colour "Countries that have blamed the invasion on Ukraine or NATO provocation" change to "Countries that have blamed the invasion on Ukraine or supporting Russia". I recognize that Chinese status is really special so a new color should be applied. On the one hand, China blamed NATO; on the other hand, China keeps neutual between Russia and Ukraine, for example voted Abstain in United Nations, and even providing humanitarian assistance worth 5 million to Ukraine.--超级核潜艇 (對話) 08:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I think maybe the version by Yann in Apr9 is a good version.--超级核潜艇 (對話) 08:19, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

No problem, different color or stripes, we agreed on that too, it doesn't matter.Jirka.h23 (對話) 19:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Eric Liu, is there anything you don't agree with? Do you prefer dashed China rather than full color? Jirka.h23 (對話) 13:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, and another request. Do you think yellow color with the word "Countries that have maintained a neutral stance and have blamed the invasion on Ukraine or NATO provocation" should delete "Ukraine"? Because it is impossible that a country keep neutral and blame on Ukraine at the same time. It is contradictory. 超级核潜艇 (對話) 06:01, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think we can remove it. It was previously used to the Voice of America source, but we don't have to rely only on that one source.Jirka.h23 (對話) 13:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@Jirka.h23, 超级核潜艇, Ericliu1912, and Yann: Since there are different interpretation of China government position, I would like to recommend that use silver color (i.e. #C0C0C0) in China, and also change the definition of silver color from "Unknown" to "Unknown / Unclassified" for clarify. The detailed position can be explained in articles. It is a compromise instead of the final version. Consensus can change. We can still discuss what is the best way on interpret their position. Thanks. SCP-2000 16:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok, let's summarize it. SCP-2000 would use solid color, but I don't agree with silver color, an unknown position really means something else. I am not against solid color, but I'd rather use stripes (no changes on individual websites). As well as according to the answers Daydreamers and Eric Liu, Yann and 超级核潜艇 would prefer solid color. So it looks like so far 3:3, unless someone changes his mind.Jirka.h23 (對話) 20:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion. I simply try to find a solution acceptable for all. Thanks, Yann (對話) 20:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Um, but you put your opinion at the beginning of this topic, that we may need an other color, and later that my version is a good compromise. Does that mean you wouldn't mind the stripes?Jirka.h23 (對話) 21:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

In that case, it would be 3:2 or 4:3, so the variant with stripes prevails so far.Jirka.h23 (對話) 13:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@Jirka.h23: I understand your concern. Maybe we can create a new color which means "Unclassified", and use it in China? While there are some opinions against stripes (per file history), I would like to find a compromise, so that most of us can agree with it and the consensus can be formed. SCP-2000 17:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, I agree that China need a special color because of her special atitude to the war (keep natural between Russia and Ukraine, provide humanitarian assistance to Ukraine, but blame NATO explansion), but rather than "unclassified", I think noting Chinese atitude directly is better -- just like the description of yellow -- it is more clear. 超级核潜艇 (對話) 12:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

If the full color wins, then we can open a discussion about its form. Anyway, for now I disagree with "Unclassified", I do not see any reason to be only China unclassified and it is too similar to unknown. I also do not see any opinions against the stripes, only reverts, thats why we are looking to find a consensus. The stripes now prevails, so it could stay that way and we can unprotect the image. Anyway, after this vote is over, you can open a new request.Jirka.h23 (對話) 20:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

China should be orange now. It is now giving military aid to Russia and is trying to stop military aid from getting to Ukraine, both by stopping shipments of weapons and Ukraine dropping theirs, so that Ukraine would be defenseless so that Russia can invade them so that China can invade Taiwan. AltendoYT (對話)

Another solution

Hi, Another solution would be to have several different files. So local projects can choose which one to use. We often use this when there are several opinions on one image. Yann (對話) 11:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean?Jirka.h23 (對話) 06:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

We can have File:International reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (v1).svg and File:International reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (v2).svg. Yann (對話) 13:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

If so, what should the opinions for the two separate pictures respectively be? —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 12:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't know, it doesn't seem very logical to me, both should be well-sourced. Jirka.h23 (對話) 13:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I opposed several different files. Rather than different files, maybe new colours for countries with complex status is a better solution.--超级核潜艇 (對話) 08:01, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Kosovo?

Do we need to divide Kosovo and Serbia? --BlackShadowG (對話) 13:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@BlackShadowG: If they have a different opinion on the issue, then the answer would be yes. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 16:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Kosovo is sufficient recognized, and has a different opinion than Serbia. Yann (對話) 16:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

In fact, both Serbia and Kosovo condemned the invasion, so both of they should in blue even if we divide them. BTW, the protection is too long. BlackShadowG (對話) 05:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Protected

Hi, I reprotected this file. Too much edit-warring. Get a consensus first. Yann (對話) 13:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Mali and Zimbabwe can go to support Russia

Mali https://www.ibtimes.com/these-6-countries-vote-against-un-resolution-demanding-russia-withdraw-troops-ukraine-3671333 Zimbabwe https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/11/15/un-calls-for-russia-to-pay-reparations-how-did-countries-vote Fenetrejones (對話) 00:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

@AltendoYT Fenetrejones (對話) 17:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Kyrgyzstan’s Position

Why is Kyrgyzstan colored orange? It has never blamed the war on Ukraine or “NATO provocation”, it simply has a neutral position on this issue. It should be colored dark gray, in my opinion.

https://interfax.com/newsroom/top-stories/74369/ Maximations (對話) 10:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/02/central-asian-countries-now-have-two-big-worries-about-russia/ :"In Kyrgyzstan, however, President Sadyr Japarov commented that the invasion may have been necessary "to protect the peaceful population of the territories of Donbas." That prompted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to recall Ukraine’s ambassador to Kyrgyzstan to protest the country’s statement "justifying the aggression against Ukraine."" BlackShadowG (對話) 15:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you please add Burkina Faso on supporting Russia?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_and_intergovernmental_reactions_to_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine

https://sputniknews.lat/20230729/rusia-considera-importante-el-desarrollo-de-los-lazos-con-burkina-faso-1142065330.html 184.185.243.237 04:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

New stances

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_and_intergovernmental_reactions_to_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Africa

burundi-Neutral burkina Faso-pro Russia 2600:8807:BA07:E400:E930:4D40:C12D:491A 16:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)