Talk:Sino-Soviet border conflict

message: I think there is a problem using the name Damansky Island in the title of this article. The Chinese have another name for it, and this title therefore appears to take the Soviet side in who owns the island. Perhaps Soviet-Chinese Border Conflict, 1969 would be better. Also the article should note the Chinese name of the island (which I have forgotten). Adam 01:25, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I was using the Russian name because the island belongs to Russia.  If it had been a Chinese island, I would have used corresponding Chinese name (which I also have forgotten).  I do agree, however, that this name should be mentioned in the article.  In any case, feel free to make appropriate changes to make the article less POV or move it under the new name altogether.--Ezhiki 01:47, May 18, 2004 (UTC)
Does China now recognise Russian sovereignty over Damansky Island? If that is so, then that is the name we should use, though not in the title. The Chinese name was Chen-Bao Island. Adam 02:03, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

text: The island was transferred to China per May 19, 1991 border demarcation, so, it turns out that I should really be checking the facts before engaging in an argument, eh?  Oh well, happens to the best of us, I guess...  Anyway, the demarcation addressed the fact that the Ussuri River fairway changed over the years in such a way that the island was now on the Chinese part of the river (per previous agreements the border was established along the fairway).  If you can move (as opposed to merely cutting and pasting) the article under a new name, which would not include the "Damansky island" part, please, do so.  Thanks for the heads up.--Ezhiki 13:42, May 18, 2004 (UTC)
June 2, 2005, related news:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-06/02/content_3037975.htm  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.107.47.109 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 2 June 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Unless i'm wrong but China did not have Nuclear weapons at this point in history, it was only the US and Soviet Russia. In fact it was Soviet Russia's  refusal to help it develop nuclear weapons that contributed to Sino-Soviet split. Perhaps whoever wrote this article should cite evidence for this or revise the article before i do as i wuldnt want to step on any1's toes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanolinsecam (talk • contribs) 16:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Chinese had tested fission-only nuclear weapons beginning in 1964.  China detonated Test No. 6, a full-scale, deliverable three-stage thermonuclear homb, in 1967.  While China didn't have nuclear parity with the Soviets, they did have both fission and thermonuclear weapons in 1968. loupgarous (talk) 01:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  nuclear weapons?? 

message: I've heard during that conflict Russians used some kind of laser contraption to "evaporate" Chinese soldiers. It was around 1968 or 1969. Doxent 11:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sound pretty out reached.  Lasers that evaporate people?  Even now the best hardware I have heard of can only blind people.  Yongke 04:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Regarding "Even now the best hardware I have heard of can only blind people." That is currently incorrect. The military has been testing lasers to shoot down missiles, for at least a decade now. These lasers do this by heating the missile until the casing, usually a metal, melts, causing them to either fall apart, or more usually explode when the missile's burning propellant is released from confinement within the missile's casing. While these laser can not, and probably will not in my lifetime, "vaporize" people, they could give certainly them a severe and probably lethal burn.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlg666666 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: First military laser use

message: Well, it look like casualty figures were provided by the Soviet.  Consider it was in the 60th, it is reasonable to say the numbers were stretched at the least, after all Soviet was pretty big on Propaganda at that time.  Does anyone have a more neutral source at all? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yongke (talk • contribs) 05:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK, the only choices in the Zhengbao Island affair are the Soviets or the Chinese. The one time I saw a Chinese claim with numbers, it was 250 Soviets to 150 Chinese IIRC. Kazuaki Shimazaki 15:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The numbers of Soviet casualties are probably from Krivosheev (http://www.soldat.ru/doc/casualties/book/chapter6.html#6_11) - or at least Krivosheev claims the same numbers. Krivosheev's work was released in early 1990s. Since the USSR was no more at that time, it's doubtful that those numbers are propaganda. On a side note, while the Damanskiy affair claimed 58 killed and 94 wounded, there was another incident, of a much smaller scale, at lake Zhalanashkol (Жаланашколь) in Kazakhstan, which claimed the lives of 2 Soviet border guards (further 10 were wounded). This incident happened August 13, 1969. With respect, Ko Soi IX 22:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualty Figures 

message: Shouldn't the name of the page be the "Russian-Sino border conflicts" or "China-Russia border conflicts" instead? Slleong (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to "Russian-Sino border conflicts" page? 

message: what is the purpose of the map that does not even show the border?--dunnhaupt (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Border

message: How China could claim victory if they were unable to take control of the islands? Or did they stated that they did not intend to do so?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.111.133.79 (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that both sides claimed the island was under their control at the time of the agreement. There was no clear winner about the conflict.--207.112.90.79 (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  both sides claimed victory? 

message: editor 65.112.214.6 deleted the following contents:
"The Chinese claim to have suffered only a few casualties, far less than Soviet losses. The Zhenbao Island martyrs' cemetery, which was built in March, 1969, located southeast to Baoqing county, hosts tombs of 68 PLA members who died in the conflict, including 5 who were credited as "battle heros" by the Central Military Committee of China, see reference <1>. "
And his reason given is "Deleted due to bias, poor writing, and lack of proper supporting citation to an authoritative and trustworthy source; inconsistent with quality standards of Wikipedia."
----
1st. The deleted contents were written by at least two editors, while I wrote the contents starting from the second sentence.
2nd. I expect editor 65.112.214.6 to explicitly explain which part of the deleted article can be considered as bias. It merely said what the situasion in the Zhenbao Island maytyr's cemetory is, and the part I wrote was based on contents in the reference, see comparison:
烈士陵园始建于1969年3月
The Zhenbao Island martyrs' cemetery, which was built in March, 1969
位于宝清县城东南部 
located southeast to Baoqing county,
有被中央军委命名为"战斗英雄称号"的孙征民、杨林、陈绍光、王庆荣、于庆阳烈士的墓碑，还有在珍宝岛战斗中牺牲的其他63位烈士的墓碑。
hosts tombs of 68 PLA members who died in the conflict, including 5 who were credited as "battle heros" by the Central Military Committee of China
3rd. About poor writing, if editor 65.112.214.6 meant the grammar, I would welcome you to correct the mistakes, but not delete the entire section because of grammar.
4th. I agree that the reference is not fully in accordance to the Wikipedia standards, but it is acceptable due to the following reasons:
No.1, no official figure regarding the casualties in the conflict has ever been released, much like the Sino-Vietnamese border war; that means, PEOPLE WILL NEVER FIND A REFERENCE THAT TOTALLY MEETS THE WIKIPEDIA STANDARDS. If you insist that only such a reference can be used, then I am afraid we have to leave a blank here.
No.2 the original reference is an online news service, who can not benefit at all from frabricating a "fakke" fatality figure. The report was written in July 3rd, 2005, and it was merely a piece of news article telling background stories. There is no motivation for it to make fake.
Given these, I have reinstalled the deleted contents. We can discuss this if you still do not agree.
221.218.71.162 (talk) 14:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:   65.112.214.6's questioning? 

message: As far as I know soviet casualties are right but chinese look somewhat too small.
They still have a lot of propoganda-for example take their "museum of warriors glory", or how they call it.
The real number of chinese casualties is near/more than a 1000 given their poor equipment and tactics.
Also when the reinforcements came russians used reactive artillery-soviet "grads" which eliminated nearly all of the chinese forces.
I understand that an article must be neutral but why there is no mentioning of russian/soviet heroism as there were only
100+ soviet board guards fighting one batallion and two companys of PLA until the reinforcements arrival?
I ll state the sources later.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.146.236.4 (talk) 11:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Poor tactics? The Chinese have always been masters of guerrilla warfare. This is a known fact and their infantry dealt the Soviets some heavy losses despite being at a technological and firepower disadvantage. Read the book Formidable Enemies and you will learn that they outperformed American infantry in the Korea war. They are masters of ambushes and especially raids. Their human wave tactics have been overstated. They use what is called triangle tactics.Don Brunett (talk) 09:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  mistakes in numbers? 

message: Hey guys how can there be 105-200 russian casualties when ther were only 64 border guards fighting?Heres the list of all russian casualties:
List of soldiers killed in action on 2 March 1969.
1 frontier of 57-th border detachment
 Sergeant Ермолюк Виктор Михайлович. 
  -- Private Коржуков Виктор Харитонович. 
  -- Private Ветрич Иван Романович. 
  -- Private Гаврилов Виктор Илларионович. 
  -- Private Змеев Алексей Петрович. 
  -- Private Изотов Владимир Алексеевич. 
  -- Private Ионин Александр Филимонович. 
  -- Private Сырцев Алексей Николаевич. 
  -- Private Насретдинов Исламгали Султангалеевич (died on 15 of March). 
   
2 frontier of 57-th border detachment
Senior lieutenant Стрельников Иван Иванович. 
  -- Sergeant Дергач Николай Тимофеевич. 
  -- Corporal Давыденко Геннадий Михайлович. 
  -- Private Денисенко Анатолий Григорьевич. 
  -- Private Данилин Владимир Николаевич. 
  -- Private Егупов Виктор Иванович. 
  -- Private Золотарев Валентин Григорьевич. 
  -- Private Исаков Вячеслав Петрович. 
  -- Junior lieutenant Колодкин Николай Иванович. 
  -- Private Каменчук Григорий Александрович. 
  -- Private Киселев Гавриил Георгиевич. 
  -- Private Кузнецев Алексей Нифантьевич. 
  -- Junior sergeant Лобода Михаил Андреевич. 
  -- Corporal Михайлов Евгений Константинович. 
  -- Private Нечай Сергей Алексеевич. 
  -- Private Овчинников Геннадий Сергеевич. 
  -- Private Пасюта Александр Иванович. 
  -- Private Петров Николай Николаевич. 
  -- Sergeant Рабович Владимир Никитич. 
  -- Private Шестаков Александр Федорович. 
  -- Private Шушарин Владимир Михайлович. 
  -- Corporal Акулов Павел Андреевич. 
  -- Senior lieutenant Буйневич Николай Михайлович. 
  -- Colonel Демократ Владимирович Леонов 
  -- senior lieutenant Лев Маньковский 
List of soldiers of MSD DVO killed in action on March 15
  -- Junior sergeant Владимир Викторович Орехов 
  -- Private Александр Васильевич Бедарев 
  -- Private Алексей Алексеевич Кузьмин 
  -- Junior sergeant Анатолий Власов 
  -- Private Александр Гельвих 
  -- Sergeant Виктор Карамзин 
  -- Private Сергей Колтаков 
  -- Private Владимир Потапов 
  -- Private Владимир Штойко   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.167.108.205 (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Russian casualties

message: The article needs to mention the soviet KGB support for East Turkestan Independence Movement, both military and propaganda.
The soviet formation of uyghur nationalism and history
http://books.google.com/books?id=8FVsWq31MtMC&pg=PA208#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=NKCU3BdeBbEC&pg=PA38#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=NKCU3BdeBbEC&pg=PA39#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=NKCU3BdeBbEC&pg=PA40#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=NKCU3BdeBbEC&pg=PA41#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=IAs9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA188#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=dM9BAAAAYAAJ&q=inauthor:%22Rais+Abdulkhakovich+Tuzmukhamedov%22&dq=inauthor:%22Rais+Abdulkhakovich+Tuzmukhamedov%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_VrFULiZE6uz0QHHvoH4Cg&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ
Clashes in Xinjiang
http://books.google.com/books?id=mXXnd81uoMoC&pg=PA240#v=onepage&q&f=false
KGB Agent Victor Louis (journalist) wrote a book about his support for Uyghur, Mongol and Tibetan separatists, he encouraged the Soviet Union to try to wage war against China to allegedly "free" those nationalities from China's rule
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZavAkGUNdSkC&pg=PA175#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=cEdQ1IuJFH4C&pg=PA172#v=onepage&q&f=false
During the Ili Rebellion
http://books.google.com/books?id=IAs9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA178#v=onepage&q&f=false russian participation in the rebellion
http://books.google.com/books?id=IAs9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA185#v=onepage&q&f=false Ishaq Beg commanded GPU against Ma zhongying along with white russian polinov
http://books.google.com/books?id=IAs9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA188#v=onepage&q&f=false cyrillic writing soviet admission of support for east turkestan republic
Rajmaan (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet support for East Turkestan Separatists and border clashes in Xinjiang 

message: There is an inconsistency between the sidebar and the article on the number of Soviet deaths. On the sidebar it claims 59 deaths, while in the article it claims that 59 Soviets were killed initially and later the tank commander was killed. Tweisbach (talk) 01:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There does seem to be a discrepancy there. Unfortunately the linked source seems to be dead, giving me a 404 not found error. An additional source needs to be found to clarify this data. Rincewind42 (talk) 06:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: More than a year later this issue has not been fixed. It is why I came to the talk page. Guess I will put tags on it. Also it says Soviet troops tried to recover the T62 tank on March 17 and 21 but were repelled, but also that the Chinese left the island on March 15. How did they repel the Soviets if they left a week earlier? Very confusing. Memento Morty (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been just more than 1 year. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct. More than a year. Memento Morty (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet deaths - inconsistent 

message: Based on the dictionary meanings, I'm not certain that this has the meaning of 'Zhenbao Island incident'. The meaning appears to be roughly 'Zhenbao Island self-defence counterattack war'. Also, perhaps an inclusion of the Russian name for the conflict would be useful?
--Korikisulda (talk) 14:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "珍宝岛自卫反击战" Translation 

message: The source you provided did not mention Soviet won a tactical victory at all ! No where in the source mentioned that. However, it does mentioned that Russia later on ceded half of the island to China, and the border agreement resulted in China's favor !  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.167.71.30 (talk) 16:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The source you provided did not mention Soviet won a tatical victory at all ! No where in the source mentioned that. However, it does mentioned that Russia later on ceded half of the island to China, and the border agreement resulted in China's favor ! 

message: China was granted control over Tarabarov Island (Yinlong Island) and approximately 50% of Bolshoy Ussuriysky Island (Heixiazi Island) near Khabarovsk.http://www.ibiblio.org/chinesehistory/contents/03pol/c04s05.html#1969%20Border%20Conflict  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.167.71.30 (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You are only producing OR and POV that china won tactical and strategic victory while the two given sources "Kuisong p.29" "The Chinese People's Liberation Army since 1949 by Benjamin Lai" doesn't say that or anything about who won the conflict, while a did added a wp:rs  clearly saying soviets won the border conflict (one more source ), you removed the source on spurious ground, which is not acceptable. Soviet controlled the island   till both coutry's leaders held meeting in late 1969, agreeing to maintain status quo. . Spartacus! (talk) 04:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sino-Soviet border conflict was a strategic victory for China. Because Russia later regonized the border and granted those area to China. Adding source. 

message: Under the section "Border conflict of 1969" and sub-section "Eastern border", the text read "The Soviets sent four then-secret T-62 tanks to attack the Chinese patrols on the island from the other side of the river.".
The sole reference cited for the paragraph in which this sentence occurs is in Chinese and I cannot read it to confirm the source said the T-62 was secret in 1969.  Our article T-62 makes no allusion to the tank being secret (although it had advanced features unknown to the West until T-62s were captured during the Yom Kippur War). This tank was produced from 1961 to 1975, so it would have been available not only to Soviet troops but to numerous foreign countries such as Egypt, and even Israel (which had captured hundreds of T-62s and deployed them as the "Tiran-3" and "Tiran-6").  The whole idea of T-62s being secret weapons in 1969 is questionable and requires better sourcing.
Under WP:BOLD I deleted the words "then-secret" as that description of T-62 tanks in the year 1969 requires better source material (preferably, a secondary source in English). loupgarous (talk) 03:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "four then-secret T-62 tanks"?  

message: The text in this article under the heading "Border negotiations in the 1990s and beyond":
"Border Negotiations in the 1990s
Serious border demarcation negotiations did not occur until shortly before the end of the Soviet Union in 1991. In particular, both sides agree that Damansky/ Zhenbao Island belongs to China. (Both sides claimed the island was under their control at the time of the agreement.) On October 17, 1995 an agreement over the last 54 km stretch of the border was reached, but the question of control over three islands in the Amur and Argun rivers was left to be settled. In a border agreement between Russia and China, signed on 14 October 2004, that dispute was finally resolved. In the agreement, China was granted control over Tarabarov Island (Yinlong Island) and approximately 50% of Bolshoy Ussuriysky Island (Heixiazi Island) near Khabarovsk. China's Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ratified this agreement on April 27, 2005 with the Russian Duma following suit on May 20, 2005. The transfer was finalized on June 2, 2005, when the agreement was signed by Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing and Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov.
cited as its source a Chinese-language article in  xinhuanet according to our article's reflist. That citation doesn't direct the reader to a particular article, but to a page shwwing more recent articles in a magazine-like format. Searching the English-language portion of that xinhuanet did not yield any matches for the article name given in our article's reference list.  
In short, xinhuanet appears to be a primarily foreign-language periodical web site in which the article cited for this text is not easy to find for non-Chinese speakers.  In short, it has many of the same issues as sputnik.ru that reduce its value as a reliable and verifiable source for statements in wikipedia articles. 
The text in question is also a word-for-word copy of a block of text from "Exploring Chinese History - Soviet Aggression - Border negotiation in the 1990s This is a copyrighted Web site ("Copyright 1998-2016 Richard R. Wertz" is at the bottom of the page). 
We have to 
:(a) decide whether this article by the late Richard R. Wertz, whose name comes up several times in Google as the author of scholarly articles about China, and at least once as author of a reference in our own article "Record of Xuan He Era Tribute Tea in Bei Yuan District" on a topic in Chinese historical research, is a better source for this material that the current citation (despite the appearance of possible plagiarism), and
:(b) consider whether to paraphrase the material to avoid the possibility of exceeding fair use of copyrighted material. 
If I was able, just surfing, to discover this, another reader might, as well.  This is our chance to fix this before the next reader finds it. loupgarous (talk) 05:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut-and-Pasted Block of Text from "Exploring Chinese History" in This Article, With a Problematic Citation 

message: I recently removed a lot of seeming vandalism from this article, but this is really not my area and I'm not sure I got it all, or that the remaining content is legit. I reverted nearly every change made since August 31, 2021. I'd appreciate it if an expert in this topic could take a look. Thank you, Jessicapierce (talk) 14:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent vandalism - expert needed 

message: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Sino-Soviet_Border_Agreement#Relation_to_Taiwanese_mainland_claim
After 1969 china control zhenbao island de facto Russia History classes (talk) 07:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That is debatable. There are sources that mention that both sides had no forces on the island immediately after the armed confrontation and it effectively became a no man's land.  There are different opinions on when it became de facto Chinese either - some sources mention September 1969 talks, some talk about 1991 agreement. The point is that there are no definite proofs that Chinese took it as a result of the actual combat. That's why it says "Indecisive; both sides claim victory" and not "Chinese victory" or "Soviet victory". DestructibleTimes (talk) 10:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2021 

message: References to videos from YT must be replaced with Reliable Sources.50.111.48.23 (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Youtube is not an RS 

message: when reading this on wikipedia app on Android, all citations pointing to Lüthe come up with an error message "sfn error: no target: CITEREFLüthi2012". All others seem to function. I have no idea what that means but thought giving a heads-up is in order so someone can fix it. 84.215.194.30 (talk) 12:17, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  error in citations for Lüthe 

message: In the infobox section titled Casualties and losses it states Soviet sources: 58 killed 95 wounded and then later says Soviet sources: 800 killed.  Also the Chinese and Soviet sources are switched to the wrong column.  Dream Focus 11:49, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I have fixed here now. Editorkamran (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties and losses mistake 

message: Was the us a supporter of china in this conflict? i remember that as the cold war went on, china became more and more pro US so there is a chance the us supported china in this conflict. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Supported only after 1971. Editorkamran (talk) 14:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: kk Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: "Result" is obviously the most contested line in the whole article. I still think "Indecisive" is most appropriate here as it is strange to see one "victors" to surrender their claims on land but in the same time there is little evidence that other "victors" have taken the aforementioned land as a direct result of actual combat and not as a result of the later diplomatic resolution. The Damansky (Zhenbao) island case is especially notorious because the island is very small and close enough to both river's banks for both sides to easily thwart other side's attempts to land on it, thus effectively turning the island into no man's land until it was effectively transferred to China. The problem is that I don't know sources that state it directly but I have no doubts that that is exactly what happened because I see no other way to reconcile Chinese and Soviet versions. DestructibleTimes (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes the sources support "victory" in favor of USSR. Editorkamran (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

text: @Crows Yang, it would be very nice if you leave some constructive input on this issue here.  DestructibleTimes (talk) 09:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Screw u, like a said, I've provided reliable sources and you treat them as "unneutral" cuz they were against your personal preference. I'll keep an eye on the edition, don't even think about putting me out of the game with your silly actions. You changed it, I change it back... Crows Yang (talk) 10:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Result 

message: "On the other hand, China was able to deter the Soviet Union due to China's non-nuclear military capabilities, yet it was the Soviets nuclear advantage that caused Mao to fear full-scale conflict."
This statement obviously doesn't satisfy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view criterias "Avoid stating opinions as facts" and "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.". Deterring somebody from something implies that one wanted to do something in first place which is not really a proven fact. Please rewrite this statement to make it satisfy these criterias. DestructibleTimes (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved this statement to the Aftermath section. I also rewrote it to make it look like an opinion (which it is). Please, let me know if you have any questions about it. DestructibleTimes (talk) 09:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  China was able to deter the Soviet Union