Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Kyrgyz mercenaries?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

RFE/RL: "many Kyrgyz citizens -- in Russia as migrant workers -- have voluntarily joined the Russian military as contractors in return for money or fast-tracked Russian citizenship." https://www.rferl.org/a/kyrgyzstan-russia-invasion-ukraine-fighting/31795637.html

---

Երևանցի ^talk 12:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Contract soldiers serving in the regular Russian military to gain Russian citizenship. Almost the same as non-US citizens serving in the U.S. Military so they could gain US citizenship. So not mercenaries. EkoGraf (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Foreign contract soldiers in regular/official armies are ordinary thing. Such troops are not mercenaries (see definition of mercenary in Geneva Convention). Alex Spade (talk) 00:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 April 2022

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

1. (minor edit) Error in the lead: "in an internationally condemned an act of aggression". The "an" before "act of aggression" needs to be removed.

2. Additionally, I think the lead should say the persons, groups, or states who consider this an act of aggression. According to the sources given, this would be the United Nations and the Council on Foreign Relations, who should be attributed in-text (In My Opinion).

Thanks -- QueenofBithynia (talk) 12:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Part #1 appears to have already been done. I actually agree with the "Oh the hilarity ensues" section; this should not be included in the opening sentence or lead whatsoever. Remove this from here but mention further on, as with other articles covering similar topics. QueenofBithynia (talk) 12:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Invitation to participate in article template discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Available here Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 April 9#Template:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox - DownTownRich (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC:)

This discussion has been closed 2-3 times by separate editors. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Equipment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is there any reliable data what heavy equipment is available to both sides? While there is considerable open source intelligence about confirmed equipment losses, it is obscure e.g. how many tanks participate in the invasion. I think the article would gain from that. --Rebentisch (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

The tank and infantry divisions are listed at the start of the Invasion section of the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ukrainian intelligence service denies sharing information of Chinese cyberattack, says they have no evidence of said attack

From the official Twitter account of the Security Service of Ukraine, translated: https://twitter.com/ServiceSsu/status/1509983294334582793

"The SBU did not provide the media with any official information that cyber-attacks from China were allegedly carried out on the eve of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine on our military and other resources. The SBU has nothing to do with the findings of The Times. The Security Service of Ukraine does not currently have such data and no investigation is underway."

Chokoladesu (talk) 12:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Anyone have any idea what we're supposed to do with this? EEng 10:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

  "Chinese military attackers were also alleged to have conducted a massive cyberwarfare espionage programme on the eve of the invasion, including on nuclear infrastructure, pointing to advanced Chinese knowledge." is written under section Prelude - Escalation.

  Since this was refuted by the Ukrainians themselves, this should be noted, or the sentence could be done away if other editors think it should. In addition, "pointing to advanced Chinese knowledge" is a clear WP:NPOV violation and needs to go.

  On a related note, some experts believe (not weasel-wording here) that actually China took the invasion by surprise. I think a section titled Chinese Reaction, regarding the Chinese reaction as well as standpoint on the invasion can expand on this interesting topic. Chokoladesu (talk) 11:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Use of the term "falsely accused"

I wrote this in my editsum, but whilst the RS does use the word "falsely accused" and the factual basis of the term is relatively well-established, the problem is that the term "falsely accused" is more partisan and accusatory than, for instance, "accused without basis". See WP:PARTISAN -

reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective.

The truth is that the language used seems, at least from a semantical standpoint, to be potentially problematic. Augend (drop a line) 17:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

In essence, we go with the language RS use. But without knowing what you are talking about its hard to say if the use of false is valid. Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm thinking here: "Russian president Vladimir Putin espoused irredentist views, questioned Ukraine's right to statehood, and falsely accused Ukraine of being dominated by neo-Nazis who persecute the Russian-speaking minority." As a side note I agree with the usage of "falsely accused" in this case. Alcibiades979 (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I understand your issue Augend and agree with you that the usage of the term "falsely accused" is problematic. In my opinion it goes against WP guidelines on balancing our language and keeping it neutral. Maybe note in the sentence who considers it as a false accusation, attribute it. EkoGraf (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion it goes against WP guidelines on balancing our language and keeping it neutral. What kind of WP guidelines are you talking about? Renat 10:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

While it is clear that RS almost universally concur that Putin is exaggerating in the extreme, "without basis" does not work because there is a lot of basis for conclusions which are similar to the ones he draws. It is not so much a lack of basis, there are heaps of evidence of unusually pronounced affinities for Nazism throughout the record of Ukraine's various social phenomena. It is just that Putin makes a wild leap from that basis to a conclusion, framed here as Nazi "dominance", which lacks a sufficent basis to support his extreme conclusion and remedies. It is confusing though to state "without basis" which may be technically correct regarding the Putin conclusions because there is nevertheless a lot of basis for relatively non-controversial conclusions which lead towards, but do not arrive, at Putin's endpoint conclusion. Therefore, while supporting the spirt of the proposal "without basis", I do not support the use of "without basis" as a way out of this conundrum. IMV. Wikidgood (talk) 06:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

The above in reply to . Alcibiades979 (talk) as to the edit in his link "I'm thinking..." As stated eslewhere, I believe the lede is problematized more by the inaccurate characterization of Putin's remarks as a problem of Nazi "dominance" than by the characterization of his words as false accusation, although I concur with EkoGraf and others that "falsely accused" fails WP:NPV and 'balance'. There are many accusations floating around which are not necessarily so clearly false, eg., that shelling by UNG into Donbass is excessive, that UNG units such as Azov violate HR conventions, that Russian language-speakers are unduly suppressed by the Ua legislation, that the Party of Regions has been subjected to bullying, that the Odessa fire incident was an outrage raising certain red flags, that the use of the wolfsangel in official regalia is suggestive of inappropriate Nazi affinities, that some of the territorial acquisitions @ Galicia were suspect in the inception, etc etc.

None of these are universally regarded as "false", and they all could be woven together in a general theory of creeping Naziism afflicting Ukraine, which a significant plurality of commentators may believe. (I don't, by the way.) The point is that "falsely accused Ukraine of being dominated by neo-Nazis" is just not a great piece of writing, it looks like writing-by-committee and we may be stuck with it.

If there is a way out, IMO, it would be to start with revisions that state more precisely it is that Putin does and does not say. We can then more readily determine the proper way to qualify his contentions. That would require quite a bit of thought, and, even if someone devoted some time to reformulation of that phrase, there would then be the task of winning support/consensus. It is not unlikely then that there debate will just continue around how to qualify what I believe to be the flawed subject of the qualifier. Thus is the nature of collective encyclopeiation, alas. Wikidgood (talk) 06:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I totally agree. Anyone who reads the article, or listens to the news, knows that Putin is lying every time he opens his mouth. However, using a finger-pointing term like "falsely" to hammer home the point here is both redundant and unencyclopaedic. But, there's already been a similar discussion some while back, and the outcome was to keep the term, so good luck with trying to get it removed or changed HieronymousCrowley (talk) 08:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

However, using a finger-pointing term like "falsely" to hammer home the point here is both redundant and unencyclopaedic. Why do you think so? And what is your policy based argument? Renat 10:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree with User:Augend. I think the use of "falsely" is biased and non-nuetral. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 10:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

So you're adding your support to Augend? EEng 13:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment It is one thing to be quoting a source (directly or indirectly using non-neutral terms, it is quite another to be writing in non-neutral terms in WP's voice. The lead is a summary of the body. We might state that the allegations are false in the summary if this represents the consensus of opinion in good quality, independent reliable sources. Even then, we should (probably) not be saying this in a WP voice. The body of the text should be showing us that there is such a consensus to show that the allegation can be considered false. We are putting the "falsely accused" in a WP voice before the cart ... analysts have described Putin's rhetoric as greatly exaggerating the influence .... Of the two news sources cited to support this, one doesn't appear to be referring to the opinion of anybody particularly and the second refers to a representatives of an American expatriate Ukranian organisation, an American Jewish organisation and a former American ambassador to Russia. I think that the description of "analysts" is being a little free with the truth. Now, I'm not saying that the allegations are true but it does appear to me that we are probably being a little free with what should be said in a WP voice and WP:NPOV. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

As a reminder, WP:NPOV does not mean we must be kind or take a middle-ground stance. It means we must report according to what the sources say. In this case, all reliable sources are unanimous that this is a false accusation. There are no reliable sources that say otherwise. This is exactly the time to use wikivoice. Fieari (talk) 04:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I have not said that we couldn't use WP voice but that we haven't gone about things the right way by which we could use WP voice. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

As said above, even though they are considered RS by Wikipedia, they are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective, so this has to be taken into account. Agree with Cinderella157, a right way needs to be found to convey the information in WP's voice. EkoGraf (talk) 09:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I guess I have an issue with giving credence in the lede to a conspiracy theory that is currently being used to justify a war. Multiple RS's refer to these allegations as false. I'd also take it a step further and say that I think extra caution needs to be taken in this instance since the accusation is that one of the world's two Jewish heads of state is actually a nazi who is committing genocide against Christians. This is clearly extremely problematic, and the accusation is deeply anti-semitic. Putin's accusation itself is a text book example of WP:NAZI: "That Jews are the true perpetrators of Nazism, or hold an ideology that is worse or morally equivalent." As far as reliable sources go:

• NewYorkTimes: "Neo-Nazis have been a recurring character in Russian propaganda campaigns for years, used to falsely justify military action against Ukraine in what Russian officials have called “denazification.”"
• CBS: "Putin built a false premise for a war against "Nazis" in Ukraine"
• CNN: "The false accusations of Nazism and genocide from Putin and his aides against the Zelensky government have drawn outrage."
• NBC: "Putin has long sought to falsely paint Ukraine as a Nazi hotbed, which is a particularly jarring accusation given that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is Jewish and lost three family members in the Holocaust."
• WallStreetJournal: "The references to Nazi Germany come against the backdrop of Russia falsely alleging that the Ukrainian government is run by neo-Nazis and that one of the aims of its war is to “de-Nazify” the country"
• Politico: "Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who is Jewish himself and whom Russian President Vladimir Putin has cynically and falsely called a Nazi"

This is what the sources say, and what is in common usage, and for good reason. Alcibiades979 (talk) 10:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Nobody here is advocating for the truth of Putin's statements, nor do we support the use of these mistruths in the advancement of an aggressive and damaging warmaking policy. That said, I also do not believe Wikipedia ought to be used for sending political messaging; the outrageous nature of the comments is not justification for our supposed burden to right great wrongs. Augend (drop a line) 15:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Calling false accusations false is not political messaging; it is a factual statement, and being mealy-mouthed about it would be false balance. To quote our policy on NPOV: we...describe these ideas in their proper context concerning established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world. The proper context of these accusations is that they're false, which you don't dispute, and it's not a NPOV violation to describe them as such. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Let me rephrase. The logic behind @Alcibiades979's post implies that the nefarious nature of the commentary somehow emburdens us to emphasize the lack of truthfulness or otherwise highlight the falsehood of the commentary. This is not true. Whatever the purpose of Putin's comments are, we are not obligated to act any differently because of them.

Within the context of WP:IMPARTIAL, [t]he tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Forgive my pedantry, but the use of the term here is explicitly rejecting a point-of-view. Now- while the existing terminology "falsely accused" may be fine within the current context, the question ought to be framed more so as whether an alternate phrasing may be better. I am of the opinion that the use of a more neutral term, incorporating such language as "without evidence" or "without basis" would be more suitable. Augend (drop a line) 16:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:IMPARTIAL is incorrect in this instance specifically because WP:NPOV refers specifically to reliable sources. Vladimir Putin is not a reliable source on nazism in general, or nazism in Ukraine in particular, nor is it credible to state that he is. We have a number of Reliable Sources in this thread, all of which refer to the claims as being false, in fact I chose the sources I did because they mirror the article's terminology almost exactly: "false accusations". As far as I can tell there is no debate that the accusations are false. We should follow the Reliable Sources. What's more is that we as edittors are not "neutral", in the sense that we give false balance, rather, we are neutral in our reporting and representation of Reliable Sources, which may lead to what maybe construed as "not neutral content" there is nothing wrong with this as long as we are fairly representing the Reliable Sources, which we are. In short, there's no WP:OR there's no going out on a limb, the article is just following Reliable Sources to the letter. For instance with the Gleiwitz incident the article simply states that it was a false flag attack, not that "Germany invaded Poland because it claimed that Poland attacked a german radio tower." Alcibiades979 (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Breaking this down...

Vladimir Putin is not a reliable source on nazism in general, or nazism in Ukraine in particular - nobody said he is. I'm pretty sure nobody in this thread has ever claimed Putin's words have any truth value. That said, I am challenging the wording because it (a) provides, at least, the presentation of an NPOV violation & (b) may or may not be a leap of encyclopedic register. For instance, can you give me a single difference between my suggested wording and the extant wording? Why must we use the word "falsely" exactly?

We should follow the Reliable Sources - "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective" - we do not, and indeed, probably should not, follow RS' semantics choices verbatim.

For instance with the Gleiwitz incident the article simply states that it was a false flag attack, not that "Germany invaded Poland because it claimed that Poland attacked a german radio tower." - yes, but the term false in that context is a false flag (a well-established term) - it alone is an incomplete clause. It would obviously be appropriate for use in that context. If you are suggesting we call Russia's invasion a false-flag, that is a separate discussion.

Finally, there is considerable historical consensus based on a wealth and breadth of knowledge on the topic since WWII - unlike this situation, where this is still a considerable degree of uncertainty (if anything, just because of how vaguely worded the subsequent clause is and the relative novelty of the entire phenomenon). Hence I do not believe it would be problematic to err on the side of caution (see [a]). Augend (drop a line) 05:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

"unlike this situation, where this is still a considerable degree of uncertainty" Where is the uncertainty? Where are the sources that state then that the Ukrainian government is dominated by nazis? I found and listed a number of sources stating that the accusation is false. Do you have sources that say that Volodomyr Zelenskyy is a nazi? Otherwise to me it is exactly the same as the Gleiwitz incident, and if we get rid of the exact phrasing and just allow it to be RSs that refute the statement that Ukraine is a neo-nazi state then I can easily produce dozens of RSs which state that it is false. The middle ground is that the jewish president of Ukraine is not a nazi, that his government is not nazi and that he's not perpetrating genocide; that is the middle of the road NPOV statement. Alcibiades979 (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

OK how about "incorrectly accused", is that better? We reflct what RS say, so we can't imply this is not incorrect or false.. Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Do we have RS that use "incorrectly"? Renat 10:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• FYI, this was already discussed at Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 8#NPOV in the lead section? Putin "falsely" accused Ukraine of being dominated by Nazis. I'm generally very cautious about Wikipedia using judgemental terms in wikivoice, and have argued very strongly against this where I feel the sources are more cautious/hedged than our article voice. However, in this case I think "falsely" is clearly vindicated by the sources (as Alcibiades979 helpfully shows above). As it's factually true (Putin's claim is baseless and described as false) I think there's no need to qualify, attribute or water down this wording. In the previous discussion I also noted that MOS:WEASEL encourages editors to use their discretion with potentially opinion-sounding terms in the lead and in topic sentences at the start of paragraphs, as sometimes words which sound opinionated best and most accurately reflect the sources which are later expounded on the article body/following sentences, which I believe is that case here. That said, I didn't particularly mind Augend's suggested wording "without basis" – but I think the rationale for change, that there's a neutrality issue, is wrong. Jr8825 • Talk 11:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  "We will seek to demilitarise and denazify Ukraine" is not a factual statement which can be assessed in terms of true or false, but a declaration of intent hinting at regime change, plus an expressive statement aimed at escalating the conflict. Saying that it is "false" in the lead section is a way of taking a clear stance from the very start. Of course we should debunk false information, as we are now trying to do decently in the "Russian accusations and demands" section; and of course Ukraine is not run by fascists. But claiming that the statement "we come to wipe out the fascists" is false, without basis, etc., is just getting caught in the dumb talk of propaganda war. And yes, there are fascists on the ground in Ukraine, they’ve been responsible for atrocities, and yes the members of the Russian community may reasonably think that they’ve been subjected to systematic discrimination based on language and nationality. I think that our RS are much more reliable for facts than for value judgments. Echoing them doesn’t bring us closer to peace nor to truth. I’d remove the "falsely" adverb from the lead. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I also came here specifically to ask for the removal of falsely in this context. Falsely somewhat implies that there is certainty that those accusations are false. Accused itself, however, do not carry the connotation that the accusations are true. My suggestion is to use allegedly. ... accused Ukraine of being dominated by neo-Nazis who allegedly persecute the Russian-speaking minority. In this way, we still play down the possibility of persecution of Russian-speaking minorities, while do not dismiss whether some neo-Nazis are active in Ukraine right away. 88.243.148.71 (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

"Falsely somewhat implies that there is certainty that those accusations are false" – that's precisely why "false" is appropriate here. There is no reasonable doubt that Putin's accusation that Ukraine is run by Nazis committing genocide against Russian speakers is false. The sources are unanimous and express certainty. Jr8825 • Talk 13:09, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The problem with the sources is that they are all USA sources. Using the words of the press of a country heavily invested with one side verbatim is not constructive. Moreover, we have a seven paragraphs of Neo-Nazism#Ukraine and Racism_in_Ukraine mentions neo-Nazism three times. People who use wikipedia as their primary news source and who don't know anything about the conflict would probably think that there is no shred of evidence that there are any neo-Nazis in Ukraine, after reading this sentence. 88.243.148.71 (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Reliable Sources do not cease to be Reliable just because they are American. Fieari (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

If wikipedia is to copy the US media verbatim, we can redirect this page to New York Times and all of us can call it a day. Or, we can use allegedly which is only slightly less sure than falsely.176.89.106.252 (talk) 10:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with IP. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 10:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• The BBC: The claim of Nazis and genocide in Ukraine was also a fiction. [1]
• The Guardian: Putin’s claim that Russia is invading Ukraine to denazify it is therefore absurd on its face [2]
• Der Spiegel: Just as they now provided false pretexts for the invasion of Ukraine? [3]

This is not a US-exclusive phenomenon. To qualify this as anything less than false feels like false balance, at best. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I can find several BBC videos on short notice stating some neo-Nazi groups freely act on their own, totally above the law. At least one such video suggested that the previous ministry of interior, Avakov, is affiliated with such groups. So, stating "false accusation" implies that neo-Nazism has no place in Ukraine. We know that overwhelming majority of scholars do not believe neo-Nazism do not justify an invasion but stating that all neo-Nazi accusations are false is not something we should do here. It doesn't even make sense, considering the fact that just next to the "falsely accused", neo-Nazism in Ukraine and Russophobia are linked right there.

Also, about WP:NPOV and specifically about false balance, "the minority view" is assumed as the minority view among the western readers. The countries that abstained in the UN GA collectively hosts about half the world. Offering the Western media verbatim here is an indirect show of western supremacy.

I want to reiterate my suggestion: ... accused Ukraine of being dominated by neo-Nazis who allegedly persecute the Russian-speaking minority. This way, we do not comment on the accusations about neo-Nazis but we still play down whether these neo-Nazis prosecute Russian speaking minority. 88.243.148.71 (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, I think we are misusing NPOV and false balance. They are more applicable on issues that are exhaustively discussed on a scholarly level, such as Armenian Genocide. This is why WWII analogies do not work as well. Here, we use the language appropriate to use after a military tribunal, for an ongoing conflict. As things stand, someone who is sceptical about the mainstream western views on this conflict would not keep reading this article because he/she would think this article is western propaganda and why shouldn't they if we copy the western media verbatim? 88.243.148.71 (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

The actual claim as written in the article is Putin falsely accused Ukrainian society and government of being dominated by neo-Nazism. Your statement that " stating "false accusation" implies that neo-Nazism has no place in Ukraine" is nonsense; the article says or implies nothing of the sort. Your suggestion would have us leave the statement that Ukraine is "dominated by neo-Nazism" unchallenged, only qualifying the persecution bit. "Accuse without basis" and "falsely accuse" are two (somewhat-)reasonable ways to frame this, but your suggestion is a complete non-starter. (Also, glad to see the goalposts have moved from "US" to "western"; not particularly unexpected.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but the claim is wrong: Putin never said "Ukrainian society and government [are] dominated by neo-Nazim". This is a point I've raised in an earlier discussion with no avail, yet I think it's relevant. We have the full text translation of the 24 February address on Ukraine by Putin (which the Russian Federation also submitted to the UN as official justification of war). It is here (Bloomberg) and here (TASS). We also have en extensive excerpt in the New York Times, here. This is what he actually said about nazism, verbatim: "Focused on their own goals, the leading NATO countries are supporting the far-right nationalists and neo-Nazis in Ukraine"; "we will seek to demilitarise and denazify Ukraine"; "Your fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers did not fight the Nazi occupiers and did not defend our common Motherland to allow today’s neo-Nazis to seize power in Ukraine". These are declarations of intent, policy objectives, political judgments and predictive statements - not mere statements of fact, which could be true or false, like "Ukrainian society and government [are] dominated by neo-Nazim". This is a ridiculous statement which Putin never pronounced, and by labelling it as "false" we are getting trapped in war propaganda. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree. "Ukrainian society and government [is] dominated by neo-Nazism" is a fair interpretation of "Your fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers did not fight the Nazi occupiers and did not defend our common Motherland to allow today’s neo-Nazis to seize power in Ukraine". If this were clearly a predictive statement, as you seem to suggest, then that would be something like "tomorrow's neo-Nazis". The very next line is "You swore the oath of allegiance to the Ukrainian people and not to the junta, the people’s adversary which is plundering Ukraine and humiliating the Ukrainian people." That's present tense, not future. But more to the point, this is why we use secondary sources, rather than the primary source of the text of Putin's speech. And the secondary sources about this are pretty conclusive. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly.Gitz: "Putin never sai..." This struck me as creative writing and it sticks out like a sore thumb. Where did Putin ever use the term "доминирует" (dominated) to characterize his take on the neo-Nazism allegations regarding Ukraine. The encyclopedic requirement of reflecting RS should use the precise wording as the default and not reframe with connotations not in the original. Wikidgood (talk) 05:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Re: [your] statement that " stating "false accusation" implies that neo-Nazism has no place in Ukraine" is nonsense; the article says or implies nothing of the sort - I presume you are referring to the extant Wikipedia article? Clarification here. Augend (drop a line) 04:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps there's an alternate rationale for the change? Augend (drop a line) 04:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

There is academic consensus that Putin's claims about genocide, Nazism etc are false. See https://jewishjournal.com/news/worldwide/345515/statement-on-the-war-in-ukraine-by-scholars-of-genocide-nazism-and-world-war-ii/. The statement was signed by 309 scholars of genocide and Nazism. Summary of the statement is in the body of this article. See 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Russian accusations and demands. So the body supports the word "falsely" in the lead. Renat 10:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually, what the letter states is: This rhetoric is factually wrong, morally repugnant and deeply offensive ... Cinderella157 (talk) 11:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@Cinderella157 wait-wait. Forget the letter. It looks like we need to discuss this issue step by step. Let's start over. Do you agree that we have reliable, published sources that use the word "false" when they describe Putin's claims about genocide and Nazism in Ukraine? Renat 12:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

We have a lot of news sources expressing in their own voice the opinion that the claims are false. But per WP:NEWSORG, these sources are not a WP:RS for such opinion. Few of them give attributed comments and where they do, few of these attributed commentators rise to being "recognised experts". Whether the attributed comments of recognised experts explicitly describe the claims as "false" (and this is a consensus among them) is ultimately is a tenuous assertion. The attributed comments (as in the letter) tend to be more circumspect. The sources that are quoted in the body of the article that are intended to support the assertion of "false" are not, to my mind, particularly credible and paints the term "experts" with too broad a brush. WP is not a mirror of the opinions of the press. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:NEWSORG says "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." This part of the guideline talks about materials from https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/, https://www.nytimes.com/section/opinion, https://www.theguardian.com/uk/commentisfree , https://www.theage.com.au/opinion and https://www.aljazeera.com/opinion/. But in this case our content is supported by factual content, not opinion. And not only from news sources, but also from subject-matter experts. Renat 12:23, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author [emphasis added]. Per WP:RSPRIMARY, All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. WP:RSPRIMARY gives more cautions. We are lacking secondary sources on this issue. "Facts" are not opinion or conclusions and subject-matter experts must be attributed. But as I said, the news sources paint these with a broad brush. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:44, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

There's a bucket load of reliable secondary sources saying Putin's claim that Ukraine has a genocidal neo-Nazi government is false. I can't help feeling we're overanalysing/overcomplicating things here. It's an obviously false statement, we have many reliable sources emphasising its falsity and no sources dispute the fact that it's false - the only problem would be if we weren't conveying this situation appropriately. Jr8825 • Talk 13:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Assuming that the sourcing in the body of the article hasn't substantially changed since I last looked at it, then why aren't we using some of this bucket load of reliable secondary sources that say the claim is "false"? Cinderella157 (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Falsely is judgemental, it should just be "Putin accused Ukrainian society and government of being dominated by neo-Nazism and invaded." Or "The pretext of invasion was that the Ukrainian government is led by neo-Nazis and needs to be de-nazified", ect. RomanPope (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• Notification This discussion has been notified at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Use of the term "falsely accused" at Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  Still going on over there. EEng 01:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not certain if anything clearer has emerged there? Cinderella157 (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Funny how Wikipedia editors are all citing English-speaking, Western-propagandized news sources to call something “false”. If you do more research, using more academically acceptable sources for INTERNATIONAL POLITICS from different non-Western countries (definitely not biased news websites—BBC, The NY Times, and for God’s sake, Business Insider, seriously?) you will realize this is a DEBATABLE topic.

So yes, “falsely” is a biased word, coming from Western propaganda. Chiemvu (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

No, it is not. Nor is your assumption that a source is "biased" because it is from a Western news organ valid.50.111.59.42 (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, the BBC & NY Times are both considered generally reliable. There is no consensus on Business Insider. As for only the matter of the predominance of English sources, well this is English Wikipedia. I encourage you to be bold, fix it yourself, & add reliable sources that might be in other languages. Peaceray (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

'Russia admits ‘significant losses of troops’ in Ukraine'

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Source: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/4/8/we-have-significant-losses-and-its-a-huge-tragedy-kremlin

Please sign your posts on talk pages, using four tildes (~~~~), or clicking the signature icon on the edit toolbar. --Renat 12:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

One fifth of the total of Russian troops killed in the Ukraine were officers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

just a small typo

"killing a Russian prisoners": should be "killing a Russian prisoner" (no "s"). (The edit needs to be done by someone with sufficient rights) Thank You! --Sasha7272 (talk) 09:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Sources seem to say it was more than one. Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Resolved by removing the grammatically erroneous 'a'. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates § Russian cruiser Moskva

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates § Russian cruiser Moskva. Venkat TL (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Resolved

. This is now posted. Venkat TL (talk) 07:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 April 2022

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Change "news tha" to "news that

 Done. lol1VNIO^{[not Lol1VNIO]} (talk • contribs) 17:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Answered= — Preceding unsigned comment added by Club On a Sub 20 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Looting article

I think there has been enough coverage for a standalone article on the looting done during the invasion. I started a draft here: Looting during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Any help would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@Thriley: there is also some information and sources in War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Looting.--Staberinde (talk) 09:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Bulking down the article: Currently over 400Kb in size

This article page is so large it's daunting and it's continuing to grow. Reliable sources are stating to expect the second phase of the Invasion to start within two weeks now that the 'first phase' has come to a completion with Russian troops redeploying away from Kyiv. There are several sections which might be reconsidered as to the best place to keep them on Wikipedia and which sibling articles on Wikipedia might be the best place for moving them. One suggestion is to possibly split or re-allocate the "Legal implications" section with all its subsection to go fully into its sibling articles. All of the potential prosecutions will only take place after the Invasion is completed and it seems unlikely that any Military trials will take place at least until next year, and possibly later than that. For example, the "Nuremburg trials" only took place after the end of WWII, and they are treated as a separate subject. Also, its possible other editors have other suggestions for thinking about bulking down this very large article. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it's rather speculative to predict that prosecutions will only start after the invasion has finished. More significantly, there are multiple steps that are all significant: establishing the investigation (ICC), laying charges, issuing arrest warrants, and then the actual trials. There are no sources pointing to any military trials; there might be military trials, but those are a different topic, not yet documented in en.Wikipedia (military trials have the problem of lower standards of transparency, rights of the defence. There is also the legally innovative aspect of the ICJ regarding the crime of aggression, which ties the legal aspects very closely to the invasion itself.

For the moment, I would suggest first splitting off less central issues, such as Media depictions, Sanctions and ramifications and Reactions.

The Reactions section is really Reactions + Protests. Protests are a form of reaction, but make sense in their own article. Dropping Reactions/Protests to a brief summary here, and making sure any extra material here is integrated into the sub-articles, would seem quite doable. In principle, this is already done, but editors have a tendency to add material directly to the summary here, instead of first adding it to the content in the sub-articles, and then letting the summaries be updated if/when needed.

Of course, Legal implications will probably have to be split off too, with its own overview article, sooner or later. Boud (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Boud, If you could choose one or two of those less central issues which you mention, such as Media and Reactions, to integrate them into the sub-articles, then I would try to support your doing this on the main page in order to start to bulk down this article. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• I'm sure there's stuff that should be trimmed, but I continue to be astounded that, in this day and age, we're still hearing about raw source size as if it matters. EEng 10:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

  High-speed internet access is not universal, especially when there's a communication blockade imposed on a geographical region. And that's one of the reasons why war crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine after about 6 weeks have got much more Wikipedia coverage than war crimes in the Tigray War have got in 17 months. Efficient use of computational resources is still justified for many reasons. Boud (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. The size of wiki source (the 400K someone cited), the download size of the rendered page, and the length of readable text are completely different things, and only weakly related. If you're worried about download bandwidth then remove all the images, because even one of them uses more bandwidth than all the text put together. "Computational resources" are entirely on the Wikimedia Foundation's servers, and they have said over and over and over that we should not worry about that at all (see WP:PERF). EEng 21:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

  Ad hominem is not needed. If you have arguments and evidence, then presenting them would be sufficient, and more appropriate. Editors are one of the groups of people who use Wikipedia. I would be surprised if there were no significant correlation between the wiki source size, the rendered size and the length of readable text, apart from images. It's also not strictly true that the computational resources are all on the WMF servers' side: lightweight browsers will ignore images and javascript and minimise CPU usage, while heavy browsers can consume a lot of CPU and RAM locally. WP:PEIS has been a practical problem for a few COVID-19 pandemic pages; the main page hit that several times, if I remember correctly. There's no need to wait until we hit WP:PEIS here. Boud (talk) 00:23, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

  • I would be surprised if there were no significant correlation – I didn't say there's no significant correlation; I said the correlation is weak, and it is. (Significant doesn't mean strong.) Anyway, why waste time trying to reason from something irrelevant (wikisource size) when you could just talk about something relevant, or at least closer to what's relevant, which is word count? (Although, as noted elsewhere, people don't read from top to bottom anyway, so that's no all that relevant either. But at least it's better.)
  • apart from images ... lightweight browsers will ignore images and javascript and minimise CPU usage – Once you ignore those, you've cut bandwidth usage and cycles by 95%. People who need to do that will do that. Great! But that's not enough for you? You now want to cut the remaining 5% in half as well?
  • Editors are one of the groups of people who use Wikipedia – If by this you're suggesting that total source length might be a problem for someone editing: that's what section edits are for.
  • There's no need to wait until we hit WP:PEIS here – Yeah, actually, there is, because otherwise you're wasting time, and distorting article structure and content, in order to prevent something which (a) might not happen anyway, and (b) is easily handled when it happens.

  EEng 00:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• Wikipedia policy is to try to keep its articles to within a reasonable reading time. The current read time for the article takes over 45 minutes if a reader tries to do a top-to-bottom reading of the article as a whole, which is above expected article reading time length at Wikipedia. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

  In 20 years I'm not sure I've ever read a non-stub article from top to bottom. No one does. That's a very poor criterion. EEng 21:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• It would be a service to all readers to move the three or four largest sections to sub-articles and leave a succinct summary of each in this article. That way the reader can get an overview of the topic within a reasonable time reading top to bottom. If they want to dive in for more details about those sections, they can. In addition, bandwidth considerations are eternal. Many people are on slow or over-burdened networks. These are two good reasons. Anyone willing should just proceed. Jehochman ^Talk 17:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• Jehochman, Boud has already done the section on 'Reactions', and possibly you could try to do this for some of the remaining sections still to be done for the 'Media' section or for the 'Sanctions' section. Either or both of the section would bulk down the article significantly. Any thoughts? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• Boud, It looks like Jehochman is supporting your suggestion for doing all 3 sections of "Media", "Sanctions", and "Reactions", which I think means that he and I will support your going forward with the merges and deletions whenever its convenient for you. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
  • @ErnestKrause and Jehochman: I wasn't actually volunteering to do the work... Anyway, Reactions is done.  Done Feel free to double-check and clean up. General comments: NATO and EU reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine appears to be notable enough to be its own article, and will quite likely be worth either developing or merging into "X-Y relations" articles - after all, the result of the invasion will quite likely result in Ukraine being either formally in NATO or de facto in NATO with UA's proposed "security guarantees" from a few mostly NATO member states, and membership of the EU is now quite likely once the invasion is over; 2022 protests in Russian-occupied Ukraine was not mentioned here, despite the obvious significance of protests in RU-occupied parts of UA; there were quite a few bits of redundant info, but some non-redundant sentences; I took the summaries essentially from the individual sub-pages, so as not to override (or add too much to) summary work done in the individual pages.
    Extracting some of the more significant intergovernmental organisational reactions (suspension/exclusion/self-exclusion from the Council of Europe; suspension from UNHRC) would be justified restoring here briefly as some of the more notable reactions, but better first try doing summaries in the individual pages. Government and intergovernmental reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, based on its summary/WP:LEAD at the top and the first sections looks mostly like a long list of blabla rhetoric by politicians, and the institutional reactions of significance are hidden lower down. Being thrown out of an institution is more significant than having critical comments stated. Anyway, the split is done so summaries should be a bit easier to handle now. Boud (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• Boud, Support for the edits on splitting Reactions. I have started to expand on the lead section there. If you can look at the next one of the two remaining sections such as Media or Sanctions, then both Jehochman and I can continue to support, and I will offer to expand on the lead sections on any of the articles which you feel need to be split. That saved about 40Kb in downsizing the article which can be followed up by the other section splits which you have assessed above. Just ping me when the new lead sections need to be expanded. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• As EEng correctly said above, the whole 'page source size' metric is useless. As is the 'full reading time' one. And IME splitting tends to be a lazier solution to the real problem, which is a lot of trivia information that needs to be trimmed. Splitting out indiscriminately, including valuable info, isn't really a good solution, even if it may be faster. We did kinda well keeping readable prose size manageable earlier when I (and a few others) kept a focus on trimming extreneous info, but I'm guessing we've just stopped doing that as much recently. Should do that first before any splits. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:36, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
• Wikipedia policy does have several points to make about size here at WP:Size. Still, if you have trims which you can make to those two large sections which Boud has pointed out, then it might be a good time to do the trims you have suggested. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
• I'm not volunteering for the "Media" and "Sanction" sections - there's a lot of material to check - it's not nice to the people who made the effort to develop it to remove material without first checking if it would make sense as non-redundant material in the sub-articles. Anyone willing to have a go at trimming while respecting other editors' work should go ahead.
  Someone might like to check how many times WP:PEIS was hit for COVID-19 pandemic. When I was keeping an eye on it, that happened at least twice. The first time around, I wasted a lot of time trying to understand what had happened. The second time round, I had to search for my old notes and try to remember the WP:PEIS acronym. For a very high readership article, having an article with no references displayed (an effect of WP:PEIS) makes the article look like a "heard it on the internet somewhere" article to a big number of people. Waiting until WP:PEIS happens is not wise in terms of keeping up Wikipedia's reputation for well-sourced information. Boud (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I just saw that ErnestKrause has handled the Sanctions section... Boud (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I am already working on media for the information war article and volunteer for that section. Elinruby (talk) 07:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I did a trim for wordiness and paused to see if anyone has any objection to any of that. I am working with Mass media in Ukraine and Russian information war against Ukraine. Neither was created by me and each has its own problems, which I am trying to address. I could also add Mass media in Russia, as I have looked at that also and it also needs work. There is definitely some overlap in material. I guess this query should be its own section but for now, to get your attention, I will put it here. What information should I definitely leave in this article? I am thinking that the fact that most Russians AND most Ukrainians get their information from television is very important, and so is the censorship law in Russia. Probably other things too, but definitely that. The use of social media by the Ukrainian government and by younger demographics in both counties also matters. It is discussed at length in the information war article, but it likely should be expanded there and remain here as well. Thoughts? I am tied up RL all day but may be able to check in a couple of times and/or start a section to discuss this and some other thoughts I had. Elinruby (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Also note, the ownership of Ukrainian television networks isn’t mentioned here but it is notable and probably pertinent, still updating and fact checking that Elinruby (talk)

Elinruby, The trims are fine and it looks ready for the section splits and moves to the main articles for those subsections. Just leave a short 1-2 paragraph summary in this article when your done with that, maybe over of the next day or two if that's possible on your calendar. If I understand correctly, there should be no subsections left in that section as a whole and only the redirects and 1-2 paragraph summary when you are done. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause: That should be fine. My response to comments may be delayed by a few hours is all. I wouldn’t normally even note that, but this is a big, high-traffic article on a contentious topic. I have questions but will start a new section for them Elinruby (talk) 01:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Section Break 1

This is simply a section break to allow easier commenting, as the trimming for this article moves ahead. --Sm8900 (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Notice of group resource

I would like to invite any interested editors here to join the task force for Contemporary History. One of our core goals is to highlight and promote the coverage of contemporary history as its own distinct area here at Wikipedia.

We differ from a simple effort to cover current events, in that we seek to provide the editing community with resources that would allow it to provide broad and comprehensive coverage of articles on contemporary history as a broad topical field, rather than simply on individual current events as they may occur.

to that end, we have set up articles such as 2020s in political history, which allow the whole editing community to adopt a broad scope in keeping wikipedia updated with broad historical trends, topics and events, as they occur, but also as they become relevant to the field of history overall. I hope that sounds helpful and worthwhile to you. you are welcome to join us in any way, or to offer any input or ideas that you may wish. we welcome your input. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 13:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Putin's spokesman Peskov on Russian casualties

I think this needs to be included in the casualties-section. As far as I'm aware, it's the first more or less official statement by the Russian government on the casualties their military has suffered since the doubtful figures they put out on March 25. Full text in the video of the interview, short summary (from Sky): "Vladimir Putin's spokesman has admitted a "significant" loss of Russian troops since the invasion of Ukraine began, telling Sky News their deaths are a "tragedy"." Source: https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-putins-spokesman-denies-war-crimes-but-admits-significant-russian-losses-12584552. I see no reason not to include this statement. 82.176.221.176 (talk) 09:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

RIA Novosty losses

Source

Буча и концентрированное зло: последний аргумент против русских - РИА Новости, 05.04.2022 (archive.org) deleted link:ria.ru

Article Archive:

Буча и концентрированное зло: последний аргумент против русских - РИА Новости, 05.04.2022 (archive.org) http://web.archive.org/web/20220407222347/https://ria.ru/20220405/rusofobiya-1781778401.html

Losses 5 April

Per Russia (5 April): 1,500 soldiers killed,

Per the DPR and LNR (5 April): 1,500 soldiers killed

Translated Text:

More than twenty thousand people have already died in Ukraine - almost fifteen hundred of our military and about the same number of soldiers DNR and LNR, and under twenty thousand on the Ukrainian side (including about a thousand civilians). That is, this civil war, and it is a civil war, albeit in the form of a conflict between two states, is already costing us a lot of Russian blood (it is shedding on both sides). This is a real tragedy for the Russians. More than twenty thousand people have already died in Ukraine - almost one and a half thousand of our military and about the same number of soldiers of the DPR and LPR, and about twenty thousand from the Ukrainian side (including about a thousand civilians). That is, this civil war, and it is civil, albeit in the form of a conflict between two states, is already costing us a lot of Russian blood (it is she who is shed on both sides). This is a real tragedy for the Russians.

The BBC is reporting this as part of today's (7 April) news covering the UN expulsion of Russia from the Humanitarian committees, adding the casualty statistics here as [4]: "However, his (Peskov's) admission that Russia has suffered significant casualties is striking. On 25 March, Russia's Ministry of Defence said 1,351 of its soldiers had been killed in combat. Ukraine puts the Russian deaths at almost 19,000." ErnestKrause (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause 196.191.229.87 (talk) 09:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

There is a Casualties section in the article now which some editors are trying to maintain; the issue of discrepancies between Russian reports and Ukrainian reports is sometimes discussed under the topic of the fog-of-war. Current statistics of the casualties toll in Mariupol is in the tens of thousands for civilian casualties. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Expansion of NATO

Finland and Sweden have both declared that they intend to join NATO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 06:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I think we need to wait till they do. Slatersteven (talk) 09:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Official confirmation of them applying for membership would be the appropriate point for a mention here.--Staberinde (talk) 09:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

They have expressed desire however that does not really mean anything unless they join NATO or are recognized as a major non-NATO ally. FictiousLibrarian (talk). 22:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Opening sentence; Part Two (Oh the hilarity ensues)

The very first sentence of this article begins:

"Russia invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022 in an internationally condemned act of aggression."

And yet the article say on the Second World War begins:

"World War II or the Second World War, often abbreviated as WWII or WW2, was a global war that lasted from 1939 to 1945."

Or the Korean War...

"The Korean War (see § Names) was fought between North Korea and South Korea from 1950 to 1953."

Neither of article begins:

"The such-and-such conflict/war began on this [date] when such-and-such country invaded another such-and-such country in an internationally condemned act of aggression."

Spot the diferrence? This article starts off with opinion before it even gets to the facts. All military conflicts are an act of agression. Hilariously bad even for amateur night at Wikipedia.146.200.202.126 (talk) 11:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Tact aside, the IP has a point. Some of the more comparable articles I can see are Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and the United States invasion of Grenada - all with obvious aggressors condemned internationally. In those articles, international reactions show up in the 3rd, 2nd, and 5th paragraphs of the lead respectively. Our current lead section for this article already has an entire paragraph for international condemnation (5th paragraph) - I say reserve the first paragraph for the invasion itself and the background. Juxlos (talk) 11:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Reword the sentence, move out the "aggression" part to the appropriate paragraph/section. EkoGraf (talk) 12:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

+1 Jr8825 • Talk 14:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I would think that lede should follow the general structure of the article. In this case: background -> invasion -> impacts -> etc. With that in mind, you could feasibly simply change the leading sentence to: Russia invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022 marking a major escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian War, which began following the 2014 Ukrainian Revolution of Dignity. Everything else in that first paragraph may then be moved to the appropriate location and the second paragraph joined to the first. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

The current version of the Normandy invasion (also known as Operation Overlord) introduced the article as follows: "Operation Overlord was the codename for the Battle of Normandy, the Allied operation that launched the successful invasion of German-occupied Western Europe during World War II." The previous version of this discussion in the sections above on this Talk page should somehow be linked here. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• I like Mr mddude's suggestion Elinruby (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
• Per the emerging consensus here, I've edited the article's lead to attempt to address these concerns. Feel free to further refine as appropriate; I've been relatively conservative here in only moving the information about the international condemnation to the second sentence, rather than to another paragraph entirely (which would require more restructuring of the lead section). Elli (talk | contribs) 23:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  I would say keep the lead paragraph short - the international condemnation is already mentioned in the last paragraph of the lead. In the Annexation of Crimea article, for example, the lead paragraph consist of two sentences:

  In February and March 2014, Russia invaded and subsequently annexed the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine. This event took place in the aftermath of the Revolution of Dignity and is part of the wider Russo-Ukrainian conflict.

  Although I suppose one can argue that the international reaction for this is much more notable and strong than it was against the 2014 annexation, so maybe it does belong in the first paragraph. Juxlos (talk) 03:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Environmental impact of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

I started an article for the Environmental impact of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Any help would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Armenia accepting Russian economic migrants

The Refugees section lists several countries that have accepted Russian political refugees and economic migrants ("A second refugee crisis created by the invasion and by the Russian government's crackdown has been the flight of approximately 300,000 Russian political refugees and economic migrants, the largest exodus from Russia since the October Revolution of 1917, to countries such as the Baltic states, Finland, Georgia, and Turkey"). Armenia, having accepted 43000 refugees from Russia, was listed among them but has since been removed. The referred article in this section talks mainly about Armenia as the major destination for Russian IT workers.

--Unotheo (talk) 02:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: Modify article structure, based on chronology

As of this week, the war has appeared to enter a new phase. Based on this turn of events, i would like to recommend that we create some chronological-based structure for this article, rather than solely by region.

• all of the current sections would be grouped under a larger heading, "Start of invasion until early April 2022." then an entirely new section for "Early April 2022 to present" would be created,
  • this could also be grouped further in subsections by region, or by military campaign, or various other mechanisms.
• there need not be an absolute cutoff in time from one section to the next. if the end of a campaign that began in the first phase has overlapped slightly in to the second phase, then that would be totally fine.

as per an article in the Washington Post, please see the quote below. this highlights a vast new conflict that appears to be starting in the eastern region of Ukraine. this amounts to a major new military campaign.

Russian forces bombarded several towns in eastern Ukraine on Sunday, destroying an airport and damaging several civilian targets, as the war careens toward a pivotal new phase. The shift of the war and fears of full-scale military confrontation on open terrain prompted Ukrainian officials to again call for Western alliances to step up weapons supply efforts to strengthen Ukraine’s position on the battlefield. Ukraine is preparing for a “massive attack in the east,” its ambassador to the United States, Oksana Markarova, warned Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” Of the Russian forces, she said: “There are so many of them and they still have so much equipment. And it looks like they’re going to use all of it. So we are preparing for everything.” Military analysts have been predicting the movement of the war toward the eastern border that Ukraine shares with Russia in an area known as Donbas. The energy-rich region includes territory where pro-Russian forces have been battling the Kyiv government since 2014.

how does that sound? Please feel free to comment. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• Seems like a good idea to me. Jr8825 • Talk 14:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• Both Russia and Ukraine have acknowledged that a second phase of the Invasion is to be expected at this time following its withdrawal of the Kyiv front. This next phase is to start within the next two weeks, allowing for the resupply and redeployment of these Russian troops to Southeastern Ukraine. Suggest for now that editors wait at least for the start of the incursion by this second phase of the Russian invasion in order to see how extensive the Wikipedia outline for this article might need to be updated. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I hear your point, and I appreciate your reply. However, for articles that track current events, it is often better to simply change the structure now, if we know we will need to do sin the future anyway. This conflict is complex and so fast-moving, that respectfully, I would like to open a new chronological structure now, just to greatly make it easier to update this article and to keep it current. One of the main benefits of articles like this one, is that we can capture events as they happen, open up new possible ideas, ad then restructure later.

Based on your comments, I will create a new article now, just to provide a chronological approach to this conflict. this structure is already in effect fo the Syrian Civil War , on a notable scale. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

In principle that's possible, but at this point its still unclear if Russian will be combining both the Southern front and the Eastern front into a newly integrated Invasion front under the newly appointed field commander. At present the article is organized into two fronts operating in the southeast of Ukraine awaiting reinforcement by troops and tank divisions being redeployed from the Kyiv offensive. I have added just now the satellite image articles for this redeployment of Russian military divisions. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Sm8900 Rather than breaking off a new article for this second phase of the Invasion as you did here Russian Invasion of Ukraine (April 2022 to present), would it not be easier to simply start of a new section for the second phase of the Invasion here in this article? Why create a new page which will need to reduplicate much of this article as to its references, background information, and citations? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

you make some good points. okay, I will move that article to my own user space. I will create a new section here in this article within the near future, as long as no one objects. I appreciate your helpful comments, ErnestKrause (talk · contribs)--Sm8900 (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

If you think its useful, then I could reorganize the Invasion section here to combine the two active fronts (Southern and Eastern) into a single section of the TOC in the invasion section here, and that will allow you to start the second phase of the invasion when you are ready. At present its just not know if there will be multiple fronts in the second phase of the invasion all originating in a newly united Russian Southeastern invasion front. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, that idea sounds pretty good to me. I favor any structure for this article which primarily aligns with some chronological sequence for the conflict overall, and then within that time-based structure, can also focus on specific regions, campaigns, or battles, but primarily based on when they happened, rather than solely based on their geographical location. so yes, I would suggest you move ahead with the changes that you propose above. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

The TOC of the article is now adjusted for the active fronts being separated as a section to "Southeastern fronts" and different from the other fronts which have been closed by the Russian troop withdrawals. The article TOC is currently set at '3' and you may want to change it to '4' to make the subsections I have just created visible in the TOC displayed for the article as a whole. The active front sections are now created within the current Invasion section. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

that sounds good. thanks for your efforts. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I would like to add some additional text to the section heading for the current section "Invasion and Resistance", to explicitly reference one general time period which includes the period of time from the start of the invasion, until the start of April 2022; and then the new section would explictly indicate a second time period, starting in April 2022. I don't have any urgency for this to occur; you are free to make this edit, or I may do so in a little while, based on the content as you structured it. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

My original thought was that you wanted to do a Phase one and Phase two for the Southeastern front section, which still makes sense to me, and that you would then date the Phase one and Phase two as to the dates which fit the best. When I previously thought of doing this as a complete section duplication, then there was a problem of all of the other subsections of the article at its tail end which deal with Western Ukraine, the large scale missile attacks country-wide, etc., which would be difficulty to reduplicate. Can you do what you want to do on the principle of a Phase one and Phase two within the new Southeastern front section which I just added to the TOC? Also, it might help to mention a time-frame for doing all this; Russian sources seem to be emphasizing that the end of the siege of Mariupol will signal the end of Phase one and the start of Phase two for the Russian invasion. Is this worth noting for what you have planned at this time? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi. ok, that sounds totally fine. I can use the approach that you suggest, exactly as you describe it above. if I need to change it, I can always change it later, and discuss it here. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually, no, wait a second. my thought was to do a "phase one" for the entire conflict, and a "phase two" for the entire conflict. since this is an article about a historical event, the time frame is of paramount importance. the sections on regions can stay as they are, but they need to be grouped into an overall section for a phase of the conflict based upon chronological grouping for the entire conflict, not just for one region. after all, future readers, editors, and future generations will view any historical event based upon its timing, its dates, chronological sequence, etc.

if we adopt a set of time periods now to define the history of the conflict, we are only anticipating the structure which we will undoubtedly adopt for this historical topic eventually anyway.

the section for Phase Two would of course have its own subsections, based upon region, just as Phase One does. but this way we are keepign the chronological period for individual events, as a sound chronological basis for the entire sequence of events in this conflict. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the time frame, it seems to make sense to wait perhaps 2-3 days for what many sources are calling the immanent fall of Mariupol. Russian invasion in phase two should be very clear at that transition point. Is it possible to wait 2-3 days for end of Siege of Mariupol before a final decision on the TOC? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Sure! okay, this sounds fine. I would be glad to work cooperatively on this. if you wish to wait for that time to elapse, and then pick an approach on that basis, that sounds totally fine to me. We can discuss this further later, using the time period that you indicate. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• Hi, I am playing catch-up with this discussion as I have been away for a few days. I have no issue with the present "Invasion and resistance" section being refactored to represent a period of time from the start of the invasion up to some point in time that represents the end of the first phase of the invasion. However, I don't think we are at the point where we can populate a section on the second phase except to say Russian forces are reorganising and that isn't enough. The key point I would make is that we have a number of daughter articles that are hat-noted for many of the subsections presently under the main section "Invasion and resistance". Consequently, we need to be aware of, and maintain a harmony and consistency between this (the parent article) and these daughter articles. I think we should continue to use the present "Invasion and resistance" to report the first phase - ie we don't try to rewrite what is already in the article, though it might well need some tweaking for continuity. This appears to me to be the proposed course and I would add my support to it. As we now have daughter articles for much of the events, I would also suggest that we can be more ruthless in our summary of events in the parent article (ie here). Cinderella157 (talk) 04:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 April 2022

On April 14th the Russian Federation flagship, "Moskva," sank. https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/14/europe/russia-navy-cruiser-moskva-fire-abandoned-intl-hnk-ml/index.html. Russia has aid that ammunition had an accidental explosion. The Ukraine forces have announced that they targeted and hit Moskva with 2 Neptune missiles and it started a fire, listed to the side and began to sink. The loss of this vessel is a huge morale boost to Ukraine and loss to Russia. This ship had bombarded Mariupol. It has surface to air (both short and ling range), naval ship to ship missiles, anti submarine armaments and other weapons. https://en.as.com/latest_news/moskva-ship-how-big-is-it-when-was-it-built-what-weapons-does-it-have-n/ AgAero89 (talk) 21:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I made this addition after the Russian and Ukraines both reported the loss of this vessel. AgAero89 (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Please be specific as to the edit you are requesting to be made. The article already has a paragraph on the sinking of the Moskve. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 10:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Moskva edit request

CNN is saying that the Pentagon now confirms that this ship was struck by two Neptune missiles. As of right now the article is still both-sidesing this.

I could of course make this change myself but I heard this rather that saw it online, and since it’s disputed, somebody should make sure other media are also saying it. I am myself somewhat behind on making changes to this article that I promised to take care of, and the resulting need to update daughter articles, so I will just be the messenger here. Elinruby (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Top image

I think the top image should not be an up to date map, but instead one that shows Russia's maximum control over Ukrainian territory before they were pushed back before Kiev. The up to date map should be further down in the article. If Russia is pushed further and further back, the map would have less usefulless in illustrating an invasion. In a hypothetical scenario, where Russia is pushed back to the same borders as 2014, the map would have zero value in illustrating anything. Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Child casualties

Child casualty estimates should be included in the article. Chesapeake77 (talk) 10:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Definitely. At least the Ukrainian authorities do publish them. Russian authorities, of course, hold on to the official narrative. The pinnacle came with the Kramatorsk missile strike, the Russian missile being marked "(in revenge) for the children". 2A02:AB04:2AB:700:ACA9:F624:F56D:2AE2 (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act of 2022

I recently created a draft for the Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act of 2022. It is currently being voted on in the United States Congress. Thriley (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

No Peace

Ukraine has warned that if Mariupol falls, a red line will have been crossed and any further negotiations will cease (ie, the war will continue indefinitely). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 07:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

References

I cannot find any such story. Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Russian Nazi SS Connection?

I am not a linguist but someone recently pointed out that the Russian term спецоперация - currently translated to mean special operation, is Sonderbetrieb in German. Why's this a problem? Because SS Sonderbetrieben at Nazi extermination camps concentration camps slaughtered those held then used Sonderkommandos to dispose of the bodies. Given the frequency of, and numbers mentioned in reports about the horrific war crimes committed by Russian forces, could it be that the reason Putin chose the term 'special operation' (спецоперация) is because like Nazi Germany he wants to ethnically cleanse the land of Ukrainians not just conquer it? As I say, I am not a linguist but the connection, in conjunction with known warcrimes, is alarming. 人族 (talk) 02:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Please read wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Media depictions: Uncited OR?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Moving this here for discussion: "social media users showed sympathy for Russian narratives more due to cynicism about US foreign policy rather than support for the invasion as such."

While possibly true, this is followed by zero citations. There are quite a few in front of it though Elinruby (talk) 16:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

It could be deleted or have a cite tag added prior to it being split to a new page or moved to one of the sibling pages, and deleted from this article. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Nod, just noting it as a change somebody might disagree with. I will restore the text if the citations that precede it support it or if somebody has another good reason why it should be there. I will need to verify those sources anyway. I have seen the kind of post this is talking about but it should be cited. Has anyone started a social media in the Ukraine invasion page? One might be warranted. For now I guess I will summarize these two paragraphs and move the highly referenced detail to Russian information war against Ukraine. This does also include Ukrainian actions, which is about to become more prominent in the pending reorganization, if anyone is concerned about that. I will now be offline for several hours Elinruby (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Elinruby, I take it that there were no sources cited to support this statement? Cinderella157 (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually there has been some user page discussion about that and I have been working on other parts meanwhile. Somebody made a case to me that it is supported by the references that *precede* it. I can look into that tonight; I am not quite home yet and have in the corners of the day been dragging Media portrayals of the Ukraine crisis, where much of that will be going, out of past tense and 2015. Elinruby (talk) 02:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Elinruby, as you correctly indicate, we would need at least a reputable news source for the claim. Let me know the outcome and I will close this as resolved. Alternatively, you could close this yourself using {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}} (see examples above). Cinderella157 (talk) 03:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok. I can do that, and it will probably be tonight. If a reference that supports this statement precedes this, I will add a named reference, if not edit into a true statement. I am home now and gearing up to move text. Elinruby (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

on reflection I am going to copy this text over to Media portrayal of the Ukrainian crisis and finish verifying the references there. (There are eight in that sentence and so far they are very good but don't support cynicism about the US so far). Considering the extent to which I've been ask to condense this is too much detail considering the size of the article. I can always re-add the cynicism later if that seems like a good. My feeling is that it is probably both true and citable, if not yet obviously cited, but in an article this prominent and disputed it needs, really needs, to be specifically cited.I have copied the whole section over and now will summarize hard, in which this fragment will go until specidically cited. I have today free to sort this out. I am leaving this talk page section open for at least part of the day to give people a chance to comment. Unless somebody else wants to close it as clearly uncontroversial, shrug. Over and out. Elinruby (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Part of the statement seems to be supported by the citations. They all support that social media users showed support/sympathy for Russian narratives due in (large) part to dislike/distrust of US/Western foreign policy or anti-Western/anti-US sentiment. Whether they do this more than show actual support for the invasion is more dubious, so that part can be deleted. But if it read: "social media users showed sympathy for Russian narratives due in large part to dislike or distrust of US foreign policy", it'd be valid (& I would support it being re-added to a more relevant section like "Reactions" for a WP:GLOBAL perspective). Donkey Hot-day (talk) 12:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

It’s been moved already but I am not against Donkey Hot-day’s proposal to put it in Reactions instead (or as well), if that edit is made. I came in here to close this section but since there is a new proposal I will leave it open a while longer Elinruby (talk) 06:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

'Debate about genocide' article

There's a newly created article Ukrainian genocide during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Some editors here may be interested in:

• choosing a more accurate name (the article is mainly about a debate about whether genocide has taken/is taking place, or even more about whether well-known politicians have made the statement; it's not an overview about what genocide scholars or lawyers or other WP:RS say is genocide;
• copyediting it (quite a bit is needed).

The place to discuss is Talk:Ukrainian genocide during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the place to edit is directly in the article. Boud (talk) 09:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

THis is not the place to discuss this it is at that page. Maybe launch an wp:afd. Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Invasion

I don't feel that invasion is correct term for Russia's "operation". Russia is murdering and terrorising civilians, destroying homes and infrastructure, and forcefully transporting Ukrainian citizens to Russia. There are too many incidents for this to be a case of few hot-headed individuals; this is part of their plan.

Those cities that are not under Russian control are bombed ruthlessly, targeting as many casualties and/or fear as possible. Those cities that are under Russian control are terrorised in the most despicable, cruel, and inhuman ways.

It is more and more evident that the goal of this operation is to destroy Ukraine, not to invade it. This means destroying Ukrainian culture and cities, murdering huge amount of Ukrainians, and trying to scare those who are alive to become Russians.

I agree with one thing that the Russian propaganda is spitting out: this should not be called "war". Even in war there are some rules, and there can even be something humane as a reason for war.

Alas, my English skills are not strong enough to find an accurate name for this operation. Invasion sounds too neutral, and does not convey the message that Russia is trying to commit genocide. Optimally, the term would also say that Russia is committing acts of terrorism. 130.234.128.26 (talk) 17:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

We go with what wp:RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with both the IP and Slatersteven. Yes, we should go with RS. When we named this article, early on the in the war, most RS used 'invasion'. At this point, more than 50 days in, my impression is that most RS are talking about "Russia's war on Ukraine", with War having become much more common than simply Invasion. Jeppiz (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

We have that already. Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The war on Ukraine is already an article. It encompasses the topics of Crimea and the Donbas as well as the current invasion. For now, this invasion is just another (very devastating) phase of a pre-extant war. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 13:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Ukrainian civilians and soldiers take shelter under a bridge in Kyiv.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Kherson splitting notice

A split proposal is ongoing on the Battle of Kherson article. Feel free to participate in the discussion here. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Russian military weapons destroyed and seized by the Armed Forces of Ukraine.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposal of Article Creation : World War III

According to you, as though by yourselves, experts wikipedians, who do not allow others contribution, and prefer Wiki sometimes with Errors and Wrong, we understand here at home, that the WWIII following the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine had indirect started. More and more Nations as USA, France, Slovenian, Slowakia, Germany etc. contributes with Vehicles to Ukraine to Combat USSR or Russia. For example, GM sent 50 Chevrolet Tahoe, Germany sent 50 Gepard Tanks, Slowenia sent 50 M-84 aka T-72 to help and received Marder Tanks of Germany. USA Ministers visited Ukraine President, given US$ 3.5 Billion money, as well as the UK Prime Minister helping with many money and Tanks. So. The World War III had began, different, passive or indirect, not so active like WWI or WWII, but it is there. --90.186.249.22 (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

When RS say WW3 has stated we can have an article on it. Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

it is ok, the Article already exists, but saw just after, thanks ... My Statement can be archived 90.186.249.22 (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 April 2022 (3)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please change the caption of the animated map of the invasion under the heading "Invasion and Resistance" from "An animated map of the invasion from 24 February to 9 April" to "An animated map of the invasion from 24 February to 21 April". The animated map has been updated and the newest date is now 21 April. K1401986Talk with me 22:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

The date has been updated. Viewsridge (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Byelorus"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am not logged in at the moment, but I am assuming that in the sentence "At the start of the invasion on 24 February, the northern front was launched out of Byelorus and targeting Kyiv", the intended word is "Belarus"? I am not familiar with geography in the region but I do not believe that Byelorus is a place. Can an editor rectify please. 82.15.196.46 (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I corrected it. Probably someone confused with Byelorussia/Belorussia. Mellk (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 April 2022

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Certain city names are in their Russian forms are opposed to Ukrainian ones. Mikolaev and Odessa, for example, should be spelled Mykolaiv and Odesa respectively. Ian Lautert da Costa (talk) 12:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I changed "Mikolaev" to "Mykolaiv" as the article is Mykolaiv. The Russian-based form is Nikolayev/Nikolaev, not Mikolaev. Odessa should remain unchanged because the article is Odessa. Mellk (talk) 13:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Prelude to World War Three?

The Royal Navy nuclear powered submarine HMS Audacious sailed from Gibraltar after several days in port, during which it loaded Tomahawk missiles while berthed alongside the Z Berth in the South Mole of the dockyard. The vessel was seen heading into the Mediterranean after leaving Gibraltar. The American nuclear powered submarine USS Georgia also docked at Gibraltar two days prior to the British submarine. Its destination is unknown.

Five USAF F15Es and a tanker plane where pictured flying in formation over the Strait of Gibraltar at 20,000 feet on Wednesday 20/04/2022. The planes had just taken off from the USAF base at Moron, Spain and were believed to be heading to the Middle East. If this last detail is correct, then Middle East could include Turkey and from Turkey to Ukraine is just a short hop across the Black Sea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 10:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Pleae see wp:crystal, this is pure speculation. Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM 50.111.30.135 (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Russian military weapons destroyed and seized by the Armed Forces of Ukraine.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Armed activity of other states for defense/release of their citizens in Ukraine

There are sources that Belorusian and Bulgarian troops take activity for defense/release of their citizens in Ukraine. May be suitable for Foreign military involvement section. Alex Spade (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Casualties

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hey, just wanted to suggest that the casualty numbers get updated. They’re from Feb 25 I believe. I would try, but I’ve never edited an info box and I’m scared I’d mess it up. FinnSoThin (talk) 16:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

The Infobox avoids casualty numbers of any kind and there is a better way to handle that.

Instead, list the estimates from the most notable sources and say, for example "per Ukraine" or "per United Nations" or "per Russia", etc... and let the reader understand that. This is much better than deciding for the reader that they shouldn't know any of the notable estimates because the process is not perefect. Chesapeake77 (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Concerned that this was such a short discussion. I also think the "outcome" is not adequate, most Wikipedia articles about war DO have casualty claims from all notable parties in their Infoboxes. Each claim is mentioned as a "claim" and not a fact. Chesapeake77 (talk) 10:14, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Of concerning note: this discussion was both started and closed (after only 2 hours and 25 minutes) on the same day (15 April) and only after 2 comments, a "conclusion" was drawn. Chesapeake77 (talk) 10:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The consensus here was established by this discussion at: Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 8#Should we continue to report casualties in the infobox, in accordance with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. I closed the discussion because your response to FinnSoThin appeared to be quite an adequate answer to the question they were posing. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Problematic sentence about casualties

The article currently contains the following sentence:

"According to a researcher at the Department of Peace and Conflict Research at Uppsala University in Sweden, regarding Russian military losses, Ukraine's government was engaged in a misinformation campaign aimed to boost morale and Western media was generally happy to accept its claims."

There is no citation, which needs fixing. If there is no citation, the statement needs to be removed. If a valid citation does indeed exist, it needs to be put into context and verified (does wikipedia have a policy on statements of individual researchers?).

PerLugdunum (talk) 09:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Add link to text in question. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:31, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

It's better to include the claims of various sides re: casualties and describe them as "claims". Otherwise then we are censoring and not allowing the reader to think for themselves.

Simply adding "per Ukraine" or "per the NATO" or "per Russia" to these numbers is far better than having an article with zero numbers.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 10:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Source/citation is already there, right after the sentence that follows the one quoted by PerLugdunum, because the citation is a reference for both sentences. As for source verification, it has already been previously discussed and editor consensus is the source is reliable and there is no reason to exclude the sentence. EkoGraf (talk) 17:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. Indeed, the quote is almost verbatim from the source. It was my mistake to assume the reference did not cover both sentences. My second question was about whether one should have statements attributed to "a researcher" as opposed to a large body of researchers. I know too little to suggest anything concrete and will not push this further. PerLugdunum (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The whole discussion under the casualties is problematic. The truth will come out, whether or not certain "editors" can dissemble at the moment via weasel words about unnamed "researchers" and "analysts". Yellowmellow45 (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

As per previous editor consensus, the source is considered verifiable and the analysis is properly attributed. Also, per previous discussion, editors are welcomed and encouraged to add any other researcher opinions to show different points of view. EkoGraf (talk) 21:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Consensus is settled on reliable sources WP:RS - when an opinion (e.g. of a "researcher" or "analyst") is provided, that person should be named and identifiable, and it is preferred that references to such research or analysis comes from the source, rather than newspaper reports. Clearly, the current fog of war makes it easier for editors to flout these standards. Yellowmellow45 (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I just came across the second part "Analysts warned about accepting the Ukrainian...", and I have to say it looks cherry picked. The Guardian article it's referenced to is about Russian disinformation, with one sentence given over to talking about Ukrainian figures. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:17, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the other reference, which can be read here, it has the same problem. Most of the article is about the difficulty of obtaining the real figures, and although there is more on Ukrainian misinformation in it than the Guardian article. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Just to say I don't doubt Ukraine is pushing the higher estimate, and Russia suppressing the figures, that is what countries at war do. But there is a need for better sourcing. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Precisely. This is exactly the issue with a lot of sourcing on pages related to the invasion, so it's difficult to unpick, but it's something that more experienced editors should be aware of. Yellowmellow45 (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I am concerned about the sentence "According to a researcher at the Department of Peace and Conflict Research at Uppsala University in Sweden, regarding Russian military losses, Ukraine's government was engaged in a misinformation campaign aimed to boost morale and Western media was generally happy to accept its claims.", which is near word for word copy from the source. It need sto be rewritten in your own words, as it's a copyright concern. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@Yellowmellow45:, first, for reference see previous discussion here [5]. Now, if one of your issues is that the researcher is not named we can add his name (which is stated in the cited source). Further, there is no rule prohibiting us to cite media outlets as sources for analysis if the outlets are considered reliable sources (RS), which both Fortune and the Guardian are (and which you have been removing). Pinging editors @Cinderella157:@Slatersteven: who were involved in the previous discussion to show if they have changed their opinions, as well as some others @Mr.User200:@Beshogur:@Phiarc:@Jr8825:@KD0710:@LightandDark2000: who have been involved on the various similar issues and can possibly express an alternative opinion. Also, I would ask that you do not remove the text as you did here [6][7][8] before reaching a new consensus and the discussion is closed. Finally, agree with @ActivelyDisinterested: that the Uppsala sentence needs to be reworded due to copyright and that the Guardian sentence needs more expansion regarding the Russian disinformation that is also the subject of the report. Also agree with ActivelyDisinterested, and I have already stated this many times before, more alternative/different analysis should be added to present all sides POV in a neutral manner. EkoGraf (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Changing the second sentence to begin "The Guardian reports that analysts have warned about accepting the Ukrainian claims as", could be a start. We do need better sources for it to be more general. The first section shouldn't be reinstated with the current wording. Mentioning Shawn Davies by name word remove the "researcher" issue. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any problematic thing regarding that sentence, the citation fit the source. But to show a neutral tone we could begging with "The Guardian reports that according to one/two/etc analysts have warned about accepting the Ukrainian claims as premature/unbased/unproven not verificable, etc.Mr.User200 (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

The sentence that shouldn't be restored is the other one, referenced to fortune.com, that is nearly word for word copy from the fortune article. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't see anything particularly problematic with the sentence. If anything, it should be attributed to the researcher by name rather than the paper in which he was reported and might be tweaked so as not to be such a close copy. To the "Russian disinformation", pretty much everybody knows this, however; we can't expand on a simple statement if that simple statement is all we have sourced. We would need another source saying more IMHO. However (per the previous discussion) the existing sentences serve their purpose - neither the Russian nor the Ukranian claims can be considered accurate since both are (likely) inflated/deflated to serve state interests. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

In that section, the Guardian source doesn't really say what the text claims it says. At most it says that nobody really knows. Removing. Volunteer Marek 12:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I also don't think that this one guy's opinion is really WP:DUE. Especially since it really boils down to "Ukraine’s claims about Russian deaths are exaggerated to some degree" which is to be expected. Gonna replace present text with that. Volunteer Marek 12:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the current working is on the way to neutrality, but I do agree on the WP:DUE point. Having said that, there has been a massive improvement. Yellowmellow45 (talk) 12:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

And further on WP:DUE, Shawn Davies of Uppsala is a research assistant without any published papers, and a quick Google reveals this is his only public comment on any topic. Something to consider. Yellowmellow45 (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: you say the Guardian source doesn't say what's been written in the WP text, however the Guardian source says, and I quote, "And Ukrainian officials on Monday evening estimated that more than 15,000 Russian soldiers have been killed... Analysts have warned about taking that information at face value during a war where western countries want to emphasise the toll of the war on the Russian military while the Kremlin wants to downplay its losses". Thus, I would ask that you please reinstate and rewrite the sentence (if you think it doesn't fully represent what is written). As for the opinion expressed by the researcher regarding that Ukraine is engaged in a miss-information campaign for sake of moral, as both @Cinderella157: and @Mr.User200: have said, I also do not see anything problematic about including it. You inserted "Ukraine’s claims about Russian deaths are exaggerated to some degree". I think it nicely rewords the "miss-information campaign" bit, thanks, but I would expand this to "Ukraine’s claims about Russian deaths are exaggerated for sake of moral" or "Ukraine’s claims about Russian deaths, generally accepted by Western media, are exaggerated for sake of moral" since I see no reason to omit the purpose in his view of the Ukrainian's exaggeration or his obvious critic of the Western media. But I would settle with just the purpose of the exaggeration as stated by him (without the critic of the Western media). EkoGraf (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The Guardian article doesn't mention it, but only in passing. It's one sentence in an article about Russian misinformation. Maybe a sentence could be craft using both the sources. Something like "The West has generally accepted Ukrainian figures, but these may have been inflated for the proposed purpose of moral.[1][2]", but written with better prose.
I still feel the problem is one of needing better sources, unfortunately reliable independent Russian sources are hard to come by. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: What you just wrote actually sounds pretty good and if it was something along those lines I would support such a (merged) sentence with citation to both sources. EkoGraf (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Yellowmellow45:@Volunteer Marek:, any opinions on this as a possible compromise? - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah sounds good. Thanks. Volunteer Marek 16:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the "may...to a degree" version is closer to the source and the "for the sake of morale" veers towards original research and possible bias. This is a current event and it's better to be cautious about imputing things that are not yet clear. Yellowmellow45 (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Would you accept "The West has generally accepted Ukrainian figures, but these may have been inflated to emphasise the toll on the Russian Military.[1][2]", which is closer to the sources. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

"for the sake of morale" is not original research since its what's in the source nor is it bias since its properly attributed with RS citation (this was already reaffirmed in the previous discussion) and we leave our readers to make their own opinion. A third source can also be added, which also goes into both boosting of Ukrainian morale and Russian downplaying of its losses [9]. First, as suggested, "The West has generally accepted Ukrainian figures, but these may have been inflated to emphasize the toll on the Russian Military for the sake of of morale.[1][2][3]" Additionally, all three sources can be used as citations for Russia's downplaying of its losses. Further, the part "Ukraine was quieter on its own military fatalities." (can attribute to Davies) but an additional second source (directly from Ukraine) can also be cited as well [10]. Sentence can be reworded. Finally, the third AJ source I mentioned earlier and the Ukrainian one I just mentioned can also be used to point out both Russia's and Ukraine's admissions at one point of suffering "significant" and "considerable" losses respectively. EkoGraf (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• I have previously stated that I found the previous text fairly satisfactory. The attributed assertion is not an exceptional claim - ie that claims by either side should be treated skeptically. It is a fact of war that should not be ignored just because we (the West) perceive Ukraine as the good guy. The previous statement was simple and direct to this point - both sides are playing the propaganda game (ie they are managing information to their own ends). I think that this current iteration is neither as succinct nor as direct. IMHO Cinderella157 (talk) 02:41, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
  • @Cinderella157: Yeah, agree with you, as I said before, I also did not find anything wrong with the sentence nor did I see it as an exceptional claim taking into account the proper attribution. But trying to find a middle ground taking into account the concerns of the above editors. EkoGraf (talk) 10:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
    • EkoGraf, I don't think the concerns are particularly strong. A [very] close paraphrase of a single sentence [?] in a greater source where the source is attributed is (IMHO) fair use and not a significant concern. I acknowledge your intentions but I don't think that the changes (beyond specifically reporting the person to which it is attributed) are necessary or an improvement. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Low-yield nuclear weapons

The article contains the following sentence: "The use low-yield tactical nuclear capacity was originally discussed in the decade following the end of WWII by Henry Kissinger as a tactical weapon separable from the use of other atomic weapons in warfare." Emphasis is mine, and I initially thought this fragment should read "The use of...". That does not seem to fit the rest of the sentence, and I am unsure of what the best edit might be. TJSwoboda (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Your grammar is correct. Adding to the section. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

bio chem  ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.82.30.36 (talk) 08:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

What about it? Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Link to Russia in first word

The link to Russia in the article's first word was removed in this revision: Special:Diff/1084574301. This link should be present, as stated in surrounding comments. Okay420 (talk) 07:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The link has now been replaced in this revision: Special:Diff/1084740539. Okay420 (talk) 09:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

"Russian invasion of Ukraine" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Russian invasion of Ukraine as it does not currently redirect to this page, and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 25#Russian invasion of Ukraine until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hentheden (talk) 22:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Kherson‎#Requested move 24 April 2022

Please be notified of Talk:Battle of Kherson‎#Requested move 24 April 2022. It affects many articles related to the invasion. The proposal is to move from "battle of X" to "battle for X". Cinderella157 (talk) 05:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 April 2022 (2)

Add Denis Pushilin and Leonid Pasechnik, leaders of the DPR LPR to commanders Scu ba (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Denis Pushilin has a single mention in the body of the article and Leonid Pasechnik has no mention. Addition of either is supported by the body of the article (per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 April 2022

Dear Wikipedia editors,

I am writing to report the map that shows the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The names of the cities that are written in English are transliterated from Ukrainian and are spelled correctly. However, the names of the cities that are spelled in the Cyrillic alphabet are spelled in Russian and not in Ukrainian!

Please change the spelling of those cities whose names are written in the Cyrillic alphabet from Russian to Ukrainian.

Thank you! 188.163.232.130 (talk) 11:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

This request should be handled on Commons at Commons:File talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg. The map has Russian translations but not Ukrainian translations. Glrx (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussing colour changes for c:File:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Moved: was at Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Changing the main map to the colourblind-friendly version

• Comment: I think a much better proposal would be to use the colors I proposed on Commons, as shown below. One option [11] for making the Ukrainian territory a lighter yellow (my personal preference, I think), and another option [12] for making the Russian territory a slightly darker shade of pink (the closest option to the current colors and my proposal). Both of them have good contrast, are distinguishable both for normal vision and colorblind readers, and are similar to the current, widely-accepted map colors. Not only that, but these colors are more intuitive and aesthetically pleasing. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Options 1-4 as being discussed (on the Commons discussion).

Option 1

	Land	Arrow
Ukraine
Russia

Option 2

	Land	Arrow
Ukraine
Russia

The colorblind simulations are in the respective links, so please have a look at those. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The images shown to the right depict the color schemes currently being discussed and voted on on Commons. And I'd prefer the first three to the proposal in question here. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Test map with blue (0099F7) arrows

Original colorblind friendly map color

I would much rather us stick with the status quo than switch to a new color scheme that is as jarring and unappealing as the proposal in this discussion, especially as it still has contrast issues. I'd even prefer one of the two map options I listed just above to the proposal (the current map with blue arrows, and the original colorblind-friendly map), but I prefer the proposed colors that I have laid out. Also, I think we could really use a color theory professional here, as the colors in the proposal were rather poorly-chosen. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Both options look much better than the White & Orange. Both of these choices look much more visually appealing to non colorblind viewers than the White & Orange proposal. I personally think option 1 is better visually, but it appears that option 2 would be better for colorblind viewers as it has a little more contrast. Physeters^✉ 21:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Greyshark09, Spesh531, Kwamikagami, Dawsongfg, RobiHi, Outth, Eoiuaa, Kippenvlees1, Symmachus Auxiliarus, Chesapeake77, Fogener Haus, Physeters, Viewsridge, Lx 121, Berrely, HurricaneEdgar, MarioJump83, Tradedia, Ermanarich, Brobt, CentreLeftRight, Wiz9999, Borysk5, Oganesson007, Nate Hooper, Rob984, Ceha, AlphaMikeOmega, WeifengYang, PutItOnAMap, TheNavigatrr, Beshogur, AntonSamuel, Paolowalter, and Emk9: Pinging other users with an interest in this topic, and those with experiencing in working with military conflict maps. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@EkoGraf, Rr016, Tan Khaerr, Kami888, and MrPenguin20: Missed a few. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment it looks ok for me but gray arrows look kinda bad. Beshogur (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1 is my first choice I prefer this to the other proposals as it does the best job resolving the issue of contrast which is important. Plus the background color is better in Option 1 than Option 2 (brighter, whereas Option 2 is a bit dim). Chesapeake77 (talk) 00:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 - I think this option satisfies all objections above, assuming it is correct to say that this version is still colorblind friendly. The lower contrast does not "make Russian gains seem overwhelmingly dominant". I also agree that the original proposal created MORE difficulty viewing it for NON-colorblind people, and option 1 does not do this. I approve, in general, of the goal to increase accessibility for colorblind users, but I also agree that the original proposal was not the best option to do this. I do think the new option 1 should suffice. Fieari (talk) 05:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I've split this discussion because it has nothing to do with the specific proposal listed in Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Changing the main map to the colourblind-friendly_version. That proposal is about replacing the one file with a specific different file, and this one discussed details of a commons file, a discussion which should normally be had on the file's talk page, not here. Melmann 06:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Option 1 appears to be the best across the four simulations and for unimpaired vision. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Option 1 but perhaps with light yellow arrows instead of blue. Viewsridge (talk) 11:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Option 1 has the best contrast for the arrows, but all of them are great improvements in presentation. If none of them were used, the original colorblind-friendly one is also an improvement by itself and could be the main one. Rauisuchian (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Option visually ok, if it helps colorblind too. Beshogur (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I do not see a version I particularly like here: for 1–3, the colour of the arrows is too different to that of their background, while for 4 it is too similar. Obviously, the arrows must contrast to the background, but this is weighed against the fact that a map is more intuitive when each side is assigned a single colour. Dark-red arrows on a light-red/orange background is a good compromise for Russia, but for Ukraine, blue on yellow and grey on beige are unintuitive and unsightly. Have white (#FFFFFF) arrows been tried for Ukraine? I imagine these would work well on either yellow or beige backgrounds. In general, I think the arrows would look best as a lighter/darker shade of the colour behind them. —AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Option 1 or the original colorblind-friendly version. Options three and four have a really unpleasantly strong yellow, I'd strongly oppose these two.--Ermanarich (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Option 1 As a colorblind person option 1 looks best-looking to me. EkoGraf (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Option 1, including color mark change Per EkoGraf, and I think mark colors should be changed too, not just yellow but something other than that. Cyan or blue would be good MarioJump83! 08:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• I vote for blue arrows and against yellow (or grey) arrows. Tradedia^talk 21:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Going to be a bit WP:BOLD here, but can we close the voting on here (and wherever else votes have taken place)? Option 1 is a clear winner here, at least for being the colorblind-friendly color scheme (at the very least for arrows and territorial control). Does the "Air and ground bombardments" icon need to be changed? They contrast well with both the new Ukrainian yellow control and the Russian red (which is the same as the original). If there's an agreement on the other icons, then Option 1 and the Original need to be put up to a vote. Spesh531^{(talk, contrib., ext.)} 05:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Looks like the voting is a WP:SNOWPRO in favor, somebody should close this. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Crimea

I assume that the article describes Crimea as part of Russia. The infobox does not mention Crimea, but the lead says "the two occupied territories of Ukraine (Crimea and Donbas)". Some unification would be useful.

Some Tatars do not want to be conscripted https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ato/3441479-crimean-tatar-leader-appeals-to-people-in-crimea-to-dodge-russian-army-draft.html

Conscription of inhabitants of occupied areas is, as far as I know, illegal. The same in occupied Eastern Ukraine.Xx236 (talk) 07:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

It is Elinruby (talk) 02:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Page protection

I have now requested page protection, enough is enough. Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Supporting. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Elements of "proxy war"?

Hello everyone, I'd like to bring up something that I think this article lacks, and that is the issue of this being a "proxy war". I've identified some sources that seem to describe this as a proxy war in some way:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-long-holy-war-behind-putins-political-war-in-ukraine https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-does-arming-insurgency-ukraine-mean https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-25/nato-us-in-proxy-war-with-russia-biden-next-move-crucial/100937196

The definition of "proxy war": https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/proxy-war

"a war fought between groups or smaller countries that each represent the interests of other larger powers..."

Clearly, with NATO/US steadfast refusal to engage directly and materiel support for Ukraine, it's a proxy on some level. On the Russian end, it's less clear--Russia has historically been considered more of the "military superpower" over China, but with their (alleged) underperformance, and with the potential of becoming economically dependent on China in the face of Western sanctions, perhaps they are the ones fighting the proxy on behalf of the superpower? This article does not mention "proxy" anywhere. Allegedly, the Moskva was sunk by Ukrainian missiles...but let's not pretend that Western-made Javelins weren't crucial to many Ukraine successes. How would this get added? Also, I can't seem to edit the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noble Metalloid (talk • contribs) 19:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

The idea of this being a "proxy war" is part of the Russian propaganda and represents a strong POV. Perhaps a mention of it could be made when describing Russian propaganda efforts, but certainly not claiming in Wikivoice that Russia's brutal aggression on a neighbour is a proxy war. Jeppiz (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I wouldn’t advocate for calling it that, because it isn’t one. I was wondering if it would be helpful to discuss the debate over whether this is a proxy war. Lawfare is a far cry from Russian propaganda, and they’re game for at least discussing the idea. We haven’t even sold them MIGs (alternatively, they may be paperweights) due to fears of over-involvement. Providing small arms to the underdog defending themselves against a Goliath does not suggest nefarious proxy war geopoliticking, quite the contrary. Mentioning a proxy war in the way I envision would involve mostly saying why it isn’t one, per the sources. If you omit discussing this out of fear of parroting Russian propaganda, you risk creating a “forbidden fruit”. Noble Metalloid (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Its not a proxy was, as far as I am aware no RS has called it proxy war. Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

that isn't what was proposed Elinruby (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Structure for sections based on chronological periods, as per previous talk page discussion

Hi. Based upon the beginning of a new Russian offensive in the East of Ukraine, we will move ahead soon to create a new section for the current time period, based upon viewing this as a new chronological period of the conflict. This is based upon a consensus to structure the article sections on the conflict, based on chronological periods, as per previous talk page discussion. You can click the link to view the full discussion, which has now been archived. Anyone is welcome to comment, of course. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The previous discussion spoke of the Siege of Mariupol needing to come to a conclusion before discussing options, however, the siege has not come to an end. Your link above does not link to anything, and its not clear what you mean since the siege of Mariupol is still in progress. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

hi. I revised the link, in order to point to the correct section on the archived talk page. Actually, the talk page discussion related to the start of the Russian offensive in the east of Ukraine. I do appreciate your thoughtful reply on this. --Sm8900 (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

You have just restored that missing link. The discussion there spoke of the advantages of waiting for the siege of Mariupol to be resolved, and the forces are still continuing the siege as of this morning in the linked Wikipedia article for the siege. The main editing for the new "eastern" offensive to which you refer has moved to the new article for War in Donbas were the details of this second phase of the invasion are being dealt with, and which I linked this morning. Since Wikipedia now has the new article for the War in Donbas, then most of the questions you previously asked seem to have been redirected there for current updates. The article here currently links the War in Donbas article as a continuation of the Invasion of the Southeastern front where you can find the link. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• That Mariupol remains under siege is not an insurmountable problem and probably not a problem at all (IMHO). Looking at the article there, siege of Mariupol#Final pockets fairly closely aligns in time with the broader change in tempo of a chronological "second phase" and could easily be massaged into a new section here. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Cinderella157, thanks. yes, I agree. I am also going to ping @Jr8825, and @ErnestKrause, as they provided some very helpful input in the previous talk page discussion. if you could each please reiterate or indicate your opinions on this proposal for the article, as discussed in the previsous archived discussion, I would appreciate it. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• "Based upon the beginning of a new Russian offensive in the East of Ukraine". What new offensive? I see only a continuation of the existing offensive. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

  as per the comment above, some individuals are asking "what new offensive?" I think this illustrates the need to structure this aerticle to delineate the curent new phase of this conflict.

  if you would like to have some references, no problem, here they are.

  1. Russia has opened a long-anticipated new phase of the war in Ukraine, launching its eastern offensive in a bid to seize the country's industrial heartland., NBC News
  2. Russia unleashes offensive on Ukraine, ushering in new phase of war, politico
  3. Russia begins large-scale offensive in eastern Ukraine, axios
  4. Zelenskiy: Russian offensive in eastern Ukraine has begun. UK Guardian.
  5. As Russia launches a new offensive, what did it learn from the first one?, April 19, 2022. NPR.
  6. Civilians flee eastern Ukraine ahead of new Russian offensive. UK Guardian

thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• All three editors seem in agreement that the siege of Mariupol should not hinder the refactoring of the section for the Second phase of the invasion. The appropriate start date for this appears to be the day 8 April that the combined forces were put under the change os a single general for the first time in the campaign, under General Dvornikov. Starting to refactor Invasion section according to agreement of all three editors. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok that sounds good. Thanks for your work on that, @ErnestKrause. Sm8900 (talk) 04:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Support

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can these all be merged into one thread, it's getting very hard to follow all these separate questions on the same thing? Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 April 2022

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

197.234.142.91 (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Nato and Australia and New Zealand Sweden Finland should be put as support for ukraine

This is already being discussed above, please comment there. Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done, see FAQ #2. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 17:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Support of Ukraine?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

How are there no countries listed as supporting Ukraine? At least every country that has reportedly supplied weapons to the Ukraine should be listed there, shouldn't it? Alfield (talk) 05:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The infobox is only meant to summarize the key aspects of the article, not to be all-encompassing (MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE). So, whether support is included in the infobox is an editorial matter. There was an RfC on this that failed to reach a consensus, with opponents arguing it would make the infobox too large and would unduly imply too much involvement on the part of other countries. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 06:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Why not do it like the German Wikipdia? It indicates that the Ukraine recieves massive support and you can inform yourself about what countries are supporting UKR without making the infobox too large. Alfield (talk) 06:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The reason why other nations are not included in the Belligerents section is because current consensus is against doing so. This has been discussed multiple times previously. Nythar (talk) 07:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

You can add a single name in a single line in the infobox instead of dozens: NATO. But no, you shills adding Belarus for the lulz. 2.141.64.59 (talk) 11:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

We do not need 15 threads asking the same question. Slatersteven (talk) 09:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-invasion phase

So now that the Russian military objective has shifted towards consolidating gains made in Donbass and the south, should we keep limit the scope of this article to be just about the initial invasion and put the rest of it on Russo-Ukrainian War or should we keep adding to this article? ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 04:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Just a comment that two articles, Russian occupation of Kherson & Russian occupation in Zaporizhzhia Oblast were created to contain some of that information. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Have they, they still seem to be attacking. Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

International press seems fairly committed to reporting this as a first phase of the invasion followed by a second phase of the invasion. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

But not "post-invasion". Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Not 'post-invasion'. The langauge in the international press is all talking about the start of the second phase of the invasion which is expanding at this time. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Changing the main map to the colourblind-friendly version

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to propose that the main map shown in the infobox be changed to the colourblind-friendly version.

• 
  Current map
• 
  Proposed replacement

The current map (on the left above) does not offer sufficient contrast for individuals diagnosed with tritanopia.
Although tritanopia incidence rate is about 1%, this highly visible article has been viewed 5,445,185 times at the time this was written, which means that we have likely served this map to individuals diagnosed with tritanopia more than 54 000 times. Of course, this number will only go up.
Per MOS:ACCESS, accessibility is a core WMF policy, and it "may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by Wikimedia Foundation officers or staff nor local policies of any Wikimedia project". Based on this, I think we have a clear case for action to switch to the colourblind-friendly map.

Simulations of tritanopia:
Current whole page Just the image
Proposed replacement image

Please be patient as the tool loads, it may take a few seconds to be ready. Melmann 11:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Strong support - No love lost for a map with new colour schemes. The proposal works perfectly for everyone, a genuinely good change. PenangLion (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Support with suggestion. This replacement looks a lot better. My suggestion is that there needs to be better contrast between "troop movement arrows" and the background colors, otherwise it is hard to see. If troop movements were, for example, black that would make them a lot easier to see. Another alternative might be to "outline" (any colored troop movement arrows) in clear black lines so you can really see these movement arrows. Or alternately still, just experiment with other "arrow colors", but always strive for strong contrast. Chesapeake77 (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Support IMO the new one looks a lot better, since there's a larger contrast between the occupied/non-occupied territories. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 12:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Support Looks a lot clearer to me (average sighted?) 51.6.155.34 (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Support I hate the yellow on yellow. Hard to see, if not impossible, on mobile devices.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment, yes but I would also mention that the "grey" troop movement arrows are also hard to see. Better contrast there is still needed. Chesapeake77 (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

IIRC this was discussed on Commons after the first overwrite (c:File_talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine.svg#Voting_on_two_color_schemes), and editors decided to keep copy A. Some colourblind people commented there saying the one on the right wasn't actually easier to see. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment, I do think its a good idea to have the advances/movements of forces in different colours, so readers can tell the forces apart, maybe not have red arrows on orange for the Russians and maybe blue instead of unclear Grey for the Ukrainians. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 23:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Support per MOS:ACCESS though contrast in the movement arrows should be increased. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

There appears to be a better option (option 1) per discussion below - #Discussing colour changes for c:File:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Weak support The gray arrows on cream background for Ukraine are much clearer than the current version, but are hard to tell apart from the borders on the map for people with normal color vision, as is the new icon assigned to the older bombardments. The new contrast choice for the Russian troops and Russian-controlled territory is also somewhat worse than the original for viewers with protanopia or deuteranopia. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Strong Support for WP:ACCESSIBILITY, plus as someone with a type of colourblindness that doesn't affect the colours on the current map, I find the new clearer to read. --Inops (talk) 12:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Object One can discern the differences in gradient in the simulation of tritanopia version. It does not affect the viewing of the image. The orange subtlely resembles the color of the ribbon of Saint George, a Russian military symbol thus it would bring to the map a layer of unwanted meaning. Sgnpkd (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose I've seen better suggestions, such as a light blue and red one or a white(ish) and black one. This suggestion sure is better than the green and orange one but I am not convinced that this is the best possible version we can come out with and approving this version already could make people stop proposing alternatives. Super Ψ Dro 09:44, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Strong Oppose It gives passive colors to Ukraine while making Russian gains seem overwhelmingly dominant. The current file is accessible to 99 % of the readers and the color blind accessible version already in the file page. Viewsridge (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• Very Strongly Oppose – The proposed colorblind map colors aren't intuitive, and for normal color vision people, the contrasting is just terrible in some areas (such as grey arrows on a light background). The colors are jarring and even a little confusing, as some of the colors are too close to others, while the proposed colors make it appear as if Ukraine doesn't even hold any territory. The grey colors for cities is also terrible and difficult to distinguish against the background. Not only that, but the colors don't mesh well together and don't look nice. If we implement a colorblind-friendly version, I prefer a version that is close to the current version of the map. As a matter of fact, I would strongly oppose any proposed color scheme that bears little to no resemblance to the current colors. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Also Very Strongly Oppose, LightandDark2000 has described the situation well. --Čeha (razgovor) 18:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• There is another discussion below on some proposals to use a similar coloring scheme to the current colors that is also workable for colorblind individuals. Please also have a look at that discussion. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@LightandDark2000: My proposal is to improve the MOS:ACCESS now with what we currently have ready, not to select 'one final map to rule them all that nobody will ever be able to change'. If this proposal was to be implemented, it would be a step towards a better accessibility, and we can take that step now. Let's not let perfect be the enemy of better.
The community has been struggling to agree on a proper colour scheme that works for everyone, and in the meanwhile colourblind users suffer. Per MOS:ACCESS, accessibility is not optional, and since there is WP:NODEADLINE our colourblind users may be left in Wikipedia census process purgatory for weeks or months. I would see no reason why we can't implement this now, and then when the discussion yields the final set of colours, implement those.
Could you attempt to justify a 'very strong oppose' in the context of our MOS:ACCESS obligations and the reality that your discussion may not yield result anytime soon? Melmann 17:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I know that this is irrelevant now, given that the second, later discussion has clearly concluded in favor of one of the proposals there over this particular proposal...But...Let me ask this: Why should we do this? Why should we rush a discussion, when the policy you yourself cited, WP:NODEADLINE, states that there is no deadline for Wikipedia editors to complete an article or implement a change? Why should we prejudge the results of an open discussion when there is no way of knowing for certain exactly how it will end? And most importantly, why should we rush ahead with a controversial change that has divided the participants and attracted significant opposition, especially while the said discussion is still ongoing? If this doesn't breach WP:CONSENSUS, or at least the soul of the policy, I don't know what does. I will say that rushing ahead with a proposal with this much opposition would generate significant backlash, both on Wikipedia and on other sites that view our maps (such as Twitter and Facebook). I've seen color changes hastily implemented before on other, unrelated projects on Wikipedia in the past, in the name of MOS:ACCESS. While I will not explicitly say which projects are involved for those, let me just say that those attempts did not end well. They attracted significant backlash and opposition, both on Wikipedia and on social media. And there were even attempts to revert those changes outright on Wikipedia. If we move forward in such a hasty, ill-thought manner, as you are suggesting here, you will provoke widespread backlash over a map that's literally viewed by hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people each day. The fact that there is already significant opposition here to the proposal here means that it should not be implemented immediately, especially not with the discussion still in progress. I think that as Wikipedians, we have a responsibility to see a discussion through to the end before implementing a controversial or disputed change, based on the results of that discussion. We also have a responsibility, as editors of these articles, to ensure that while our articles are accessible, that the graphics and charts we use are also acceptable to most of our readers. WP:ACCESS is important, but equally important are the views of our readers with normal vision. You cannot stomp over the opinions of normal vision readers here in the name of WP:ACCESS, especially when there are better alternatives available. Both discrimination and reverse discrimination are equivalent evils that should not be entertained. Lastly, I will note that the proposals discussed in the second option below are significantly more popular than the proposal being discussed here, as the latter discussion ended in a snow closure. I think that the best course of action is to defer to the results of that discussion, rather than trying to overturn consensus or start more pointless color drama. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

• @Greyshark09, Spesh531, Kwamikagami, Dawsongfg, RobiH, Outth, Eoiuaa, Kippenvlees1, Symmachus Auxiliarus, Fogener Haus, Physeters, Lx 121, Berrely, HurricaneEdgar, MarioJump83, Tradedia, Ermanarich, Brobt, CentreLeftRight, Wiz9999, Borysk5, Oganesson007, Nate Hooper, Rob984, Ceha, AlphaMikeOmega, WeifengYang, PutItOnAMap, TheNavigatrr, Beshogur, AntonSamuel, Paolowalter, Emk9, EkoGraf, Rr016, Tan Khaerr, Kami888, and MrPenguin20: I'd like to hear the opinions of other users who work on these maps, the map modules, or have participated in the map color discussions on Commons, as I think they should have a say in the matter as well. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  Neither of the two. There are more color options being discussed on commons. RobiH (talk) 21:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose, as there's already a more or less uniform design for conflict maps on Wikipedia which people recognize, at it's viewed by literally Millions. However, I agree that a change to a more colorblind-friendly version should be made, as has been suggested in another discussion below.--Ermanarich (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

weak support. I see merits for accommodation, though I think the replacement proposed is not the best. Though it would be helpful if the color scheme matches with other wikipedia war maps, for almost all other war maps, government forces are actually red, and rebel forces green. One can argue how applicable this is here, as Russian invading forces are in fact not rebels, and red is almost universally denoted across as representing Russian occupation (Liveuamap, military.net, etc.). Hence we might actually we might need other arrangements for this, one that may very well be used for precedence in mapping interstate wars (which in terms of wikipedia live mapping we don't have much historic precedence), which of course means that when we are literally establishing precedence, one that would be great to be accommodating. However, many above have pointed out the problem with the proposed alternative. Perhaps when a better alternative is proposed we should support it. WeifengYang (talk) 04:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose As a color-blind person I concur with @LightandDark2000:. EkoGraf (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Strong Support WP:ACCESSIBILITY is important for a global encyclopaedia. Kappasi (talk) Kappasi (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

support. I don't have anything particularly profound to say, other than that I think the new map looks nice and pretty. Nate Hooper (talk) 12:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Weak Oppose We don't really need it. The current map works fine, there's no need change it. Its an unnecessary change. CheeseInTea (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I'm kindly requesting for an uninvolved editor to review this discussion, and implement the proposal at Template:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox. Melmann 07:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

• In the discussion at #Discussing colour changes for c:File:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg, there is a very strong consensus there for implementing option 1 as the preferred colourblind friendly version of the map. The consensus there would appear to make this discussion redundent? Cinderella157 (talk) 02:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

• I agree. The snowball consensus at the second discussion makes this discussion obsolete, since they're literally discussing the same issue (but with different proposals). Also, it's very improper to request the implementation of a controversial proposal when there's clearly strong opposition or division regarding the idea, as I am seeing here. Such action directly undermines WP:CONSENSUS, if not the very heart and soul of the policy. People should not be trying to overturn consensus, just because they don't like how the discussion turned out. I agree that this discussion should be closed, as it has basically become redundant and has been superceded by the outcome of the second discussion below. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I would not imply any impropriety but the two discussions have occurred in near parallel and, the outcome below does have a clear implication to this discussion - that it has become redundant. I was simply giving notice that that there should be a "procedural close" of this discussion in favour of the discussion below. The topic may be controversial but I don't think that the close here would be, given the circumstances and how closely the page is watched. Cinderella157 (talk)

I was referring to the edit request just above an earlier comment of yours here, not your comment in the closure for the second discussion below. My apologies, if you thought otherwise. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 07:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links

The external links to CNN, Reuters, etc seem excessive and UNDUE. Anyone can google to find these and they are not encyclopedic. Focus on the more necessary ones and try to cut the list to 3 or so. WP:NOTDIR and WP:EL both apply. I would be bold and remove, but I am not a regular editor and thought this might have been discussed? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

It's a bit unclear what changes you want done. Do you mean unproperly cited references that contain only external links? If so, you can always just use a citation template to properly format them. Also, those sources you mentioned are reliable, per consensus. The list of frequently discussed sources pertaining to reliability, and the consensus of those, are at WP:RSPSOURCES. You also shouldn't try to "cut the list" like that and delete them, as WP:TSI is needed for veritability. However, you can WP:CITEBUNDLE (or see H:CITEMERGE). — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 18:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit

There is a typo in the section Second phase: Southeastern offensive (8 April to present) where it says As of 30 April, an NATO official... instead of As of 30 April, a NATO official has described...

--Tyco333 (talk) 10:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed, thanks — Czello 10:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Nato support Ukraine

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In the section "belligerents" it should be showed that Ukraine is supported from NATO 151.57.133.251 (talk) 21:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Belarus is a belligerent

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

According to United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314, the Definition of Aggression, Article 3:[13]

Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of article 2, qualify as an act of aggression: . . . (f) The action of a State in allowing its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State.

The reference to Article 2 means it is aggression prima facie, that is, it is legally aggression unless and until proven otherwise, and “innocent until proven guilty” does not apply.

By allowing the Russian Federation to use Belarusian territory to launch missile attacks and an invasion by its troops over the last two months, Belarus has committed an act of international aggression against Ukraine. As an aggressor state, Belarus should be listed in the infobox as a belligerent, not merely a supporter. To minimize its aggression with the restrictive label “supported by” is to reflect the non-neutral WP:POV of the Lukashenka régime.  —Michael Z. 15:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Belarus is still a non-belligerent state, as long as its military doesn't participate in the actual fighting. Compare with WWII era Donegal Corridor in Irish airspace. "Legally agressor" and "belligerent" are not necessary the same thing. Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

"The framework for the Union of Russia and Belarus was set out in the Treaty on the Formation of a Community of Russia and Belarus (1996), the Treaty on Russia-Belarus Union, the Union Charter (1997), and the Treaty of the Formation of a Union State (1999). The integration treaties contained commitments to monetary union, equal rights, single citizenship, and a common defence and foreign policy." ErnestKrause (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Seryo93, Belarus is not a belligerent. Otherwise, we would have to list Saudi Arabia and Kuwait then of being direct belligerents on the side of the US-led Coalition during the Iraq War since the invasion was staged from those countries. And we did not even list them under "Supported by". Because that label has for the most part been reserved in WP infoboxes for countries that provide arms support to one belligerent with the intent of defeating the other one. EkoGraf (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I don’t know whether the Iraq War case is the same or not.

But Belarus committed an act of aggression violating the “sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State” in a “war of aggression” which “gives rise to international responsibility.” According to my dictionary, a belligerent is “engaged in a war or conflict according to international law.” It is literally and precisely what it is.

If we are using some other definition of belligerent, then please show your work. —Michael Z. 02:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The key fact is that Belarusian military is, indeed, NOT engaged in hostilities. See also OSCE report, which, in this aspect, basically concurs with my point: "Although Belarus allows its territory to be used to launch Russian attacks on Ukraine, the Mission considers that as of 1 April it is not a party to the IAC, as long as it does not itself commit acts of violence or other acts that would constitute direct participation in the hostilities by persons attributable to Belarus." Bests, Seryo93 (talk) 07:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The field is “belligerents,” not “direct participants in hostilities.” —Michael Z. 18:26, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Belligerent means "engaged in war", i.e. fighting, which is precisely what Belarus does NOT. Seryo93 (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

My dictionary says belligerent: “engaged in war or conflict, as recognized by international law.” This precisely supports my argument.

I also looked up engage, and only one of five senses mentions combat, but it only applies when an enemy is the grammatical object (e.g., “engage the enemy”), so that sense is not in use in that definition. “Engaged in war” simply means involved in the war. Anyway, Russian combat units are invading directly out of Belarus, firing weapons out of and over Belarus’s territory, and retreating behind the defences of its troops on the border, so it is engaged in war tangibly as well as intangibly. —Michael Z. 19:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Belarus still falls under dictionary definition of non-belligerent, a country that refrains from direct participation in a war but openly favors and usually gives aid in varying degree and kind to one of the belligerents (emphasis mine). Seryo93 (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

That’s just playing with the words in a definition that is too vague to resolve the question. Allowing its territory for direct attacks is direct participation. It’s just one more way of saying “Belarus is not a belligerent because Belarus is not a belligerent.”

Since Belarus allowed Russian jets to operate from its airstrips to launch cruise-missile attacks across the border into Ukrainian territory to bomb Ukrainian cities, Ukraine is within its rights to defend itself by attacking those jets in Belarus, by attacking the airstrips and hangars in Belarus. Since Belarus allowed Russian mechanized forces to invade across its border and then to retreat behind Belarusian border defences, Ukraine is within its legal rights to pursue retreating Russians into Belarusian territory to destroy them, to bomb the Russian trains carrying Russian forces on Belarusian railways to their marshalling points behind the Belarusian border. Ukraine has a right to defend itself by destroying fuel depots and ammo dumps strategic to the Russian attack in the territory of Belarus. Belarus is party to the conflict.

Ask yourself: if Poland allowed Ukraine to fly its MiGs out of Polish bases to bomb Kaliningrad, would you insist Poland is not a party to the conflict? If Estonia said “hey Ukraine: please loiter your Bayraktar TB2 drones over Estonia all day long and lob missiles at St. Petersburg,” would you insist Estonia is a third party not involved? I hope not. So why do you defend war criminal Lukashenka’s enabling of war criminal Putin’s aggression against Ukraine? Belarus is a legal aggressor. Belarus is the origination of attacks against Ukraine. It is a belligerent in both intangible and tangible terms. —Michael Z. 19:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Regardless, removing the "supported by" label provides the possibility that readers will have a mistaken impression of the facts, and that presentation may suggest Belarus is contributing troops, which it obviously isn't. Information is not contextualised in the infobox, owing to limited space, so there should be extra care to avoid giving possible misleading impressions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree. EkoGraf (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Disagree

I think the best we to make an impartial decision on that would be by looking at other conflicts. Specifically the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Kuwait, which was use to launch an invasion, and Turkey, they are not included as belligerents. Making an exception for Ukraine would just show further bias. Ahm1453 (talk) 22:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

What makes this article the exception and not that one? Please discuss this case on its merits, because I have no intention of researching the rationale of the infobox labels in another war’s article right now. —Michael Z. 02:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. First, I think that comparing this war to the 2003 Iraq invasion is relevant because one nation launched a war into another nation from the territory of a third. That is a similar event and Wikipedia never listed Kuwait as a belligerent, it is historical precedent. In fact Kuwait is not even listed as a nation that supported the US-led Coalition in 2003 like Belarus is.

I think someone else pointed out that there are two definitions, one refers to being engaged militarily and the other being an aggressor. Latin: "Bellum Gerere" defined as "To wage war".

The Latin term makes more sense because numerous Wikipedia page about war lists groups that are not legally considered as belligerents as belligerents to the conflict.

We cannot change things so drastically because it aligns with people's political views. Ahm1453 (talk) 10:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

So add a note that defines “belligerent.” In fact, we should define it now, for the purposes of this discussion, because we don’t seem to agree on it. —Michael Z. 02:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

No need for a note, Wikipedia's guideline has been clearly defined Template:Infobox military conflict for well over a decade and Seryo93, ProcrastinatingReader and Ahm1453 have all said it quite well. EkoGraf (talk) 12:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Yup. And the field is defined as “parties participating in the conflict. This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; . . .” Being a legal aggressor state is participating. Providing railway transport of combat units, providing airstrips for attack operations, providing safe territory and airspace for missile launches, providing border passage and hospital services for retreating units, providing a defended border to secure the retreat, and providing territory and border passage for invading forces is participating.

If that’s not clear enough, then let’s change the documentation.

In the meantime, no need for a note indeed. Just the need to include the participants as recommended. —Michael Z. 18:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Except for the fact that this approach contradicts RS cited right above, which says that Belarus isn't a party to this IAC. Bests, Seryo93 (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Belarus hasn't taken part in the conflict itself. EkoGraf (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Now you appear to be talking about a legal definition of parties to an international armed conflict. If Belarus is a legal aggressor state then it is a legal party to the conflict.

If you mean in more concrete terms: the conflict was conducted in part across the Belarus–Ukraine border, and attacks against Ukraine originated in the territory of Belarus. With the permission of Belarus, not against its will. So it is willing party to the conflict.

(I don’t know which RS you cite, so I can’t respond specifically.) —Michael Z. 19:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I talk about this RS. Seryo93 (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I see. But please don’t ignore Ukraine’s dispute of the OSCE’s claim about Belarus in the same document. OSCE is using this definition for the purposes of applying international humanitarian law. The document mentions aggression, but in this statement it strangely ignores Belarus’s action which I think we agree falls within the UN’s Definition of Aggression—perhaps the OSCE is only interested in direct Russian IHL violations, which Belarus is not committing? In citing aggression, it does refer on page 1 to the UN resolution on Aggression against Ukraine, which states in point no. 10 that Belarus is involved. Anyway, I can’t explain the disputed apparent inconsistency. —Michael Z. 20:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• I would agree with Michael Z. How can a country that committed an act of unprovoked aggression (per United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314) not be a belligerent? The Union of Russia and Belarus (including their joint "defense") only enforces this point. On a practice, Russian forces are using the Belarus territory as a "safe heaven". It appears that Ukrainian forces now occasionally target military installations on the Russian territory (although this is not officially admitted), but afraid to target any Russian military installations at the Belarus territory. My very best wishes (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• Disagree According to my dictionary (the Macquarie) A belligerent (in this context) is a state or nation at war, or a member of the military forces of such a state. An aggressor is defined by virtue of UN resolution. While the two terms may be similar, they do not have identical meanings and, while Belarus is clearly an aggressor (having committed an act of aggression) it is not "at war" with Ukraine. It is clearly supporting Russia by its actions but its actions do not rise to being a beligerant. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Start date should be February 22, 2022

According to the article introduction, this is the day the Duma authorized military action against Ukraine and when Russia openly sent troops into the DPR and LPR. Both are and were internationally recognized as Ukrainian territory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:1B46:84AF:2076:510A:1837:33CF (talk) 11:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

On 24 February, Putin announced that he had made the decision to launch a "special military operation" in eastern Ukraine. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

China's Nuclear Guarantee

The introduction mentions the Budapest memorandum, which is potentially pertinent to the section on the use of low-yield nuclear weapons - i.e. the potential use of "tactical" nukes which is currently getting press coverage.

What is not mentioned on this page is the Dec 2013 guarantee which China provided, as reported by the WSJ, the pertinent text of which seems to be: "China pledges unconditionally not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against the nuclear-free Ukraine and China further pledges to provide Ukraine nuclear security guarantee when Ukraine encounters an invasion involving nuclear weapons or Ukraine is under threat of a nuclear invasion,”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.169.14.20 (talk) 11:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

That's a somewhat dated newspaper link you are presenting. China's position at present seems to be to decline making ciritical statements about the Russian invasion. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Apparently false claims about Ukrainian comments regarding Transnistria.

The article claims, that On 27 April, Ukraine stated it could "take control" of Transnistria should the Moldovan government request.. As source, it gives an article from the 23rd of April in which neither Transnistria, nor Moldova are even mentioned. This needs to be fixed as soon as possible, but I'm not allowed to edit the article.Liekveel (talk) 12:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Not a false claim. I simply forgot to add the source. The source that you mentioned has nothing to do with it - it refers to the previous sentence. Simply clumsly editing on my part.

YantarCoast (talk) 12:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I've just added the most recent reports on Transnitria involving explosions destroying broadast towers there. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Russian military occupation articles

Alerting editors that, as of this note, four of these articles have been created. Improvement is needed for all of them, and if needed, they should be linked into this main article’s text. I will be creating more for the other affected Oblasts, but for now, these 4 exist.

• Russian occupation of Kharkiv Oblast
• Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast
• Russian occupation of Sumy Oblast
• Russian occupation of Zaporizhzhia Oblast

Elijahandskip (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

They are now linked. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Foreign support of Ukraine

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It is absolute nonsense that we still have only Ukraine in the box. There is a massive ammount of foreing help coming from the west, both weapons and military intelligence. We should vote for this issue again, or change all the infoboxes of other conflicts. --Novis-M (talk) 07:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The section you are apparently referencing in the infobox is called "Belligerents". The definition of a belligerent according to Merriam-Webster is "belonging to or recognized as a state at war and protected by and subject to the laws of war". From what reliable sources tell us, the nations at war are Russia and Ukraine, which also include pro-Russian separatists, Donetsk PR and Luhansk PR, along with support from Belarus (from which Russia invaded northern Ukraine). Nythar (talk) 08:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The publicly sending of weapons, secured from the governments of countries is clearly military support. If Belarus let russian troops to staged and cross the border but no intervened with it´s own military, is at the same level at western countries that deplete their own arsenals to transfer hot weapons to be used by Ukraine.

The list if only indicates "suport" to Belarus, is far away from the real word. 190.188.140.133 (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

No. Allowing a state to use your territory for a war of aggression is an illegal act of international aggression, according to the UN’s definition. Allowing weapons transfers by commercial sale or donation is not, whether a party is at war or not. —Michael Z. 04:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Please refer to Frequently Asked Questions #2: "Can you add X country to the infobox because it is sending weapons to Ukraine?" Or the discussion here The topic has already been discussed numerous times. 191.177.204.73 (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Should we add a "Supported by" section to the Ukrainian side? Looking at Spanish Civil War I see that we include countries like Mexico in that. BilledMammal (talk) 22:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

While it is true the Spanish Civil War article has "Supported By" in its Belligerent section, current consensus on this article is to not include other nations in there. See Wikipedia:Consensus. Nythar (talk) 01:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Need to include in the right square of the article the contries that are supporting Ukraine

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Need to include in the right square of the article the contries that are supporting Ukraine, like is put in all other wikipedia pages on wars and conflicts. There are lots of them that are sending weapons, instructors, food, rations, blocking russian sales, etc. All of this is publicly known, verified by press reports of both sides of the conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.188.140.133 (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

If you mean the list of combatants, only those parties actually using weapons/fighting are listed. This has been discussed many times already.50.111.30.135 (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

That is not true. We put the list of supporting countries in the "Prelude to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" article and there are plenty of other precedents Please note that we clearly label "Supported by:".

I think it's time to put it here too: 1) the Western support with weapons is substantial (especially as heavy weapons are now being supplied); 2) it is notable (WP:N) and there are plenty of WP:RS about the subject. Mindaur (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I support adding them as well. Super Ψ Dro 21:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

"Supported by" is included under the belligerents section of many wars. See Nigerian Civil War for a clear example. The page for the Syrian civil war also includes this information. Not including it here is strange. 86.22.31.94 (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree, countries that provide full diplomatic support or send heavy weapons must be in the list. If not, the info is biased. 190.188.140.133 (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

See #Link to closed and archived RfC: Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox?. The consensus was that countries supplying material or diplomatic support to Ukraine did not meet the threshold to be included in the infobox as "supported by", whereas, the direct access for conduct of the invasion provided by Belarus crossed this threshold. Countries supporting Ukraine is discussed at 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Foreign military involvement and 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Sanctions and ramifications. There is too much detail for this to be "summarised" and consequently, its inclusion in the infobox would fail WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

This is clearly inconsistent with a wide variety of other Wikipedia articles on wars, and additionally whether the countries that would be in the infobox support Ukraine with lethal or non-lethal aid could be disclosed using parentheses. 2601:18F:681:7850:8068:AF36:22CF:56CB (talk) 04:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

It is nonetheless the consensus here, arrived at after extensive discussions. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a mandate. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

That is a dated discussion and a new consensus can overturn it. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

It is, but the discussion needs to be aware of the status quo and how the status quo was arrived at. Further, since it was the result of an RfC, any proposal to overturn the consensus should probably be made as an RfC. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Super Dromaeosaurus, Slatersteven, Cinderella157, Cinderella157: So, do we have a consensus on adding "Supported by" for Ukraine? The Western military support for Ukraine has ramped up to the point where it's becoming a game-changer [14][15]. Or, any volunteers to start RfC? --Mindaur (talk) 15:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I have no issue with including it. It helps the reader to understand just how isolated Russia is. Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I also support including it, specially now per the two citations provided by Mindaur. Super Ψ Dro 16:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Super Dromaeosaurus, Slatersteven, Cinderella157, Cinderella157, Viewsridge: I created an RfC below. Somebody should close all other sections as it's getting indeed confusing. Mindaur (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

supporting country ?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In the table of the parties to the conflict there is Belarus as a supporting country, should the countries providing material support, including military support to Ukraine, not be included ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.111.119.54 (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

sign your posts with four consecutive tildas ( ~ ) 50.111.30.135 (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal above, all countries provividing weapons to Ukraine should be considered as supporting countries --93.42.36.160 (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

War spreading

After many ukrainian or supposed false flag attacks on Russian territory, should we add Russia/names of western Russian regions into the location of the infobox? We should also add transnistria as a spillover in the infobox after the past few attacks there. Wikiman92783 (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, as long as RS say they are part of the conflict and not (for examp[le) accidents. Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Don't add Transnistria yet. It's clear it's a Russian false-flag attack, but it seems too much to just call it like spillover this soon. Super Ψ Dro 13:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Prisoners of war

I would suggest to remove the opening sentence: "Over a thousand prisoners of war have been captured", as by now, by combining the claims of both sides (see the POW section in Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War), the prisoners are supposedly a few thousands. --Potionkin (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Issue at Russo-Ukrainian War

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War § The state of this article. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Refugees section - forced relocation

The text in the refugees section currently says:

Thousands of refugees arriving in Russia appeared to have been forcibly relocated using 'filtration centers', evoking the memory of Soviet era population transfers and prior Russian use of such centers in the Chechen War of Independence to suppress evidence of war crimes. As of 8 April, Russia evacuated approximately 121,000 Mariupol residents to Russia, with some allegedly having been sent to work there. RIA Novosti and Ukrainian officials stated that thousands were dispatched to various filtration centers in both Russian and Russian-occupied Ukrainian cities, from which people were redirected to economically depressed regions of Russia.

References

A great deal of this should be "Ukrainian accuses" rather than WP:VOICE, while other parts don't appear to be in the sources/and or are editorialising (covering war crimes?). I can't read many of the Ru and Ukr sources so cannot fix. A similar text was copied to the Refugee crisis page, but much of it removed as WP:OR while other parts were altereed to Ukr claims. Pincrete (talk) 07:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Pincrete, thank you for sharing your point of view. However, changing the article to "Ukrainian accuses" doesn't seem to resolve the issue and seems to violate WP:VOICE. Perhaps in place of "Ukrainian accuses" we could use "it has been reported" which takes a neutral point of view in place of using the word "accuses" which is a lot more polarizing. This issue is difficult because there are a lot of strong opinions on both sides of this issue, it is an ongoing current event and it is polarizing. However, I believe we need to take a neutral approach in our editing. I would appreciate your thoughts on this issue. Jurisdicta (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

No objection to "has been reported", "Ukraine accuses", was merely meant to make the point that at present it is almost impossible for any news source to verify many of these claims. Pincrete (talk) 10:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Don't you think these are refugee camps? Why are all these sources non English, and the two that there are are BBC and CNN. They have not exactly demonstrated themselves as the most honest recently or in the past. Ahm1453 (talk) 22:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Spelling mistake

In the first sentence of the last paragraph in the 'Refugees' section, the word 'about' has been misspelled as 'aboit'. 04:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done Cinderella157 (talk) 12:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 May 2022

Belligerent is highly subjective 140.0.19.244 (talk) 08:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done No specific change suggested. — Czello 08:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

no, it is not - not at all - see a dictionary 50.111.30.135 (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Request typo fix in quick info box

Quick post, shouldn't "Reports vary widely" be "reports vary Wildly?"--97.123.120.227 (talk) 02:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Cinderella157 (talk) 12:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit request

Please add russia or the western regions recently bombed into the infobox as ukraine occasionally bombs them now Wikiman92783 (talk) 12:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

You can make an edit request using {{edit extended-protected}} if you wish. That'll put it in the list of requested edits. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 20:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually, use of edit-request templates on a page like this is counterproductive. All that does is summon some random patroller, unfamiliar with the article, who will ritually tell the requester to get consensus first. On a page with many active watchers, simply stating what's requested or proposed, as the OP has done, is better; either someone will do it immediately, or discussion will ensue. EEng 16:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

No fly zone

Should we change "NATO and its member states also refused to send troops into Ukraine as this would risk a larger-scale war,[353][354] a decision which some experts have labeled as a policy of appeasement" to "NATO and its member states also refused to send troops into Ukraine , or to establish a no fly-zone, as this would risk a larger-scale war,[353][354] a decision which some experts have labeled as a policy of appeasement.", as it is sourced already. Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

+1. Reason: The "no-fly zone" request is prominently in the first sentence at Government and intergovernmental reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Ukraine, so mentioning it here is good. --User:Haraldmmueller 14:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

+1. I agree with Harald's reasoning. UlyssorZebra (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

'No boots on the ground' and 'no planes in the air' is the consistent policy adopted throughout the invasion by supporting foreign governments. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll give till tomorrow if there are no obejcti0js I will make the change. Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Has tomorrow come yet? EEng 16:23, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Its been done. Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 April 2022

Ukrainian soldier sends orthinological signs to Russian sailors well versed in the ways of the sea.

typo: prupose → purpose 82.132.185.14 (talk) 23:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Could you point out where specifically? Definitely makes it easier for editors with permissions to implement your request. Thanks. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 23:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

This section: 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Peace talks: Second phase of invasion (8 April to present). 82.132.185.14 (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

tbh you could have very easily found it yourself using the CTRL+F function in your browser, or Wikipedia's own "find and replace" tool. 82.132.185.14 (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

To be honest you could've read the instructions on the template telling you to specify where it is... It's not that I don't know how or where to find it, it's that I'm advising you, friendly at first and assuming good faith, to include it in your request so others don't have to do something you should've done in the first place. I'll re-open the edit request so someone can implement it. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 23:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

No, the instructions don't say to specify where it is, only that the request needs to be in a specific "change x to y" format. There's only one instance of the misspelling, so there was no ambiguity in my request (and if there were more than one you'd want to fix them anyway). If you're not even familiar with the most basic of tools then you really need a new hobby. 82.132.185.14 (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Alright man good luck finding someone who'll change your edit requests, have a good day. Unsubscribed and off my watchlist! ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 23:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Ama was trying to assist. This image is currently used on the Dutch Interwiki version of this article. Should it be used in the English version of this article? ErnestKrause (talk) 00:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

War crimes and human rights violations

Evidence of Russian war atrocities and human rights violations, from forced removals of Ukrainians to Russia, to executions and tortures of Ukrainians in Bucha, Irpin and numerous other locations, to mass graves in Mariupol, Bucha and other locations, must be included. I am appalled that they are not and that they don't have their own section. 2604:2D80:A782:BC00:978:8BCA:17A1:1FFC (talk) 04:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

They have better than their own section, they have their own article. BSMRD (talk) 05:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

War crimes? What war crimes? Where are your sources, IP? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine not Anti-Semetic

Russia falsely accused Ukraine of being na*i. I just wanted someone to use this source, according to pew research statistically in 2019 only 11% of Ukrainians had negative views on Jews, while 83% had positive views. That is higher than most European countries. I added this help combat misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahm1453 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Putin ill

Vladimir Putin has been diagnosed with cancer and will soon be undergoing an operation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 07:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

That is not a reliable source. In fact it's not even a source at all, just an unconfirmable broadcast on a news channel we don't even know exists Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 08:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Immanuelle: Please change the colours of your signature, it's nigh unreadable on a white background (which is what almost everyone has)

Googling yields a few reliable sources, ex. [16] or [17]; however both of these seem to cite rumours or unsubstantiated claims by a "former Russian intelligence officer"; so this would fall squarely under WP:NOTNEWS (being unconfirmed speculation). It doesn't help that the other sources I could find reporting this include the ever reliable Daily Fail or its cousin the Sun... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian do you feel this is better? I'll definitely change it more to make it prettier though Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 20:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Immanuelle: Yes, although the talk page link will need the same correction :) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Whether this information should be included is also being discussed at Talk:Vladimir Putin. I would suggest trying to get consensus there before discussing whether it is appropriate for this article. QueenofBithynia (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Putin appears to be due for oncological surgery with 2-3 days recovery time in hospital according to multiple sources with his security council advisor Patrushev to tamporarily take office during the recovery time. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Belarus is a belligerent, continued

The previous discussion (#Belarus is a belligerent) was closed after a brief period with reference to an unnamed dictionary, and with a suggestion to start a new discussion with sources. So below are some articles by legal scholars. @Seryo93, ErnestKrause, EkoGraf, ProcrastinatingReader, Ahm1453, My very best wishes, and Cinderella157:

As pointed out above, the OSCE’s legal advice determined that by not sending forces into Ukraine Belarus is not a direct party to the international armed conflict, and therefore is not liable for Russian violations of international human-rights law in Ukraine.[18][19] The OSCE’s report also included Ukraine’s response which points to the UN’s definition of aggression.

But at the same time, by facilitating Russia’s war and allowing unlawful invasion and direct attacks into Ukraine directly from its territory and airspace it bears state responsibility by violating the UN Charter’s Ch. I, Art. 2(4) prohibition on the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state,[20][21] and is also guilty of aggression, according to the UN’s definition (and Ukraine’s response on the latter point was valid).[22][23]

I’ll reiterate Oxford dictionaries’ definition of a “belligerent,” verbatim: “Engaged in a war or conflict, as recognized by international law.”[24] There is no more definitive legal source on war than the UN Charter’s article 2(4).

Belarus is guilty of unlawful use of force or threat of force and international aggression in this war against Ukraine. If we want to clarify what acts it did and did not commit, that is fine and right. But it should be listed as a belligerent for its illegal participation in use of force and aggression. —Michael Z. 18:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

What dictionaries and UN documents define as being a "belligerent" is entirely irrelevant, per WP:SYNTH, if there is no source specifically saying "Belarus meets this definition". The only sources above which are not dictionaries or legal definitions are [25] (which states that "However, the lack of neutrality does not mean participation in an armed conflict."), [26] (which is a summary of the previous) and [27] (which is one person's opinion, and which does not use the term "belligerent" anyways). So these sources are very far from sufficient to support such an inclusion, no matter what the Oxford dictionary might say. Basing an assertion on whether something meets a given dictionary definition, without a reliable source explicitly saying it does meet such a definition, is a textbook example of WP:SYNTH, and matches very closely with the final example of that section. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

No. The term “belligerent” comes to us from a conventional label in a Wikipedia infobox. Its meaning to the editors and readers can only be determined by the template’s documentation, by broad consensus recorded in a discussion, or, failing that, by a dictionary definition.

By the way, if that is a hard requirement, I don’t see any sources that use the precise term “belligerent” for the Russian Federation, Donetsk People’s Republic, Luhansk People’s Republic, and Ukraine: so far their inclusion is also SYNTH. The OSCE source[28] that some are relying on and cited above states that the D/LNR are “proxies” and “are under overall control of Russia,” and, passim, implies they are not co-belligerents of Russia (direct quotation is “this would anyway also be the case if those ‘republics’ were actually independent States, as Russia claims, and simply co-belligerents of Russia”), as part of the same legal argument used to exclude Belarus. —Michael Z. 19:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Template documentation is not policy. WP:OR is. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I think you made the substantially the same argument in the previous discussion and the consensus was pretty clear. I don't think there's anything here that would change it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. Furthermore, on non-belligerency: A non-belligerent State is allowed to deviate from the duties of abstention, prevention and impartiality and, this notwithstanding, is not regarded as a party to the conflict. For instance, a non-belligerent State can help a party to the conflict by channelling to it war material and other strategic supplies. It may also furnish logistic support, such as warship refuelling or repair, beyond the limits set forth by the 1907 Hague Convention No. XIII, or allowing belligerent aircraft to land on and take off from its territory, contrary to the rules of neutrality which require their internment. A formula encapsulating non-belligerency is that the non-belligerent is entitled to aid the belligerent, bar armed intervention at its side (emphasis mine). Pretty much the situation with Belarusian involvement in this conflict: it allows its territory to be used by the Russian military units involved in the hostilities, but doesn't send its own military in support of the Russian effort. Bests, Seryo93 (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Per RandomCanadian, ProcrastinatingReader and Seryo93, everything has already been said. Unless you can provide a source explicitly stating Belarus is directly participating in the conflict, anything else is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Also I don't think reopening the discussion one day after it was closed is really per WP guidelines. EkoGraf (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay, that is pretty specific, including resupply and landing. Excellent. But the quotation doesn’t include allowing direct cross-border invasion and cross-border firing attacks, both of which Belarus has facilitated. Does it get explicit about that? (Unfortunately, Google Books is not letting me view the content of that source.) —Michael Z. 21:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I do see that citations provide for aerial attack from a non-belligerent territory (essentially, "or allowing belligerent aircraft to <...> take off from its territory" is not much different from Belarusian allowance for Russia to send its forces to Ukraine from Belarusian territory), which, after all, is still an attack by belligerent force. Furthermore, "the non-belligerent is entitled to aid the belligerent, bar armed intervention at its side " still applies fully to Belarus. It avoids direct intervention by its own military, but assists Russia in other ways, including territorially. Seryo93 (talk) 22:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Have you seen any quotations that say that a state can allow cross-border invasion or shelling from its own territory by a belligerent and still remain a non-belligerent. This is still not covered by the sources mentioned. —Michael Z. 22:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

If it's not covered by the sources, then it fails WP:V, and doesn't get included. As simple as that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:54, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Template:Infobox military conflict

Quote:

No need for a note, Wikipedia's guideline has been clearly defined Template:Infobox military conflict for well over a decade and Seryo93, ProcrastinatingReader and Ahm1453 have all said it quite well. EkoGraf (talk) 12:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The topic was closed because there is really nothing to argue. The article is already Ukrainian biased in my opinion. It does not even mention any western nations as Supporting states.

I can under that this is an on going issue and people are personally affected by this conflict so I do not want to harm their feelings, but it is important to remember that Wikipedia is not a propaganda source.

Ahm1453 (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

• Well, according to Lukashenko, the Belarus army plays an active role by preventing any attack on Russian forces from the rear [29]. Furthermore, he claimed to intercept missiles sent by Ukrainian forces [30]. I think that does constitutes a direct involvement to the military campaign. So yes, a belligerent. I am not sure if Lukashenko was telling the truth. However, if that was true (the Ukrainian forces do seem to strike already Russian territory [31]), i.e. the Ukrainian forces were sending missiles, and Belorussian forces intercepted them, that immediately makes Belarus a belligerent. My very best wishes (talk) 01:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Comment Referring to my previous and the reasons given for the close. That we are arguing semanitics of definitions here clearly makes the assertion a matter of WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. It is clearly contentious and not a matter of WP:BLUE. Per WP:BURDEN we need WP:RSs to support such a claim. However, it can (given the contention) be viewed as a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that would require exceptional sources. Sources would need to specifically state that Belarus is a belligerent. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE (and the template documentation), we would require a clear consensus of sources before we might add such a claim to the infobox as a summary of the article and WP:DUE. We are far from anywhere near this. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Legal status of Belarus

Mzajac has just added the narrative form of his Belarus edit into the Legality section of this article. At the same time, User:Cinderella is discussing size issues of this article in the new section above on this Talk page, and the possibility of moving those sections into their already existing sibling articles on Wikipedia. Would that work for all the editors involved here? ErnestKrause (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I've removed it; because it appears UNDUE in that specific section (there are plenty of sources discussing the issue of Russia's crime of aggression and of further war crimes; however including Belarus in that would be unwarranted in an article which is supposed to be a summary of the topic - of course, outside of the specific legal issues, mention of Belarus is appropriate in other places and in other contexts). No objection to this kind of content being split out to appropriate sub-pages where it can be discussed with sufficient depth and detail to allow for proper emphasis of the more significant elements. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian:, so you reverted my verbatim inclusion of conclusions from sources due to reasons: “A single opinion post, even by a PhD, is not enough to justify this kind of content in a Wikipedia article; per the WP:OR issues already explained at sufficient depth on talk page and also per WP:UNDUE,” which I do not understand. Other editors disputed the application of the term “belligerent,” which this does not address, and you closed the discussion as an uninvolved editor, asking for sources. So I found sources, and now you dispute these sources, including the ones previously used by advocates of opposing views, without any sources that contradict them. This is not right.

What I included is balanced and broadly and accurately represents sources without contradicting those that argued against labelling Belarus as a “belligerent” in the infobox.

Also, when reverting, please do the courtesy of using the “revert” function or pinging us in your edit summary. —Michael Z. 21:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

You are well aware of the issues with the sources, as I've explained to you very clearly above (19:15, 1 May 2022), and in the edit summary (opinion posts by a PhD are still opinion posts and should not be used to make claims in Wiki-voice). The point about UNDUE is self-explanatory (it brings undue weight to focus on Belarus in that particular section) and similarly also explained (21:21, 1 May 2022). The WP:ONUS is for you to get consensus for inclusion (or, as others have suggested, to include this material in sub-pages which can afford to cover the topic with more details). Me being previously uninvolved does not mean I have to stay uninvolved forever. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

2022 Perm factory explosion and fire

An article has been made for the 2022 Perm factory explosion and fire. The sources I can access allege that this might be sabotage, but since newsweek is pretty dubious, I don't want to put anything that isn't directly stated as fact into the article. I'd like some help in building the article. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 17:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe the scope could be expanded to cover all sabotage attacks in Russia. I've heard a lot in the news, and in cities like St. Petersburg and even Moscow. Not sure if that event alone is notable by itself. Super Ψ Dro 17:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I would, but I really have no idea where to start, especially since the Perm explosion isn't stated to be sabotage by any source I can find. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 17:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus There is now a draft page for Draft:Sabotage during the 2022 Invasion of Ukraine. Hopefully this blooms into another good page shooting off from the main article. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 17:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The fear with sabotage like this is suddenly everything that goes wrong in Russia is because of sabotage. Fire? Sabotage. Explosion? Sabotage. Bridge collapse? Sabotage. Methanol instead of ethanol in the cleaning product killing scores? Sabotage. I'm not saying that it's not occurring but I think stuff like this has the ability to quickly become a bit paranoid especially in a country that has had something of a reputation for strange and bizarre events. Alcibiades979 (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

reminder that the TP's are NOT a forum - your post is 100% discussing the topic instead of bringing a RS to improve the article 50.111.30.135 (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Append it to April 2022 Belgorod and Bryansk attacks, which looks like it’s being expanded and renamed (see its talk page) to include all suspicious attacks, fires, and explosions in the Russian Federation. —Michael Z. 23:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

just FYI, if you struggle to find sources but find one that DOES state something as fact, best bet is to use WP:INLINE attribution such as "According to (whoever),.... blah blah blah". See also WP:WIKIVOICE NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

The map should respect that Transnistria= Moldovan territory illegally occupied by Russia

The neutral point of view is clearly violated because in truth Transnistria is Moldovan territory illegally occupied by Russia. This is a fact, not an opinion. The map does not respect this, therefore I suggest changing this so that the neutral point of view is not violated. 2A02:810C:4CBF:E144:396C:BBA9:BB1F:9851 (talk) 08:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

In what way? Slatersteven (talk) 08:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Refer to wikipedia's page on Transnistria conflict. Ahm1453 (talk) 11:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes. If the map shows something else, this needs to be addressed Elinruby (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

War crimes, lead section and article. Informal request for comments

As this article's section on war crimes used to be identical to the lead section of War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, I'd welcome if all interested editors could help us reach a consensus (or at least an orderly discussion) on that article's talk page. We are reaching the brink of another edit war there. The main controversial changes recently made to the lead section of that article are the following ones:

• Removed from the lead any references to mistreatment of marauders and pro-Russian supporters: The Monitoring Mission has also expressed concern about reports and videos of ill-treatment, torture, and public humiliation of civilians and prisoners of war in territory controlled by the Government of Ukraine: alleged marauders, bootleggers, pro-Russian supporters and curfew violators have been publicly humiliated by police officers and members of the territorial defence...; plus, removed this section on the same topic from the article.
• Removed from the lead any references to torture and killing of Russian prisoners of war (POW) (... and Russian prisoners of war have allegedly been abused, exposed to public curiosity, tortured, and subjected to summary execution.) and replaced them with references to allegations of ill-treatment of Russian POW (The Monitoring Mission has also expressed concern about videos and allegations of ill-treatment of Russian prisoners of war in territory controlled by the Government of Ukraine.).
• Added to the lead Ukrainian prisoners of war have also been abused, exposed to public curiosity, tortured, and subjected to summary execution.
• Added to the lead Human rights organizations have also accused Russian troops of using mass rape as a "weapon of war", possibly with tacit approval from their superiors. In March 2022 the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine stressed the heightened risks of sexual violence and the risk of under-reporting by victims in the country. After Russian withdrawal from areas north of Kyiv, according to The Guardian, there was a "mounting body of evidence" of rape, torture and summary killings by Russian forces inflicted upon Ukrainian civilians, including gang-rapes committed at gunpoint and rapes committed in front of children
• Removed from the article any references to allegations by Russia over Ukraine using citizens as human shields.

You can confront this old version (11:19, 26 April 2022) with this more recent one (00:43, 30 April 2022). This is the diff between the two versions. These changes were made by User:Volunteer Marek and User:Shadybabs against the opposition of User:Ilenart626 and myself. As the latter editors have been repeatedly accused of misrepresenting facts to push a POV, I disengage and leave it to all interested editors to restore the balance or find a new one on the article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

You are still listed by Wikitools as #9 for authorship of this article out of over 1000 editors of the page. What do you state by using the word 'disengage'? Does it mean no more editing on the main page or no more editing on the Talk page here? User:Cinderella in the section directly above seems to have some similar comments on the article. Is that a 'disengage' in the narrow sense or the broad sense of the phase? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

By "disengage" I only meant that I'm abandoning an editorial conflict that has become unpleasant to me. I've invited you to join that discussion but I haven't implied anything about my future editing - although perhaps the time has come for me to take a break from War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Broader participation is necessary: 2 editors against 2 editors is not a majority, let alone a consensus, and that article is too important to be neglected (apart from the fact that, as User:Cindarella157 rightly pointed out here above, we'd achieved some sort of coordination between the main article's and that article's editing processes). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

• Well, that was definitely an improvement by users you complain about. They fixed the bias and made this text more focused on more significant war crimes, such as rapes, etc.My very best wishes (talk) 22:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Much bias?

I notice that everything that happened to Russians is "alleged" according to you. While everything that happened to Ukrainians is fact. Despite the fact that there are video and photographic evidence that prove Ukrainian guilty and also Russian guilt atleast prima facie. Ahm1453 (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Much bias? 2.0

Removal of Russian allegations, removal of any evidence suggesting that Ukraine is also committing war crimes. Remember Wikipedia is NOT a PROPAGANDA source for Ukraine. Ahm1453 (talk) 23:55, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

or Russia. We should do our best not to repeat any propaganda. But as well. just because there is video, doesn't make it so Elinruby (talk) 00:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

War/invasion

Change invasion to war 2A01:E0A:A7E:E860:584A:2A5F:88EF:7F2C (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

We have an article on the wider war, this is about this specific operation/invasion. Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

That article is a large bunch of OR and an issue of design-by-committee, where it gradually morphed from an article on the 2014 annexation of Crimea, to an article basically on Ukraine and Russia's interactions since 2014. It's most obvious in the lead, which focuses on 2014 events, then jumps to 2019 providing just one sentence on current status, and then discusses the 2022 invasion. It labels 2015-2022 as a "frozen conflict phase (2015-2022)". In reality, it is talking about two disparate issues that occurred in 2014 and then in 2022, and decided to pop them all into one article under an OR heading of "Russo-Ukrainian War", solidified by a low-participation no-sources RM. That article has no clear scope.

I don't have strong feelings either way about whether this article should be called "invasion" or "war", but I do want to point out that there are a LOT of sources that call 2014 to 2022 a frozen conflict, including the monitors of the Minsk agreement. It is however true that the article clearly hasn't been worked on much since about 2015. But that could be remedied. Elinruby (talk) 00:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

The “frozen conflict” stage of the war didn’t begin until February 2015, but I think you’ll find many sources that say the Russians were trying to establish a frozen conflict during this “trench warfare” period. In fact, more than half of the pre-February 2022 casualties were incurred after the end of the 2014-15 “hot war” or “active” phase. —Michael Z. 03:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

The IP editor's suggestion is fair. I think the COMMONNAME is still invasion, but where sources refer to a war, they're referring to this 2022 event. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

We have eight years of sources referring to the war before that.  —Michael Z. 03:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC) —Michael Z. 03:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I think invasion is fair to use because it really is in every way an invasion. Wikipedia lists United States invasion of Afghanistan and 2003 invasion of Iraq as invasions, not Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Ahm1453 (talk) 11:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Why is Chechnya not listed under the belligerents?

They were sent to Ukraine by order of their president, so they clearly should be listed. 87.50.178.158 (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Chechnya isn't an independent state or breakaway region like the DPR and LPR; the Chechen Republic is a constituent part of the Russian Federation. Guettarda (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

As per Guettarda, also discussed once more before. EkoGraf (talk) 22:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Chechnya is not an independent state. It would be like complaining that Texas is not listed as a belligerent in a US war. Ahm1453 (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Or Canada. EEng 16:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

bad joke Elinruby (talk) 07:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

information that could be added

As for war crimes go Russia has been seen and filmed using cluster bombs which are illegal to use against civilians, and even placed many many land mines around bridges. Another incident is the train station bombing that killed 50-100 people or the mass graves found. lastly jailed 15-20K protesters banned Facebook IG and news stations for calling it a war/invasion and anyone could be jailed for calling it so for 15 years. 47.157.236.115 (talk) 09:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done This article is a summary of the invasion as a whole. The section on war crimes herein is the lead of the main article on this specific topic - War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. The lead of that aricle is a summary of that article. Specific details should be added to that article if not already there. Cluster munitions are already mentioned in this article, as is deliberate killing of civilians and censorship is dealt with in another section of this article. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Notes on English-language idiom

A lot of editors here and on other Ukrainian pages seem to have English as a second or third language. Nothing wrong with that of course, but a couple of points that I keep correcting over and over again:

• An "amount" is for fungible things, that you might weigh, for example. If it is something you can count (even if you haven't) you probably mean "many" rather than "a large amount", or perhaps "a large number". "Some" is acceptable both for number and amount, btw.
• I keep seeing language that somebody "began to" do something when the meaning seems to clearly be that they "did" something. I suspect this is idiom from some language that I don't speak, but in English this really emphasizes the "begin" part, and unless the point really is that this is a change and this is when it happened, you're just eating up bandwidth to add in extra words that make your sentence confusing.

Thank you everybody for your attention to these matters. Elinruby (talk) 00:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Another point I keep seeing that isn't *wrong* but isn't quite English somehow: In constructions like "Kristalina Georgieva, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund", that "the" is not normally used in the first mention. If you are going to mention her again after a fairly long intervening text, and the reader might have forgotten who she is, however, the proper format would be "Georgieva, the IMF managing director". In this case you are reminding the reader; don't ask me to explain why this is not done in first mentions, but it isn't. This is also my notification to the group that I am making these copyedits, btw. Feel free to object that I am imposing my own dialect or whatever if that seems appropriate ;) Elinruby (talk) 07:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

• Also a hold-out is the person or thing that holds out. The hyphenated word is a noun not a verb. This one comes up quite a bit also. If we could stop reproducing it this would make me happy Thanks 08:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Potential NATO enlargement as a reaction/impact

One of the knock-on effects has been that NATO enlargement is on the agenda in a very big way in Finland and Sweden (see Finland–NATO relations for Finnish sources to choose from with some in English, and there's incidental stuff for Sweden there too, but probably better Swedish sources exist). Specifically, there's been a _massive_ shift in public opinion, and it's now being worked through in parliament in Finland, and, though neither country's officially come out and said as much yet, it looks like both countries will be submitting applications. I'm pretty sure this should be mentioned somewhere in the article-plex covering the war, but I can't quite figure out the best place to put it. Main article? Maybe marginally not noteworthy enough - but a short sentence might be a good amount of weight; even if it does go in to the main article, it should also go into one of the specific reactions articles. Government and intergovernmental reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine? Well, it's not governmental yet! Non-government reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine? Maybe - but I can't see any other examples of big public opinion shifts mentioned in there, and it's likely to become governmental in a few weeks. I also slightly quibble about this being a 'reaction' - if NATO does expand due to the war, it seems pretty impactful! Ideas, anyone? FrankSpheres (talk) 01:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Lets leave it until it enlarges. Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it's probably fair to not touch the top-level article until there's some kind of official movement. But I do also think that waiting until NATO officially expands will be way too late: the best guess is it's six to eighteen months away, depending on diplomacy and just how much of a hurry everyone's in but that they'll be accepted, and will have NATO-equivalent security guarantees in the meantime. This is a significant consequence even while it's in progress and readers will want to know about it, and we'd be doing them a disservice by leaving it out until the final accession is agreed months later. Maybe when they formally apply and begin negotiations will be the right moment to warrant a mention in the top-level article? (Still not sure whether it ultimately belongs in the 'Sanctions and ramifications' section or the 'Reactions' section, but, upon further reflection, I'm not sure that that division is very natural anyway. But that's a different discussion!)

I've gone and added a little description of the polling to Non-government reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine in a new section as a bold edit - the polling shift has already happened so there's not even a technical element of speculation there and, even after there's an official application to go in the governmental reactions article, that'll make sense. Like I said, even with a mention in the top-level article, this should be mentioned in the specific reactions article(s) because of summary style. FrankSpheres (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

NATO membership application, or an official confirmation of intent to apply, would be an appropriate point for addition here.--Staberinde (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Considering that Putin cites growing NATO membership as a reason for thinking that Russia's security interests are in play, I agree. Elinruby (talk) 09:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Content issue for discussion

The Background section says "During the election campaign, the pro-European integration opposition candidate Viktor Yushchenko was poisoned by TCDD dioxin; he later implicated Russian involvement." I believe the intended meaning of "implicated" here is "accused" but that fails verification also, since what he actually does, according to the source at the end of the sentence, is accuse Russia of refusing to make witnesses (suspects?) available. Needs a better source and possibly a rewrite Elinruby (talk) 08:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

well. let me amend that. The source is fine but doesn't support the text in front of it, so one or the other should change.Elinruby (talk) 09:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Size split

At 85kb of readable prose, this article is already in "probably should be split" territory, and heading towards "almost certainly should be split". We should start a discussion to see in what manner this article should be split, since as time goes on, and the war goes on, it's likely to continue getting bigger. One possibility is the sections "First phase..." and "Casualties...", each of which is around 45kb (raw), and which could be summarized, with content moved into a new article. See WP:SIZESPLIT. Mathglot (talk) 08:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

In most cases, sections of the article already have child articles that align to the sections (more or less). It is more a case of now being ruthless in culling and more effectively summarising detail best covered in the child articles. In the case of War crimes and crimes against humanity, that subsection was culled by replacing it with the lead at War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. There was a discussion leading to this which was pretty smooth and the lead from the child article dovetailed very neatly into this article. Reasonably, the whole section, 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Legal implications could have been replaced except that: War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine did not cover all of the content in the man section (even though it might reasonably do so; and, there are other daughter articles (such as Legality of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine that don't follow a clear hierarchy. I think that this experience indicates a course of action, addressing sections or subsections here as a concerted plan for each section or subsection. It should draw on why that experience worked and how it could be improved upon. It would require a mutually aligned concerted effort between an identified section/subsection and the primary child page. It would require cross-alignment from here to there; a good succinct lead; and, sourcing in that lead, even though that is not a normal requirement of a lead. My thoughts, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

The other approach for that section would be to first move or split the material to the sibling pages which you mention. Then you would have more room to bulk down that section to a short summary alone, with all redirects moved to the top of the section similar to what Boud and elinruby did for the Media section and other sections previously. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

If people were happy with what I did with the media section, I am willing to do another move in a day or two. Right now I am re-reading the article and doing a cautious copy-edit, reducing size where this seems like an improvement anyway. I am not removing any content at this time, just tightening up the language a bit. (and documenting kinda precisely) Elinruby (talk) 09:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Supporting on this. Time frame you mention is also good. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Problem with strength figures in infobox

There is a fairly obvious issue with infobox strength figures. Russian army is shown only as its initial force, and separatist armies are shown at their peacetime size. On other hand for Ukraine both standing army and reservists are shown. Basically Russia + separatists are shown at their initial frontline strength, while Ukraine is shown at full theoretical potential. This is highly misleading, while Ukraine is mobilizing, this is not an instant process. Additionally separatist republics are also mobilizing and in fact started mobilizing earlier than Ukraine. Also, while Russia itself is not officially mobilizing, it has sent additional reinforcements from other regions to Ukraine.--Staberinde (talk) 19:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Staberinde, the only "reliable" figures we have for a particular point in time (or there abouts) is at the start of the invasion. The infobox specifically notes it is as at the start. Do you have a particular suggestion and sources to support same? Cinderella157 (talk) 09:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Cinderella157 Ukraine definitely didn't have 900,000 reservists under arms at the start of invasion, so quite clearly those should be removed from infobox.--Staberinde (talk) 12:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

The 900,000 appears to be reliably sourced to International Institute for Strategic Studies. Do you have a source that states otherwise? Alcibiades979 (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

International Institute for Strategic Studies does not claim 900,000 Ukrainian reservists were mobilized and combat ready on 24 February 2022. Do you have source stating that they were?--Staberinde (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm seeing the opposite is true in regard to Russian troop numbers which are down not up: "Russia is beginning this offensive with a depleted army. American officials say that it retains only 75% of the combat power, across ground and air forces, that it had at the start of the war. Russia originally amassed 120 or so battalion tactical groups (BTGs), formations of around 700 soldiers. Dozens of these are no longer battle-worthy after suffering heavy losses of men and equipment. The Pentagon reckons that there are 78 BTGs in Ukraine presently; Ukrainian officials put the figure at 87."[32] Furthermore monitoring and tallying troop movements from various sources would be WP:OR, so we have initial numbers, and have left them. That they are initial is clearly marked in the text. Plus that all aside it's an infobox not a scoreboard. Alcibiades979 (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Resistance in the lead

Hi! It seems to me that the article lacks a mention to the role of the Ukrainian resistance in the lead and focuses almost exclusively on the Russian action. If I well remember it once said something like "Russian troops met stiff resistance and logistical problems that hampered their progress," is there a reason behind its removal? FilBenLeafBoy (Let's talk!) 00:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

International press has been covering this as a Russian invasion with Ukraine applying a strategy of bunker defenses, siege defenses, and trench warfare defensive tactics to impede Russian advances. The Russian actions are usually documented first since they are the ones determining where the invasion is expanding the military front of Russia's attacks. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

US assessment of nuclear weapons

The US stated last week that it does not believe Russia will use nuclear weapons or attack NATO territory, in spite of Russian statements. https://www.reuters.com/world/us-sees-no-threat-russia-using-nuclear-weapons-despite-rhetoric-official-2022-04-29/ Possibly applicable to the nuclear weapons use section. Overlasting Peace (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Article section seems to have moved forward to May references rather than the April reference which you link. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Leaders in infobox

I recall that in the early days of the war, the 'leaders' portion of the infobox included more than just Putin and Zelenskyy. Somewhere in March other figures like Mishustin, Shoigu etc were removed. Obviously not every general of politician should be included, but why the change? I haven't seen any infobox show just the heads of state before Rousillon (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is a summary of key points of the article - ie it is supported by text in the body of the article. Any commanders with no mention or only a passing mention in the body of the article are not prominent in the context of the article and are not included for that reason. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Whether or not they're discussed at length in the articles, they're still prominent in the context of the invasion. I am not saying this infobox should include the unimportant low-ranking politicians or commanders, but it should include the figures who do have important roles in this war (like Shoigu, Gerasimov, Dvornikov, Kadyrov, Zaluzhniy, Reznikov). As is standard in most other infoboxes such as this. It just seems odd to only list Putin and Zelenskyy (and even if it's only supposed to be heads of state, it ignores Pushilin and Pasechnik)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rousillon (talk • contribs) 12:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

See infoboxes at Kyiv offensive (2022), Northeastern Ukraine offensive, etc. I was able to locate Gerasimov and Zaluzhniy displayed under "leaders" there and I expect the other leaders are similarly covered where relevant. Per Cinderella157, this is just organization and appropriate summary technique to parallel the article prose. --N8_wilson 20:16, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine all alone

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The fact that this page still does not show that Ukraine is supported by other countries is so fricking ridiculous. It serves no purpose other than to push an agenda. I mean it is not even a matter of denial of support, Ukraine is openly supported by western allies with weapons, training, and intelligence. Why is it even up for debate whether they should be shown as supporting or not? It is plainly misleading and dishonest to show it as it is. 142.184.180.208 (talk) 06:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Please see A2 in the FAQ at the top of the page; a discussion already took place regarding this. — Czello 08:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia has long become a monument for editor biases and double standards. HangaMiJyang (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Single purpose account. See Czello above. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Slovakia does not operate any SU-25s

In the "Foreign military sales and aid" section, there is a mention of Slovakia having SU-25s with which it could supply Ukraine. However, that source is incorrect, Slovakia does not operate any SU-25s since ~2002 and sold most of them to Armenia in ~2004. Here's a wiki page detailing every Slovak SU-25s and what happened to them (though it is only in Slovak). There's also a List of Sukhoi Su-25 operators Standa-SK (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

er. I don't suppose you have handy a reference for the sale? I did notice this mention earlier, and didn't question it to go look at the reference, but if you're right this should be fixed. Elinruby (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Source for the mention of SU-25s is "Weber, Peter (28 February 2022). "EU nations intend to supply Ukraine with fighter jets, foreign policy chief says". The Week. Archived from the original on 1 March 2022. Retrieved 28 February 2022."; The Week is a decent source but I am waaay outside my scope of knowledge. Is there somebody who speaks Slovak that could look at this? Standa-SK, is the statement on the Slovak Wikipedia referenced? And if so by whom? 11:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Best I could find is this article from the Slovak Ministry of Defense or this article from SME. At least one of the SU-25s sold to Armenia was shot down during the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war. As for the statements in the Slovak Wikipedia article, they are all sourced to valka.cz. Standa-SK (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

mmm well that valka forum won’t fly as a reliable source, I don’t think. I do see that the list of Sukoi operators does not include Slovakia, but again, that’s not an RS. On the other hand, while your MOD and SME articles both go to the same news agency article, it does look reliable, although, again, we are way outside any area where I can claim expertise. So I might be willing to believe that Slovakia sold 10 of these jets to Albania but do we know how many they had to begin with? Still, Slovakia’s participation, or not, is fairly peripheral in this article. It might be best to just remove that part of the sentence, on the principle of first do no harm. Anyone else have an opinion? Elinruby (talk) 01:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Elinruby, the section reads: EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell stated that the EU intended to supply Ukraine with fighter jets. Bulgaria, Poland, and Slovakia had MiG-29s, and Slovakia also had Su-25s, aircraft which Ukraine already flew and which could be transferred without pilot training. However, the planes' owners were reluctant to donate weapons critical for their own territorial defences, and feared that Russia could view it as an act of war if jets fly from their air bases to fight over Ukraine. This section is describing an "intention". It fails WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:NOTNEWS. As to the more specific question (questionable clam re Slovakia), the is WP:ONUS. Strike the lot IMHO. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)  Done Cinderella157 (talk) 02:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

ok thanksElinruby (talk) 07:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Mearsheimer

Not a word about Mearsheimer's take on the conflict? 2001:B07:646B:4D36:FDE4:1A7B:6912:9FA0 (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

We do not mention all kinds of peoples take on it, why should we include his? Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Because it's opposite to most ad it has had quite a wide resonance.

That probably belongs to page Disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis, not to this page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, good idea. Put it there. 93.45.56.11 (talk) 16:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

View that PDF and scroll down to the chart that shows most experts disagree with Mearsheimer. Maybe that’s why. Although he is an important scholar, his views on Ukraine do not represent the academic consensus. Russian propaganda has really been pushing Mearsheimer videos and interviews on social media because they serve its purposes when sound bites are presented without context. (But it counts on you not reading very much of that PDF, because Mearsheimer keeps repeating that the Russian Federation is a declining power that will keep getting weaker.)

Here’s a couple of critiques of Mearsheimer: [33][34]  —Michael Z. 16:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, just as they say, the article by Mearsheimer is full of contradictions, and he just repeats some "arguments" by Putin. Of course one could criticize Western countries (and especially Germany), but that would be not for expanding NATO, but for supporting in many ways the regime in Russia before the invasion. Putin is exactly same man as he was in 2000, and he was preparing this invasion since 2014 or possibly earlier. My very best wishes (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

There are a lot of contradictions around the topic, if something was said by Putin it doesn't make it the exact opposite of truth. What about "assurances that NATO would not expand eastward, although any such alleged pledges, if real, were made informally, and their nature is disputed"? US National Security Archive begs to differ: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early 128.106.218.149 (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Intel

Please add: "The CIA provided intelligence that helped Ukrainian forces locate and strike the flagship of Russia’s Black Sea fleet. The targeting help, which contributed to the eventual sinking of the Moskva, is part of a continuing classified effort by the Biden administration to provide real-time battlefield intelligence to Ukraine."

reference: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/05/05/us-intelligence-ukraine-moskva-sinking --91.54.19.14 (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Russia launching nukes?

Can someone, anyone, explain the point of 2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Potential_Russian_use_of_tactical_nuclear_weapons? It's a long section devoid of any substance at all. A bunch of speculation about whether Russia will use nuclear weapons, most recently a denial from Russia, mixed in with extended (yet predictable) quotes from Zelensky about the suitability of Russia as a responsible nuclear weapons state due to apparent contamination concerns (which–if actual–should come from scientists if anything, not from politicians). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

There are too many comments from multiple world leaders fully cited in that section. Its not just Zelenskyy, and it looks like William Burns of the CIA has commented, Sergei Lavrov has commented for Russia, Antony Blinken for the State Department, John Kirby for the Pentagon, and others. Each of these names has a Wikipedia article for their biographies, and it seems to be a non-trivial discussion involving Russia as a nuclear power. That seems to be more than "predictable quotes from Zelenskyy". ErnestKrause (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

But it still is all just speculation, maybe one paragraph, but that is it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

World leaders have made a million comments on a million issues since Feb. If Russia doesn't use nukes, this stuff will be a footnote in 10 years time. If nukes are used, then it will be significant. So far, no nukes are used, and there's no realistic prospect of them being used. We write articles for the long term, we aren't a news ticker. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

They have used nukes though. Nuclear weapons have two uses, one is destruction, and the other use is the threat of destruction. Every time Russia threatens to go nuclear it is using the weapons, this is one of their main uses. It also has fundamentally re-calibrated the conflict, western nations are obsessed with the threat and go to pain staking lengths to avoid escalation; such caution was in short supply when NATO helped end the Serbian genocide in Bosnia. I also disagree with the idea that this will be a footnote, Russia's using of nuclear weapons to create an umbrella around the Ukrainian conflict is noticed world wide and has smashed nuclear non-proliferation.[35][36] 2804:14C:8781:8673:DF9D:44EE:7D88:C1A8 (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Equipment Losses should be listed as clearly as possible

Why are there no wikipedia articles detailing equipment losses?

Numbers can never be 100% accurate, but for instance there's been 7 provable downings of a TB-2 Bayraktar Drone used by the UA Air Force occuring as late as early May - However, Russia claimed that they've successfuly downed all operational drones since early on in the war. These two discrepencies could be easily rectified with a list detailing confirmed equipment losses to give a more complete picture of the war — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:967F:DA30:3582:571C:5343:76D (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Typos

Section "Russian accusations and demands": "repressng" should be "repressing" Andyofmelbourne (talk) 05:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done Cinderella157 (talk) 06:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 May 2022 (typo fix)

In the first sentence of the last paragraph of the lead section ('The invasion was internationally condemned as an war of aggression.') please fix 'an war' to 'a war'. Jakub 42 (talk) 03:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 03:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Spelling error

In the section "Alleged clashes (17–21 February 2022)" there is a spelling mistake: "the another" instead of just "another" or "the other". Please change this to one of the two suggestions. Thanks.

In the same section there is a dot in the middle of the sentence about russian videos after the word "amateurish".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ribidag (talk • contribs) 6:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done both. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 May 2022

In the "Second phase — Siege of Mariupol" section, please change "Reports of dissent within the Ukrainian troops at Azovstal were reported by Ukraienskaya Pravda on 8 May indicating that the commander of the Ukrainian Marines assigned to defend the Azovstal bunkers made an unauthorized acquisition of tanks, munitions and personnel to make a breakout from the entrenched position there in order to flea from the city" to "in order to flee the city. These are two different words. Plus, please fix the typo in the same sentence: Ukraienskaya to Ukrainskaya. Thank you. 2A02:AB04:2AB:700:14C4:5AD3:A60C:2C7C (talk) 06:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done both. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

"Invasion" word is misused

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is not a invasion. President Putin's statement says that it's a "special operations in Ukraine". There was no formal declaration of war on former state of Soviet Union "Ukraine". Please change the title of the page to "2022 Russia's Special Operation in Ukraine" as Russia haven't declared war on Ukraine. I believe Wikipedia should see sources from both sides instead of relying entirely on Western Sources. 106.197.2.17 (talk) 08:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

We don't repeat Kremlin propaganda. — Czello 09:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

invasion

/ɪnˈveɪʒ(ə)n/

noun

an instance of invading a country or region with an armed force.

Nope seems to me what Russia is doing fits this definition precisely. Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Multiple independent reliable sources refer to this as an "invasion" (per here). Cinderella157 (talk) 10:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Cinderella157 (talk) 10:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Dignifying this obvious troll with a response is counterproductive. If they want to indulge in a dystopian alternate reality, there are plenty of other sites offering that. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 10:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Very long sentence

In the section "Impact on agriculture and food suppies" there is a very long sentence relying on a single source:

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), further to causing the loss of lives and increasing humanitarian needs, the likely disruptions caused by the Russian invasion to Ukraine's grain and oilseed sectors, combined with potential food and fertiliser export difficulties encountered by the Russian Federation as a result of economic sanctions, could jeopardise the food security of many countries, especially those that are highly dependent on Ukraine and the Russian Federation for their food and fertiliser imports.

I suggest breaking this sentence up, perhaps like so:

Due to the Russian invasion, disruptions to the grain and oilseed sectors of Ukraine are likely. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), this would cause further loss of life and increase humanitarian needs. In addition, potential food and fertiliser export difficulties encountered by the Russian Federation as a result of economic sanctions could jeopardise the food security of many countries. Particularily vulnerable are those that are highly dependent on Ukraine and the Russian Federation for their food and fertiliser imports.

(However, feel free to change it as you like.)

This would mean repeating the source after each full stop, but would make it much easier to read.--Ribidag (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

The edit looks good; feel free to make it, keeping in mind spelling errors and the English style guide (I believe this article uses American English, though feel free to correct me). Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 18:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Ribidag I see now that the page is EC-protected; I'll make the changes then. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 18:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. (This article is written in British English). Ribidag (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done by Iseult Cinderella157 (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

NATO RESPONSE/INVOLVEMENT

I believe that NATO involvement in the war has helped Ukraine get an upper hand, and I think it should be mentioned. Here are some sources to back up my point:

https://www.msn.com/en-xl/europe/europe-top-stories/russia-plays-down-nuclear-war-talk-after-us-ambassador-chides-nato/ar-AAWZk6M?ocid=BingNewsSearch

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/after-nato-weapons-u-s-intelligence-shines-for-ukraine/ar-AAWZKc3?ocid=BingNewsSearch

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-ambassador-to-u-s-says-nato-not-taking-nuclear-war-threat-seriously/ar-AAWXLkL?ocid=BingNewsSearch

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/sweden-and-finland-nato-membership-could-be-approved-in-just-2-weeks-e2-80-94report/ar-AAWUFoQ?ocid=BingNewsSearch

Please excuse my bad citing, I am still working on it. BadKarma22 (talk) 03:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, what section would this be added under? BadKarma22 (talk) 04:55, 7 May 2022 (UTC) BadKarma22 (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

NATO has taken the position of 'no boots on the ground' and 'no planes in the air' to support Ukraine. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

There is already a section for this. See 2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Foreign_military_support NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

NATO, as an organisation, has provided very little in the way of direct support to Ukraine and is mainly focused preventing an escalation by bolstering the defence in neighboring countries. It is NATO countries, not NATO as an organization, that are supplying arms and other support to Ukraine. Obscurasky (talk) 10:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I originally intended to add this to the Russo-Ukraine War page and didn't check this article. I apologize. However, I think we could still mention the US intelligence contribution. BadKarma22 (talk) 01:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I was also using NATO as an umbrella term. BadKarma22 (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I would add to the page the ramification of the conflict in terms of the change in the geopolitical situation in the scandinavian peninsula, today the uk and finland signed a mutual security agreement to protect eachother, quite a strong sign that finland is almost certainly going to join nato. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ELtorto (talk • contribs) 19:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Strange grammar

In the section "Prisoners of War", it says that over a thousand prisoners were captured. Seeing as though the conflict is still ongoing and more are likely to be captured, I suggest changing this to have been captured.--Ribidag (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

It's strange that a prisoner would be captured, no? Makes more sense that a soldier would be captured and then become a prisoner. 2804:14C:8781:8673:7FA:C827:BED8:CE71 (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Good point. Then perhaps it ought to be "Over a thousand combatants have been captured". Then again, it might be best to just remove that sentence since it is bound to be outdated. Any thoughts? Ribidag (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Rewrite lead sentence of Prisoners section to deal with reliability/unreliability issues of statistics generated during the invasion by different sources. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Good idea. I think the sentence could be split in two. I suppose one could also argue that any information regarding casualty counts ought to be limited to the dedicated casualties section above, so a rewrite could be:

Reliable statistics concerning prisoners of war resulting from the invasion have been disputed in the international press. Both underestimates and overestimates of prisoner counts are apparent depending on the source of the statistics.

Also, the first sentence seems to say that the international press has disputed reliable statistics, which is odd. I suppose the intended message is that the international press has disputed whether or not it is possible to make reliable statistics. If that is the case, I feel that it should be clarified. Ribidag (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Never mind, it was changed as I wrote this. Ribidag (talk) 20:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Электроник to Mr. Biden

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

NATO Casualties : The Russians have got WARD recently ... Do YOU know who was JW Clark ? Is he a hero from the USA or just one "white mercenary" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.61.3.205 (talk) 02:08, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I am not quite sure that I understand your post. Could you please be more specific? 2A02:AB04:2AB:700:1009:A242:23B5:EF2C (talk) 08:01, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

The Russian TV often shows dead americans ... Can you mention their names in the table "NATO Casualties" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.61.3.205 (talk) 09:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

No, as Kremlin propaganda isn't a reliable source. — Czello 09:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

BUT they showed PASSPORT CARDS of killed young men ... IGNORE THOSE FACTS in en-wiki ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.61.3.205 (talk) 09:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Again, we don't consider Russian state TV to be a reliable source. If there has been significant coverage in sources we deem reliable there may be justification for inclusion. — Czello 09:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Which can be faked, sorry we do not use Russian state propaganda. But even if it were true, so? Russia is using Mercenaries, why not Ukraine? Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

YOU don't trust RU-WIKI ? NO NATO casualties ? O.key. 2.61.3.205 (talk) 12:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC) NOTHING TO TRANSLATE

We do not trust En-wiki, wiki's are not wp:rs. Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

And what the hell does Domestic terrorism have to do with the possibility that some Americans might be fighting in Ukraine? Slatersteven (talk) 12:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

DOMESTIC ? it's an INTERNATIONAL CASE of State terrorism ! 2.61.3.205 (talk) 12:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC) NOW i wonder are you for or against THE PUTIN ADMINISTRATION in KIEV ?

Then why are you linking to an article about domestic terrorism? Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Because IT IS ME who translated THE THEME for Ru-Wiki ! 2.61.3.205 (talk) 12:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC) NOT the Kremlin Pool

So? What relevance does this have to this topic? All it does is confuse this issue as people will go there assuming it has some relevance, thus you are just wasting user's time with that link. Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

PLEASE ... USE your own links: State Sponsors of Terrorism (U.S. list) after new NATO summit 2.61.3.205 (talk) 12:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Sorry but what has this to do with the topic? Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

WE were talking about NATO CASUALTIES : AMERICAN ... NOT BRITISH ! That is my address was TO Mr.Biden 2.61.3.205

IP comes back to Rostelcom (Russian telecom), Sibirtelecom actually, to nobody's surprise I am sure Elinruby (talk) 13:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

(talk) 13:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lead not chronological

The second paragraph of the lead (first big paragraph), begins in 2014 with the annexation of Crimea, then progresses to a build-up in 2021. Then comes Putin's "special operations" speech on the 24:th of February. After this we jump back one day to the 23:d of February to say that Russian officials denied plans to invade up to and including that day, which I suppose is fine as a look-back after the invasion has started.

In the next paragraph we are suddenly back on the 21:st of February, the invasion hasn'st started yet, and instead Russia recognizes the two self-proclaimed statelets. Then the invasion begins on the 24:th again, with Putin again announcing a "special military operation". We then hear a little about what happened shortly thereafter, with missile strikes and general mobilization.

I was a little confused reading this and the first time I did, I thought the first speech mentioned was different from the second, when they are in fact the same. This is because the first time it is mentioned no date is given. It just says "shortly before the invasion" which really means 10:s of minutes before, but with how the lead jumps in time makes you think it is a few days before, somewhere before the 23:d of February, which is the next actually given date.

More nitpicky is that the fourth paragraph begins with "As the invasion began on 24 February 2022" and then goes into fronts and such. This again gives a feel of "restarting" after just having heard what happend as the invasion began: missile strikes and general mobilization. Some way to show these happened simultaneously might tie it together better.

I think it could be an improvement to make the lead more chronological.--Ribidag (talk) 05:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying that I believe that this is the best or clearest lead that might be written. However, on the particular issues that you would raise, I am not seeing that there is a particular issue and that the chronology of events is reasonably clear even if the lead does not follow a strict chronological order. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:54, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Sabotage

Hello, I am slightly surprised that I can't see any mention of alleged 'attacks' inside Russia and Belarus. Belarus has just legislated against sabotage with the death penalty because of the extent. A military facility in the far east of Russia suffered an explosion reported today: https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/05/12/1-dead-7-injured-in-russia-military-base-explosion-a77650 many others I am sure editors will know about. There are good RSS but I could understand a reason why sabotage is left out of the article. However the situation in Belarus is now cited as being partly the cause of Russia's withdrawal from the north. It's part of Ukrainian solidarity and strategically, militarily significant. I thought worth a discussion maybe. Thelisteninghand (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Attack on Belgorod and Millerovo air base attack are already included and linked in the article, as well as the destruction of communication towers in Moldavia. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Where did the "current event" box at the top of the page go?

I mean, it's still going on, and probably will be for several years, right? HighwayTyper (talk) 10:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

It is presently displayed in the Invasion section. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

US financial support

How about add this, on place of Ukrainian side Im talking about us financial supporting Ukraine with Lend lease, so M1Jyyy (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

We do in Foreign military sales and aid. Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Also in this article: List of foreign aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

cluster munitions

These aren't really prohibited; many countries have signed a treaty agreeing not to use them. Neither Russia nor Ukraine is among them. However, using cluster munitions against civilians is most likely a war crime. but that would fall under different international laws. Struggling to find a concise way to express this. I have been changing "prohibited" to "banned" on this and the applicable subpages, but that is only slightly less wrong. Anyone have any thoughts? Elinruby (talk) 04:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

currently going with "repudiated by many countries", open to other ideas. Elinruby (talk) 11:23, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Supporting this. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:44, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

About the map

Comprehensive map key of the invasion says about 'Ukrainian advances'. Even if we do not take into account that in most northern areas Russian forces just withdrew because they could not do anything, maybe the correct term would be 'Ukrainian counter-offensive' as these moves are entirely in Ukrainian territory and Ukrainian army held those before the current war?Κλειδοκράτωρ (talk) 10:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Why? "Advances" does not mean "invasion". Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Advance implies going forward when actually Ukrainian troops return at that place. I don't know it sounds to me that counter-offensive is a better term. Κλειδοκράτωρ (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Advances in this context means that they are counteracting against Russian forces. Thepanthersfan201 (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Alright, if it is just me just ignore my comment. Κλειδοκράτωρ (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Russian casualties

UK has now stated that Russia lost 1/3 of its ground invasion force from February, 24. (KIA, MIA, WIA, POWs included I suppose.) https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/1525762560888344577?s=20&t=5bifi3vtZs7vfcseRrzzPA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oca24016 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 May 2022

I want to add a section explaining how the invasion caused Finland (a non-NATO country), to join NATO. Source:

BadKarma22 (talk) 21:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

That should be its own article @BadKarma22 Starship SN20 (talk) 12:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. SpinningCeres 03:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Can we clean up the line thickness of the "Casualties" table? It's confusing

The causalities table is quite confusing - it's very hard to quickly see what casualties relate to what party because of inconsistent use of line thickness. For example, the Russian and Allied forces, the line between US and UK estimates is thick, despite both being estimates for the Russian and Allied forces. However, the line between Luhansk and Russian and Allied forces is thin despite between different parties.

Thick line should be used to separate different categories, while thin lines should be used to separate the different estimates within that same category imho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.98.246.42 (talk) 08:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the thinner lines are meant to indicate that the groups are part of one force, while thicker lines imply different belligerents or neutral groups ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 11:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Composite images of Russian high command

Left to right: Aleksandr Dvornikov (Commander of Field Operations), Sergey Shoigu (Defense Minister) and Alexander Zhuravlyov (previous Commander of Field Operations, reassigned under Dvornikov after 8 April 2022)

The high command for the Russian invasion is now known, should the image be added somewhere in the article? ErnestKrause (talk) 01:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

See MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE: Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding. See also MOS:TEXTASIMAGES. Images support the text of the article - don't write the article with images or in image caption. It is a case of showing that the proposal meets the WP:P&G. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Information is verified and accurate of current high command for Russian invasion. Caption can be adjusted as needed. Editors can comment if the composite images are "significant and relevant" for the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Grain war

The subject is covered, perhaps the sources may be used.

https://www.euronews.com/2022/05/14/ukraine-war-grain-exports-blocked-by-russia-threaten-to-bring-hunger-and-famine-g7-warns

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/germany-accuses-russia-of-waging-grain-war/2588110

https://radioopensource.org/grain-war/

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/economy/article/2022/05/12/war-in-ukraine-threatens-the-world-s-breadbasket_5983258_19.html Xx236 (talk) 10:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Grain silos are overfilled in Ukraine and Ukraine does not have safe access to transport grain using their seaports by Odessa. The topic of general hostility in this region appears to be covered in the article in the Odessa front section and in the Navy section. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 17 May 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Further recognition denied. Super Ψ Dro 19:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

---

2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine → Special military operation in Ukraine – For an invasion to occur, the following criteria must be met: the objective of a third country must be the seizure of the country and its annexation. Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin has declared that his goal is solely the de-Nazification and demilitarization of Ukraine.. JanPawel2025 (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

• Strongest oppose The invasion occurred when Russia invaded Ukraine. Wikipedia is not going to mainstream Putin propaganda. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. Russian media's POV. lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me • contribs) 19:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

• Strongest oppose this is simply propaganda invasions frequently occur with no intent of annexation anyways, and we have no evidence against the idea annexation is the end goal. Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 19:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
• Speedy close For self-evident reasons. Curbon7 (talk) 19:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rename to Russo-Ukrainian War

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

"2022 Invasion of Ukraine by Russian Federation" should be renamed to "Russo-Ukrainian War". Also "Annexation of Crimea by Russian Federation" and "2022 Invasion of Ukraine by Russian Federation" should be removed from "Russo-Ukrainian War" and it should be renamed to something else as technically "2022 Invasion of Ukraine by Russian Federation" is the actual war between the two parties and the "Russo-Ukrainian War" page is actually referring to the series of conflicts, disputes and clashes since 2014. PadFoot2008 (talk) 06:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Dear Editor, you are completely new here, please learn.Xx236 (talk) 06:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. The "2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" is by far the most common name for this stage of the conflict, yielding far more Google search results than "Russo-Ukrainian War" (2.54 million vs 635,000 with quotation marks, 540 million vs 22.3 million without); you can be certain the former only refers to this invasion while the latter was also used prior. Lightspecs (talk) 06:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose (A) Since there is no article 2022 Invasion of Ukraine by Russian Federation the proposal to rename the non-existent article makes no sense. (B) If it means this article (2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine) still oppose because this article is a necessary sub article of Russo-Ukrainian War (C) the proposal to split other articles doesn't belong here. (D) the articles under discussion need to have the appropriate rename/split/merge tags so that more editors are aware of the proposed changes. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

What's with these nonsense proposals lately? Super Ψ Dro 13:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ukrainian side of the war

It should add nato and the listings of nato countries in the support part of Ukraine 2001:8F8:1471:D52E:F064:352A:1506:2A2F (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

'This IP address is currently partially blocked'Xx236 (talk) 06:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, the whole range is under a partial block, not just the IP. 2A02:AB04:2AB:700:E028:FDDD:D5CF:71F7 (talk) 07:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Issue of support by troops, or support by piloted jets, or support by military equipment provided is currently discussed in the section above. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

There are no troops nor piloted jets in Ukraine. Russia uses French and German military technology delivered after 2014, I am for listing the two countries as supporters of Russia.Xx236 (talk) 08:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

See RFC in progress above. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2022

I need to update the infrmation LOLl-KING (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC) I just need to update this information

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. -- lomrjyo ^🇺🇦 20:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

"The Chinese military also allegedly conducted a massive cyberwarfare espionage effort on the eve of the invasion, including on nuclear infrastructure, pointing to advanced Chinese knowledge."

As posted before but was ignored, the Security Service of Ukraine officially denied a Chinese cyber attack took place or have any evidence of such attack.

From their official Twitter, posted on 2 April: https://twitter.com/ServiceSsu/status/1509983294334582793

"The SBU did not provide the media with any official information that cyber-attacks from China were allegedly carried out on the eve of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine on our military and other resources. The SBU has nothing to do with the findings of The Times. The Security Service of Ukraine does not currently have such data and no investigation is underway."

I would suggest adding keeping the allegation while adding this, and remove "pointing to advanced Chinese knowledge" because it is not NPOV. Chokoladesu (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Individual country responses to the Russian invasion of Ukraine are dealt with on the sibling pages. China is usually mentioned as somewhat acquescing to Russia regarding the invasion as a recurrent point coction I am vered in the international media. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:39, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

this is already in the article, though. I wondered myself about the advanced Chinese knowledge, which is a strange phrasing. Chinese military of course have advanced knowledge of cyberwarfare; does this mean of Ukrainian nuclear infrastructure? Yet no damage was done? And the SBU specifically denies either leaking the information or being able to confirm it -- which is odd coming from a country that has recruited hackers. Naturally they might deny it, but they would know about it, and it is also true that this could be Russian FUD. The thing about advanced knowledge should be cited and clarified if kept; I can't remember, was any of this cited at all? How well? [[User:Elinruby|Elinruby (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

sourcing is pretty good, and this is also mentioned in technical literature [37] however, a couple of things: the person who wrote that meant *advance* knowledge. But this is a conclusion which is cited to anonymous intelligence officials, so I would support deleting the phrase. I am also not sure whether the cyberattacks should be mentioned here or elsewhere, and in how much depth. There is also Russian information war against Ukraine. But I am tired and going away and somebody else can make the call. I find all that highly notable but I am a geek and this is a top-level article. That is what I know Elinruby (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Hearing no objection I have deleted the "advance knowledge" part and will incorporate the SBU denial into the sentence now. Elinruby (talk) 05:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

might be good to cite the twitter post as well Chokoladesu (talk) 07:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Finnish NATO membership

A few days ago, I sounded out adding the potential Finnish/Swedish NATO applications to the article in Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_9#Potential_NATO_enlargement_as_a_reaction/impact, and there was a rough consensus for adding it once there was official movement. Today, the Finnish President and PM made a joint declaration saying that "Finland must apply for NATO membership without delay", which looks like it meets the threshold of officiality to me. I can't add this myself, but here's some proposed text for the 'Reactions' section:

On 12 May, Finnish President Sauli Niinistö and Prime Minister Sanna Marin issued a joint declaration that Finland should join NATO.

There might be room for some further elaboration on this (e.g., discussing just how badly the idea of invading a neighbour to keep NATO away from Russia has backfired on Putin here), but the article's pretty dense already. Maybe when there's some more heavy-weight analysis to cite on this point?

I haven't tried to describe the likely next steps, but they'll happen shortly, it's expected, and I don't think that the precise procedural details matter as much as the declared intention. This means that the information we put in will get stale quite quickly, but that's okay - it's a wiki and nothing's set in stone, and especially not on a highly-active article like this one. FrankSpheres (talk) 10:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

References

I think we can wait until its a done deal. Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

That'll take months, as I said last time. This is an official declaration of the intent to apply and the consequent geopolitical shift. Everything from here is formality and hoop-jumping, more or less. FrankSpheres (talk) 11:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

And? we can wait months or years, we are not a newspaper. Ohh and an "offical declaration if intent" is not doing it or succeeding. Anything can happen, including a Russian invasion top stop it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Putin has cited the enlargement of NATO as being one of the main reasons for this war; the evolution of Finland's position on NATO membership is relevant to this article no matter where this goes. I think this is definitely worth a mention. Aluxosm (talk) 12:36, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Both Finland and Sweden have been expressing similar concerns; should the article leave out Sweden? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Sweden will announce it's membership application on Sunday. 2804:14C:8781:8673:D445:ACD4:5093:7349 (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

So will Finland. Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it's sensible to wait on Sweden until we get a definite official signal like we did today from Finland - e.g., the PM declaring they'll apply, or the government laying a proposal before parliament; currently it's all still technically innuendo there. Not that I don't think it will happen (it's basically locked in), but this article's already really hefty and consequently we have to be very picky about what goes in and is worthy of mention - an official movement seems to me to be a pretty good prima facie boundary. FrankSpheres (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Just a comment: If Finland and Sweden will join NATO, then I would argue that we should also include this into the "Result" section in the infobox. It would be a direct consequence of this war (even if it's not between the belligerents). --Mindaur (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

On 18/05/2022 Finland, together with Sweden, officially applied to join NATO, although Turkey raised some objections to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 07:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Finland and Sweden on Wednesday morning (18 May 2022) simultaneously handed in their official letters of application to join NATO NATO official website. IP-Editor; May 19, 2022.

Turkey has stated they will challenge application, where unanimity is required for approval. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Does It matter? This is already an official request by two important countries closely involved in the conflict and It is clearly a consequence of this conflict. The reaction section should include Finland and Sweden application to Nato and eventually the possible rejection by Turkey. I think this is relevant information and certainly more relevant than what Pope Francis thinks about the conflict. 11:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.67.47.214 (talk)

 Note: I am marking this edit request as answered procedurally as it is an ongoing discussion as to whether or not the requested edit should be included at this time, per the template instructions. Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 05:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Reference for introduction: "false" mistreatment claims in Donbas

At the moment, the article introduction says the following "falsely[26] accused Ukraine of being governed by neo-Nazis who persecute the ethnic Russian minority."

This reads like politicised editorialising. Our reference for the "falsely" part is The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles. What a strange choice for a source on such a major issue, a journal of a random American Jewish community? Is the word "falsely" needed at all here? Can we categorically say there was no mistreatment of ethnic Russians in the Donbas and none of that mistreatment was associated with Azov or other groups which have some kind of neo-Nazi connection?

Maybe we could say the Russian claim is exaggerated, but even that may be editorialising. To categorically say "false" seems misleading. Torchist (talk)

Possibly look at the section titled "Russian accusations and demands". ErnestKrause (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed thoroughly on numerous threads on numerous parts of wiki all of which I'm too lazy to link to. Be that as it may, the consensus was that the edit you're proposing lacks consensus, so it stays. Alcibiades979 (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

You want this article to leave open the possibility that Putin’s hate speech might all be true because you’re unhappy with a single source that says it’s not true? There are thousands of sources that say it’s not true. Take your pick. —Michael Z. 19:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

[Deleted non-constructive anonymous WP:SOAP. —Michael Z. 19:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)]

Neutrality means we go by what RS say, as NATO has not passed a law on what western media can say (whereas Russia has on what its media can say) we, therefore, have to go with western media as not state-mandated propaganda. Slatersteven (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

To the IP user who was upset I didn't link past discussions, have fun: [38], [39], [40]. Anyhow all of this truly has already been discussed to death. Alcibiades979 (talk) 00:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

40 Western countries supporting Ukraine missing in the list

There is Belarus listed as supprorting Russia, but nowhere the full list of 40+ Western countries supplying weapons, training, intelligence (i.e much more than Belarus supports Russia) thereby distorting (intentionally or not) the full view of this conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.185.38.18 (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

As far as I know (and to demonstrate the difference) no western nation has been used to base Ukrainian forces, or have had any attacks launched from any. Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Belarus has legally committed a crime of international aggression by providing its territory for direct aggression. We haven’t established yet whether this legally qualifies it as a belligerent. The other 40 states are not in these categories, some of them have supplied weapons to the Russian Federation, but supplying weapons, training, and intelligence happens during peace and war and doesn’t constitute legal participation in a conflict. —Michael Z. 18:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

They provide safe transit to belligerent troops. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Not only transit, but invasion by troops out of Belarusian territory into Ukrainian, and missile and artillery attacks launched from Belarusian territory and airspace directly into Ukraine. —Michael Z. 18:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Strength infobox

On May 21st Zelensky told to journalists that Ukrainian armed forces are actually 700 thousand strong. Sources: https://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2022/05/21/7347610/ https://censor.net/en/news/3342842/today_you_see_result_of_work_of_700_thousand_ukrainian_defenders_zelenskyi https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIcY-jEH0Bg

So the 'Strength' infobox should be updated accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.172.92.34 (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Gas being turned off

Russian gas has already been turned off for Poland and Bulgaria.

Please may someone add this in the article.

Thank you.

https://www.dw.com/en/europe-cooperates-on-gas-as-russia-turns-off-taps-to-poland-and-bulgaria/a-61641814

It's the same with Finland as well: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-20/finland-loses-main-gas-supply-as-russia-will-turn-off-taps — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:A702:EA85:3D54:C9BD:1A5F:4CD7 (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Finland was added yesterday. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Leaders of DPR and LPR should be included

Why are the leaders of the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics not included in the infobox? They are the heads of state of those states just as Putin is the head of state of Russia, and the DPR and LPR are completely involved in the war. Cyrobyte (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

What states? They are recognised only by russia and their satellite "people's republics". Dim.yttrium (talk) 10:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Not part of the U.N. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Not “just as.” The proxy republics are not sovereign entities, and their titular leaders do not command the military collaborators’ forces. Ukrainian sources say that Pushilin in Donetsk commands elements of the police corps, and has partial influence over some competing factions, but not the Russian separatist forces in Donbas, and according to the ISW this is consistent with the observed evidence.[41]. Others have reported that the Donetsk 1st Army Corps and Luhansk 2nd Army Corps are under the direct command of the RF’s 8th Combined Arms Army. —Michael Z. 17:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox should summarise and be supported by detail in the article body. The entry is for prominent leaders. When last I looked, one of these had but a passing mention and the other had none. The article does not support their inclusion. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:00, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

@Cyroyte: "Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics" do not exist. Donetsk, Ukraine & Luhansk, Ukraine do exist. BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

@Cyrobyte "Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics" do not exist. Donetsk, Ukraine & Luhansk, Ukraine do exist."

they exist if the USA say's so, is that it? any other country should abbid to this rule? the same happen to the Palestinians. Nunovilhenasantos (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I am not saying that the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics are legitimate countries, but that they are sovereign because they have control over a particular territory. In fact, they are listed as sovereign states at the article "List of sovereign states". Cyrobyte (talk) 01:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

UN diplomat quits and speaks out against war

I wonder if we should include info re the Russian UN diplomat that quit and said he was ashamed over the war. He also made some statements saying that the Russian population has been led to believe that a nuclear strike would scare Americans causing them to kneel to what ever Russia wanted. This incident has been reported on in all the major U.S. news sources. Sectionworker (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

ABC News: "Boris Bondarev, 41, confirmed his resignation in a letter delivered Monday morning after a diplomatic official passed on his English-language statement to The Associated Press." ErnestKrause (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

WashPo has a very good article: [42] (In my above post I tried to add a link without signing in and can't get rid of it - I'd appreciate it if someone could fix it.) Sectionworker (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: to @Sectionworker: & @ErnestKrause: I think that a section on 'UN Diplomat quits & speaks out' should be added. Here's a good New York Times article on it [43]

“For 20 years of my diplomatic career I have seen different turns of our foreign policy but never have I been so ashamed of my country as on Feb. 24 of this year,” Mr. Bondarev said, referring to the date that President Vladimir V. Putin sent Russian forces into Ukraine.

“The aggressive war unleashed by Putin against Ukraine and in fact against the entire Western world is not only a crime against the Ukrainian people but also, perhaps, the most serious crime against the people of Russia,” he added. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

It appears that Bondareev also made a comment about the irresponsible position of Putin towards nuclear arms threats; if someone can put the exact quote here with the source, then it could be added to the Nuclear arms section. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I've just added it there with the quote taken from the Washington Post article. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine support section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The website is supposed to add nato in the Ukranian side of the belligerents because Ukraine is supported everyday with heavy money and heavy equipment by NATO 2001:8F8:1471:BDAD:A10B:746B:7F38:C4A (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Please see the above discussion on this. Jr8825 • Talk 20:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fixing capitalization Reactions Section

Single error in Tedros quote, black should be lowercase. 99.106.93.88 (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Source says it is "black and white lives", both in lower case. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes but I thought white was already lower case so it didn't need to be corrected. 99.106.93.88 (talk) 05:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Record of conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and James Baker in Moscow. (Excerpts)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Extended content

Hi, everyone. I'm new around here, and i would like to point it out the following paragraph. "Russian leaders described this expansion as a violation of Western powers' assurances that NATO would not expand eastward, although any such alleged pledges, if real, were made informally, and their nature is disputed." The previous paragraph was written very recently, but the text I mention below has been available since 2010, and was published on the website I mention below on December 12, 2017. in this paragraph 3 sources are mentioned, to be true, "they must be people of very good morals" ??? I think what is happening here is that, based on facts, such as those that happen very recently in history, the lies that condoleezza rice, colin powell, george w. Bush, and many others have created, and even had the can of, presented at the UN General Assembly. Since the media are involved in this, they took this lie and replicated it to exhaustion, both in america and europe. Let's take some care in here, for there are many "newspapers" and "journalist" and also "writers" who don't mind write lies. It is not because a lie is replicated a billion times that it becomes a truth, and it is not because a truth is not replicated that it becomes a lie... [44] "Date: Feb 9, 1990 Description: This Gorbachev Foundation record of the Soviet leader’s meeting with James Baker on February 9, 1990, has been public and available for researchers at the Foundation since as early as 1996, but it was not published in English until 2010 when the Masterpieces of History volume by the present authors came out from Central European University Press. The document focuses on German unification, but also includes candid discussion by Gorbachev of the economic and political problems in the Soviet Union, and Baker’s “free advice” (“sometimes the finance minister in me wakes up”) on prices, inflation, and even the policy of selling apartments to soak up the rubles cautious Soviet citizens have tucked under their mattresses." "Turning to German unification, Baker assures Gorbachev that “neither the president nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place,” and that the Americans understand the importance for the USSR and Europe of guarantees that “not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.” Baker argues in favor of the Two-Plus-Four talks using the same assurance: “We believe that consultations and discussions within the framework of the ‘two+four’ mechanism should guarantee that Germany’s unification will not lead to NATO’s military organization spreading to the east.” Gorbachev responds by quoting Polish President Wojciech Jaruzelski: “that the presence of American and Soviet troops in Europe is an element of stability.”" Nunovilhenasantos (talk) 23:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC) Sorry i forgot to enter this, https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16117-document-06-record-conversation-between https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X7Ng75e5gQ I think that we should all be careful when writing about this topic, and not replicate what the "newspapers" and "journalists" and "writers" replicate to exhaustion without knowing what they benefit from it. because in this way they are converting lies into truths??? Why is Ukraine the West's Fault? Featuring John Mearsheimer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4 Nunovilhenasantos (talk) 23:08, 22 May 2022 (UTC) Mearcheimer has been previously discussed on this Talk page and has been archived. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC) Quotations from primary sources presented out of context can be misleading. Those conversations were specifically about forces dispositions in Germany, many of Baker’s and others’ statements were offers that were never accepted, and neither NATO nor future-NATO Warsaw Pact states were involved in these talks. In the end, all of the promises were written down in the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany and signed by the parties, one of them being Soviet permission to move NATO forces east within Germany (and contradicting Putin’s propaganda statements). For a more accurate view, look at secondary sources based on recent research, like M. E. Sarotte’s Not One Inch, or Steven Pifer’s “Did NATO Promise Not to Enlarge? Gorbachev Says ‘No’.”[45] —Michael Z. 22:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC) Hi, This is not "Quotations from primary sources presented out of context can be misleading.", but "Record of conversation between". "many of Baker’s and others’ statements were offers that were never accepted", what I can deduce from this, they should have had conversations with those who had decision-making powers, and not with those who were used to say what they wanted to hear. So I can only understand what of these gentlemen??? words are one thing and actions another??? what interesting politicians do we have??? "For a more accurate view, look at secondary sources based on recent research", with this, we have western propaganda and them Putin’s propaganda, this is the correct way tho see it, not the other way around. what i can infer from this is that we are the god and they??? because we analyze and our version turns out to be the correct one??? and their version is what we say, is it??? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X7Ng75e5gQ Vladimir Pozner: How the United States Created Vladimir Putin sorry for my English, but i'm not a writer but an avid reader. Nunovilhenasantos (talk) 00:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC) @Nunovilhenasantos: You seem to be unaware that the U.S.S.R does not exist. For over 30 years, the U.S.S.R has not existed. BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC) Hi, i known that. It's history. Nunovilhenasantos (talk) 23:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC) "These arguments do not stand up. Mr Baker was speaking about eastern Germany. His words were overtaken by the collapse of the Warsaw Pact nearly 18 months later. nato and Russia signed an agreement in 1997 that did not contain any restriction on new members, though enlargement had been discussed. The Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland joined almost two years later. The undertaking that has been violated is Russia’s pledge to Ukraine not to use economic or military coercion, given in 1994 when it surrendered the nuclear weapons based on its soil. In fact nato has every right to expand. Under the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, signed by the Soviet Union, countries are free to choose their own allies. The Warsaw Pact suffered grievously under Soviet rule. Why would its ex-members not seek a haven? ... Indeed, the right for sovereign countries to determine their own destinies is one of the many things currently at stake in Ukraine. But was nato expansion wise? A spiral of mutual suspicion between Russia and nato clearly exists, but to blame nato expansion for triggering it is scarcely credible. Mr Putin has increasingly used nationalism and Orthodox religion to shore up his rule. He needs enemies abroad to persuade his people that they and their civilisation are under threat. That is why he seized territory in Georgia in 2008 and in Ukraine in 2014. Besides, Russia has a long history as an imperial power. Like most declining empires, it was likely to resist as its periphery drifted off, regardless of nato expansion."[46] Alcibiades979 (talk) 20:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC) Note that this is WP:NOTAFORUM; propose thread closure/archive. Iseult Δx parlez moi 21:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC) Iseult makes a valid point. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC) with that, the same applies here, with some texts been WP:NOTAFORUM, if you write Putin’s propaganda, you should write Western propaganda, i'm wrong in this, can anyone elaborate??? "Note that this is WP:NOTAFORUM; propose thread closure/archive.", because is assessment, is the same done by many articles that I've read, from those in CNN, and there minions. this is the same with the azov "battalion", way back, they were call neo-nazis, and nazis, and now they are a "Battalion". the other day I saw on TV, saying that the "AZOV BATTALON", only have 10% of neo-nazis. ok, i will be more careful picking the situations to address, but I stand by this It is not because a lie is replicated a billion times that it becomes a truth, and it is not because a truth is not replicated that it becomes a lie... Nunovilhenasantos (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC) sorry, forgot, to sign, Nunovilhenasantos (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC) Going to BOLD close this thread under FORUM if nothing changes. Iseult Δx parlez moi 04:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Map correction

The Russians took Rubizne on May 11th but the map still shows it as contested. 2A00:23C8:928:5301:8141:7C97:466F:35FB (talk) 09:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Has Ukraine and/or any other institution confirmed this? What are your sources (per WP:CITE and WP:RS?) A09090091 (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The more detailed map shows Rubizne under Russian control and the page on the battle of Rubizne states that the battle ended on 12th May (my mistake with date initially apologies) with a Russian victory, which was confirmed by CNN on 13th May and also by the ISW, in addition a Ukrainian commander confirmed it via twitter. Sources are available on the page for the battle of Rubizne and on the ISW’s own website. 2A00:23C8:928:5301:2896:B589:228B:AB53 (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Can we have more pro-Ukrainian news?

As the title says. I’m asking this as I think it would be beneficial for us all to hear more about what the Ukrainian forces are doing. The timeline seems not to have as much info as it does about the Russians. I think it would also be good for us all to hear some of the more positive developments. I’m sure we all want this conflict to end, and therefore I would like to see more Ukrainian successes in these pages.2A00:23C5:B22E:7001:3550:7C65:C66C:EE29 (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Russians are initiating the invasion fronts with Ukraine reacting to the invasion fronts for the most part. Most recent pro-Ukraine activity recently was to re-occupy Kharkiv. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Good point. I’m asking for more info on Ukrainian reaction. 2A00:23C5:B22E:7001:3550:7C65:C66C:EE29 (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Is anyone going to respond to this enquiry? 2A00:23C5:B22E:7001:3DC7:F24F:BCDE:F5DC (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

You can consider making a regular Wikipedia account which might make it easier for other editors to answer you. Regarding Ukraine's primary strategy you might look at this PBS link: [47]. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

That link is god but it is a month old. My main issue is that this articles and other covering the same subject are not giving me enough information about what Ukraine is doing and what progress they are making. I’m trying to encourage people to rectify this. I’m annoyed because I’ve read these articles and I feel that I’ve not received enough information about Ukrainian progress. 2A00:23C5:B22E:7001:3DC7:F24F:BCDE:F5DC (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

no, it is not our job to parrot either side propoganda, but to try and use balanced sources. Slatersteven (talk) 18:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I never asked that, actually. What I am saying is that I need more info about Ukraine. Due to these issues, I have no idea who is actually winning. 2A00:23C5:B22E:7001:3DC7:F24F:BCDE:F5DC (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Can someone please add more Ukrainian info to these articles, please? What have Ukraine done over the last few days? 2A01:4C8:1482:49D5:3C23:3BB5:F5DE:5EFE (talk) 18:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia's job is not to include every single small detail about everything. Not for a general page like this. You might find what you want at Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Super Ψ Dro 22:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 May 2022

Change the text description of the animated map from "February 24 to April 21" to "February 24 to May 27" Physeters^✉ 14:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for your contributions on the animation Physeters. --N8_wilson 14:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@N8wilson You're welcome! Physeters^✉ 14:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 May 2022

1. Add the Institute for the Study of War's daily updates on Ukraine to the External Links section. Imo it should be added because a consistently updated link with a focus on the military aspects only would be both helpful and interesting.

 Done per third point at Wikipedia:External links § What can normally be linked with respect to level of detail. --N8_wilson 16:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

2. Add RUSI's report on the conflict to the Further Reading section. It's a month old, so it's somewhat outdated. However, the sections on what happened at the start of the invasion are accurate, interesting and accessible, and the assumptions that underly the predictions are still mostly true. SentientObject (talk) 02:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The current article uses several dozen reliable sources including The New York Times and BBC News. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done Referenced report appears to fit recommendations at WP:Further reading and is only the second resource listed in this section which was published after the events of this article began 24 Feb 2022. And of course... if it turns out to be better utilized in the article by citing it as a WP:RS, we can just make that adjustment later. Thanks SentientObject. --N8_wilson 17:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 May 2022

Change "The ICC also set up an online portal for people with evidence to contact investigators, and sent investigators, lawyers and other professionals to Ukraine collect evidence.[608][609]" to "The ICC also set up an online portal for people with evidence to contact investigators, and sent investigators, lawyers and other professionals to Ukraine to collect evidence.[608][609]" as the former is missing a 'to'. EloquentMosquito (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Is 'conscription' an Ukrainian idea?

The page uses the word 'conscription' describing Ukraine only. Here is a text about "People's Republics". https://www.dw.com/en/how-ukraine-separatists-are-mass-conscripting-anyone-of-fighting-age/a-61608760

Another text abour Russia. https://www.politico.eu/article/what-the-use-of-russia-conscripts-tells-us-about-the-war-in-ukraine/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-russian-conscripts-cant-subdue-ukraine-war-army-volunteers-morale-invasion-military-putin-victory-11651784177 Xx236 (talk) 07:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Universal conscription of all males between 18 and 60 years of age is fairly rare as is currently the case in Ukraine. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

“Universal”, yes, but if Russia employs conscripted soldiers then it would be fine to describe both as conscripts. Visibly less % for Russia than for Ukraine though. Juxlos (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Is anyone else doing it right now in this conflict? Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Seems unique to Ukraine at this time. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The DW article linked by Xx236 says "men between the ages of 18 and 55" are prohibited from leaving the Russian proxy states in Donbas, and are being forcibly conscripted. I'm not sure it warrants lead space in the same way that Ukraine's conscription does, but I do think this should be covered in the article body. Jr8825 • Talk 20:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

At the beginning some Russian conscripts were imprisoned by Ukrainians, they were send to fight allegedly erroneously. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/04/01/russia-military-army-conscripts-draft/Xx236 (talk) 08:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The Russians continue to use conscripts and cover it up.[48][49][50][51] —Michael Z. 17:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The Russians are now extending the eligible ages of military support contractors involved in the invasion. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The only phrase about conscripted in Russia "Some mothers of conscripted Russia soldiers".

Are police contactors soldiers? They were told they would do police tasks.Xx236 (talk) 06:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

New articles and four more battles.

We need at least four more articles about four battles near the cities where they take place. For example. Lyman, Lysychansk, Bakhmut and Marinka. — Baba Mica (talk) 00:43, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

• Battle of Marinka (2022)
• Battle of Lyman
• Battle of Lysychansk
• Draft: Battle of Bakhmut (2022)

You have presented four red-linked pages. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Baba Mica, you've created some pages here already. Some are appreciated such as Lyman which is notable but please don't make a page for Lysychansk yet. Fighting did not reach there. For that, Sievierodonetsk has to fall. I'm also doubtful about Bakhmut since fighting did not reach there either. Super Ψ Dro 20:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Super Dromaeosaurus Agree, no current fighting for Bakhmut or Lysychansk, while Marinka (ended by now) wasn't notable enough to warrant an article. EkoGraf (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree that these aren't notable or even non-existent. We can't have an article about every single village that changes hands. Volunteer Marek 20:36, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Please consider #Don’t assume DLNR are present without support of reliable sources when creating new articles. —Michael Z. 16:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Don’t assume DLNR are present without support of reliable sources

Let’s please not blindly insert DLNR or “separatist forces” into articles’ infoboxes and body text without confirming that reliable sources support their participation. The majority of reliable sources on military action only refer to Russian forces or the Russian army, and don’t even mention DLNR.

I just removed such unsupported assertions from three articles, one where only Russian and separatist sources asserted their presence,[52] one where a single source mentioned their marginal participation (occupying a rural point near a battleground after the fight),[53] and one in which not a single cited source mentions their participation.[54] —Michael Z. 16:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

They are listed in the Belligerent section and the Support section of the Infobox. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but they don’t automatically belong in every article on this war, and we must not blindly reinterpret every action by Russian forces as “Russian and separatist forces.” —Michael Z. 19:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 June 2022

Add the countries supplying Ukraine with military aid in the supporting belligerents section Bigfifa (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: This is actually a controversial edit, so you'll need to discuss first with other editors. Please open a new section here and start a discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

RfC is open in the section above already. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

South Ossetia participates

https://eurasianet.org/south-ossetian-troops-fighting-for-russia-in-ukraine

https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/05/25/russia-ukraine-war-putin-caucasus-ossetia-minorities-opposition/

Xx236 (talk) 09:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

This is an issue that has already been discussed at length (see here). The first source states: The soldiers are part of Russian military units based in South Ossetia but which also include some local contract soldiers. The second source is not sufficiently specific that it would contradict the first source or other sources offered in the previous discussion. Bottom line, the previous consensus is that South Ossetia is not participating as a "soverign state" and these sources don't show otherwise. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

https://www.instagram.com/p/Cbj8ZH8gIDV/?utm_source=ig_embed&ig_rid=f10de68f-afbd-41bb-b470-c8a86aa9643e

President Bibilov to the soldiers - Вперед! 'Go ahead.' едут защищать и Осетию 'They go to defend Ossetia, too'. Words mean.Xx236 (talk) 11:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

SO soldiers are Russian soldiers. Do People's Republic soldiers fight in separate PR units? This article does not inform. The reference 14 is from February. What is the difference between the PR and SO?Xx236 (talk) 05:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

DPR 105th People’s Militia Rifle Regiment https://theins.ru/en/news/251541 Xx236 (talk) 06:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

You have given the answer to your own question. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC) This was intended as a response to the post above plus one (SO soldiers are Russian soldiers. I apologise for any confusion. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Where are the 'forces' described in this Wikipedia?Xx236 (talk) 06:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The infobox states: Strength estimates are as of the start of the invasion. See also: Order of battle for the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

SO has an agreement with Russia. Russia defends SO, SO gives soldiers to Russia. I do not know details, but such agreement probably does not preserve neutrality of SO.Xx236 (talk) 06:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

SO citizens are not enlisted in units of SO but in the Russian armed forces (whether they are also Russian citizens is another issue too). This does not constitute an overt act by SO, in the same way that any other republic in the Russian Federation is not acting independently or that because Gurkhas fought in the Falkland Islands, Nepal was a belligerent in that war. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Once more - the SO has sold its cannon fodder to Russia to be defended by Russia. Has Nepal sold the Gurkhas to obtain British warranty?Xx236 (talk) 07:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Send 100 Australian soldiers to join Ukrainian Army. Will Russia accept such decision?Xx236 (talk) 07:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

This is not a WP:FORUM. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I understand that the problem od SO participation is complicated, but it does not make SO neutral. https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/03/26/georgias-breakaway-region-sends-troops-to-ukraine-a77094 Xx236 (talk) 10:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Error on Soviet Origin?

"Putin ... incorrectly described the country as having been created by Soviet Russia,[25]"

But Ukraine has no legal history as a state prior to the Bolshevik revolution? Lenin's support for devolving the Russian Empire to give such legal power and affirmation to various National Minorities was hotly debated by other communists of the time.

From Wiki on Ukraine:

"The 19th century saw the growth of Ukrainian nationalism, particularly in Galicia, then part of Austria-Hungary. In the aftermath of the Russian Revolution a Ukrainian national movement re-emerged, and the Ukrainian People's Republic was formed in 1917. This short-lived state was forcibly reconstituted into the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, which became a founding member of the Soviet Union (USSR) in 1922" 73.191.41.112 (talk) 12:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

And the point is ... ? Cinderella157 (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

exactly, it existed briefly before being forcibly integrated into the soviet union. Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Putin is wrong because he’s trying to deny the existence of a Ukrainian nation by referring to a state, and by labelling the country “Russian land.” The anon comment above adds the straw man of “1917.” In fact, Ukraine established a state in 1917, Lenin’s Bolshevik Russia (an unrecognized state with no continuity from previous states) legally recognized Ukraine’s sovereignty and borders in 1918, and only conquered it in 1920, on the third attempt. —Michael Z. 14:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

There are many countries that gained independence as empires declined but that's not to say that the former empire is responsible for creating said countries, in fact quite the opposite is true. An equivalent argument that India was created by the UK, or that Korea was created by Japan show cases how preposterous a notion it is. As a person living in a former colony the idea that our former imperial overlords somehow created our country is insulting to put it mildly. This is why we talk of countries gaining independence, not being created. Alcibiades979 (talk) 20:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Repiblic won the ukrainian civil war in 1921 and was admited in USSR in late 1922 not was conquered by Soviet Union in 1920 on the third attempt. DrYisus (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

User:DrYisus, I guess you’re responding to me? You’re inaccurately rewriting my sentences. The Russian Bolsheviks invaded Ukraine in December 1917, were forced to recognize the Ukrainian People’s Republic (UNR) in 1918 then invaded again in January 1919, created the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1919 and invaded again in May 1920 to defeat the UNR, although partisan actions continued into 1921. The UkrSSR was a Russian puppet state without independence, sovereignty, or its own army, and the Bolsheviks underlined this when they abandoned the pretence of Ukrainian statehood and joined Ukraine to the USSR in December 1922. They redrew Ukrainian borders by assigning some Ukrainian-inhabited territories to the RSFSR. —Michael Z. 22:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

~ Sorry Michael Z I am new on WP and I dont know how insert the answers from mobile or make calls (the @). I am not arguing anything of that. I only said that UkrSSR (puppet or not) won the civil war in 1921 (not 1920) and later joined USSR. And by the way, is true that some part of Ukraine origins (Ukraine People's Republic) are based on soviet/bolsevisk actions, in fact the Ukrainian People's Republic of Soviets was stablished nearly at the same time that UPR, the bolsevisk uprising in kiev drove out the white forces leting the Rada (which suported bolseviks during the uprising) increasing the autonomy that months after lead to independence. I wouldn't say that Ukraine have full soviet origin like Vlad said, but has partial. DrYisus (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Three puppet states were established for the three Russian Bolshevik invasions conducted by an army under Moscow and mainly from Russia. The first two were governments consisted only of Russians, and were liquidated by the Bolsheviks due to their failure, because Ukrainians didn’t trust foreign armies that invaded their country and shot on sight anyone speaking Ukrainian. The third incorporated some token Ukrainians in non-power cabinet positions.

• Ukrainian People's Republic of Soviets 1917–1918
• Ukrainian Soviet Republic 1918
• Ukrainian Socialist Soviet Republic 1919–1991 (renamed 1936)

 —Michael Z. 18:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The latest update on Ukrainian losses according to the Russian ministry of defence was posted on 25th April

The Russian ministry of defence has posted their latest update on Ukrainian losses on the 26th of April. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AyazKader (talk • contribs) 11:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Bulking down the article size: Article back over 400Kb

The article size is back over 400Kb which can be daunting to readers of the article, and the article has been template tagged for length issues. One suggestion might be to note that there is a great deal of duplication with the Russo-Ukrainian war article as to both of them covering a 'deep history' version of the events leading to the 2022 Russian Invasion. There is no reason for maintaining two versions of this 'deep history' going back 30-35 years, and it seems a useful endeavor to merge the two subsections of the Background section into the Russo-Ukrainian war article, along with perhaps 2-3 subsections of the Prelude section as well. A very short summary and link can be left in this Invasion article after that merge is done. The other suggestion might similarly note that the Peace efforts section lower in the TOC also has a sibling article already written for it at 2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations, and to merge it from this Invasion article into the sibling article (leaving a link to that page from this Invasion article). The read time for the article is currently 40-50 minutes which is over Wikipedia policy guidelines and this makes a large demand upon new readers who are going through the article from top-to-bottom for the first time. Suggesting here that both of these merge-to-sibling article measures be done to deal with the bulking down of this long article. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

It's currently at 94 kB readable prose, which is on the large side but not just absurd. It's an active topic; see WP:HASTE. We can figure out how/if to trim it in a few years when things have settled down. Feel free to boldly edit now, though, if there's stuff that's clearly misplaced. VQuakr (talk) 19:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Did some trimming up near the top in the lede and background sections. Based on the number of references some of it has apparently been argued about somewhere, so I used a light hand; waiting a bit to see if anybody has any objections. Elinruby (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Both VQuakr and myself are supporting bold edits on the bulking down. Possibly you can extend your edits to think about fully merging the Background section into the Russo-Ukrainian war article, and then boldly removing that section from this article. You can add a short paragraph summary at the start of the Prelude section to include links and maybe 2-3 sentences to briefly describe the complicated deep history which goes back 3 decades. Supporting the bold edits version of bulking down the article which is now over 400Kb in size. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Currently 93kB, not 400. We certainly agree with WP:BOLD but there's no urgency here. VQuakr (talk) 18:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree on WP:Bold. Your number on readable prose is correct; the last full size of the Wikipedia article storage as shown in the edit history is given for the last edit as "20:23, 2 June 2022‎ EkoGraf talk contribs‎ 403,885 bytes +7‎", which reads as 403Kb with about 93Kb readable prose. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm generally in favour of keeping the Background section largely as it is (admittedly I'm biased as I wrote the majority of it). I agree it's moderately long, although it has been through heavy copy-editing so there's very little non-valuable information that can be readily trimmed. If you compare its size to the other sections, you'll see it's actually reasonably lean (there's a section size table at the top of this talk page, click "show" on "Other talk page banners"). The Background section is 30k bytes in size, compared to 56k for the Prelude section, 124k for the Invasion and resistance section and 58k for the Casualties and humanitarian impact section. It's comparable in size to the Media depictions section, which is 22k bytes. Any cuts will necessarily involve simplification, so there'll be difficult editorial decisions about what is and isn't crucial for readers. If cuts are to be made, I would suggest trimming some of the content about the Orange Revolution which is more distant from current events, although it'll be tricky to do while maintaining overall flow. I think what's currently in the section provides valuable context for readers. The Prelude section (particularly "Escalation (21–23 February 2022)") is probably a better candidate for cuts, as is the main section on the invasion (particularly "First phase – Southern front"). The invasion summary is frequently added to, but hasn't been as heavily reworked as earlier sections so has greater potential for cuts. Also, bear in mind that much of the page size is from citations. There are likely still cases of WP:OVERCITE that can be reduced to lower page loading times, as the total prose size itself, at 94kB, is just about within the acceptable limit (see WP:SIZERULE). I'm wary of moving content to the Russo-Ukrainian war article, as there are problems with its scope (was there really a larger war between Russia and Ukraine from 2014, outside of the War in Donbas? I'm sceptical sources actually say this). Jr8825 • Talk 19:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

As I'm a fellow contributor to the Background section, then my concern is still that it duplicates material already covered in the Russo-Ukrainian war article. Is there a useful purpose to keeping these duplicate versions? That said, if you feel that there are certain passages in the Invasion article Background section which are better than what is currently in the Russo-Ukrainian version, then I would support you to merge the Background material here as more up to date than the other version, and that the Background version should replace the redundant material in the Russo-Ukrainian war article. The point seems to be that Wikipedia policy is not to duplicate redundant material covering the same subject matter. That said, I'm also supporting your other ideas for trimming the article's multiple sections. The size issues of the article at 403KB with 93Kb of readable prose needs attention and the article should be shortened. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I see your point about repetition. Most of the shared content was written here then copied to Russo-Ukrainian war in this diff, which produced this situation. The scope of this article and the war article have since become clearer, although I've previously been sceptical about whether the approach we've taken so far is the best (see the current discussion on that article here, and my past thoughts on this here; I'm currently unsure what my view is). It's important to note that this remains by far the most trafficked of the two articles, with approximately 4 million readers in the past 30 days compared to 900k – it therefore makes sense to have a strong background section here to aid most readers looking to understand the historical context of the current war. Any removals from the Background section here should be accompanied by a cross-check with the text there to ensure the best version of the text is kept, and I think further cuts should be limited, at least in the short-term, to non-essential information while the scope of the two articles overlaps so closely. Jr8825 • Talk 02:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Am willing to go with consensus. The edits I did today were largely largely focused on what words I could remove and still say the same thing. I considered removing the whole paragraph about why Putin might be right about Nazis, and just saying that experts agree he is wrong, but that is definitely a meaning change, whereas I don't think I did much of that this morning in those first three sections. But yeah, I have done spinning down to daughter articles and can do that if desired, but figured I should ask first. I will check back on this thread in 12-24 hours and see what people think, or again later if there is still a discussion.

Re 2014: yes, frozen conflict with ongoing violations of Minsk and Minsk II. In my previous trimmings, it is true I have not looked very hard at the Invasion section. Fine with looking at that if people agree, +1 on overcite Elinruby (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

All sections of the article need to be updated and enhanced as the edit history moves forward. It would be a significant move forward if the sections for Background and Peace negotiations could be merged into their sibling articles; there's no reason to maintain two versions of these sections on Wikipedia which can readily be linked from this article to its sibling article. A reduction of a 403Kb article with about 93Kb readable prose which is over Wikipedia policy recommendations should move forward with bold edits on some of these sections. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I've merged the Peace negotiations section with the main article for about 15Kb of total size reduction to article. Should the sections for Background and Prelude be merged to their sibling Main articles in a similar way for bulking down the article? ErnestKrause (talk) 23:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Elinruby: which paragraph are you referring to? Is it the third one in the Prelude section, and if so, were the any specific changes you had in mind? The main offending bit in my view is "Ukraine, like pro-Russian separatists in Donbas, has a far-right fringe, including the neo-Nazi-linked Azov Battalion and Right Sector,", although others may disagree, so it might be worth discussing on talk first or expecting WP:BRD. Jr8825 • Talk 02:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Right, I personally don’t think that that is at all the most important thing about this war, assuming if’s even true, and that’s been to the reliable sources noticeboard a few times. Why is it in the lede? But I am aware that there are editors who will passionately disagree, so no, I will not BRD on that, as I have had that argument and it is exhausting. I’d be delighted if there was a consensus to remove it however. Just checking, were there any issues with what I did cut this morning? A couple of possibilities for trimming occur to me — the first couple of times I went through the article, I skipped the invasion section as it struck me as the meat of the article and I was looking for fat. There are probably some cuts possible there just by converting to active voice from passive. Some long quotes could be cut further down the article probably, but I looked pretty carefully at Putin’s quotes in the early sections, and I think it is important to report the full context there. There are places where there are two and three references further down though, on rather uncontroversial statements, and if I go through these I can probably cut total length somewhat without hurting anything, and now that I have been through a lot of the child articles I could probably make some weight suggestions in the invasion section. How is this for a proposal? I will do a pure copyedit on the invasion section, and make suggestions/ask questions on any due weight questions I think might be controversial? Also keep edits small and specific and easy to undo. But I don’t think I can get much more out of the early sections on wording alone Elinruby (talk) 04:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Your cuts from earlier today looked good, thanks for your work. I don't have any strong feelings about removing the sentence about Azov and Right Sector. I don't oppose removing it, although I can see the argument for retaining it, as Azov has played a key role in Russian propaganda, so it makes sense to note it. Unless there's a particular change you're not sure about yourself, I'd say go ahead boldly with other cuts to the invasion section, we can always come back here and discuss if someone raises an objection. Jr8825 • Talk 14:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Both Elinruby and Jr8825 have positive ideas for continuing with the trims to the article. Regarding the opening subsections on Background, my perspective is a little changed now that I've seen Jr8825's links in his comments above. At present, I'm counting a total of 9-10 paragraphs in the two sections of the current Background section which seems a little too much since alot of it can be merged into the Russo-Ukrainian war article (which is in need of improvement anyway). Can the two subsections of 9-10 paragraphs there be condensed into a single section of 4-5 paragraphs instead? When I looked at some approaches to doing this, they looked fairly promising; also all the material after the condensing would still be on Wikipedia albeit on the linked article in Russo-Ukrainian war to where it can be merged. Is it possible to try this? For the other material, I'm supporting both Elinruby and Jr8825 as having significant ideas for moving the article forward and dealing with this issue of bulking down such a large article still approaching 400Kb in total size. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Took a quick look at the Invasion section. Nowhere near done, but some comments:

• The referencing in the part of Invasion I looked at was really very precisely on point. For example, “dismissed as absurd” had a really good source for a European politician using that exact word. But I know when I trimmed the Legal and Media sections I mostly left the sources, so there is that, and most of Media Depictions is uncontroversial, with some attention to diversity. I think that is important, but perhaps not to the point of duplicating solid English-language sources that say exactly the same thing. There are also some sources I do not recognize, which is another thing.
• Are constructions like “putative spearhead front” some sort of term of art? I know what a spearhead is, but in the English I speak a front is a line of control between opposing forces, and there seems to be a lot of this verbiage that could be eliminated by paring down to verbs, if these nouns aren’t conveying any additional information
• I am being somewhat tentative because my writing style has sometimes been criticized as overly “newsy”. Since this is indeed in my background I plead “probably guilty” and personally think this is a good thing, but collaboration, etc, and this is an important article.
• Re Azov Battalion and Right Sector, I agree that it is crucial that Putin has been talking about Nazis. But then we have several sentences talking about what might possibly have given him that idea — whereas I suspect it came from him in the first place — before we refute the statements. Just saying, why give it oxygen before dousing it with facts? I have not looked at the references for this, in this particular article, mind you, but what I have seen elsewhere makes me skeptical. I see however that Xx236 (talk · contribs) has started a section about this, and pending that discussion at a minimum, I am going to leave this part alone. Elinruby (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

That all sounds on point, and generally Wikipedia does not have issues with using journalistic prose. Let me know if this is brought up here as a situation. The original wording was "probative spearhead front" (not 'putative') which denoted that Russia did not know if that front would succeed. For example, the probative spearhead front on Kiev failed in Phase One of the Russian Invasion. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

you’re right, probative. Still a bit early on the left coast here. Elinruby (talk) 16:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Stray reference needs home

The material in front of it was completely unrelated. Putting here for now, discussion of an aspect of military aid from Germany Elinruby (talk) 04:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Wrong figures on strength?

On 2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Popular_resistance, we have already described that 700,000 Ukrainian forces are fighting in this war, and Zelensky said that too.[55] Why the figure of Ukrainian strength amounts to only 298,600 in infobox? >>> Extorc.talk 17:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Full conscription of male citizens does not equal the number of soldiers in the field. The latest pressing issue appears to be Zelenskyy saying that Ukrainian artillery and short range missiles are significantly outclassed by Russian artillery and missile strength. Biden in now promising to provide M142 HIMARS weapons possibly within weeks. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The infobox explicitly reports the strengths "at the start" since this is the only point in time for which there is a reliable comparison of strengths. An argument was made that, because reservists were not mobilised "at the start", they did not contribute to the Ukraine strength at that point in time. For myself, I am not convinced by the argument, even if the reservist strength might need to be qualified by a note. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Dates for Battle of Bakhmut 2022

I need the dates for the Battle of Bakhmut, which was recently deleted. Can someone send it? Xurum Shatou (talk) 23:59, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

See Draft:Battle of Bakhmut (2022). ErnestKrause (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Wtf is Battle of Bakhmut? Russian occupation forces didn't get closer than 30 km to the city DakeFasso (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah agree, the number of these “Battle of” articles, about every small town and village is getting pretty ridiculous. Volunteer Marek 18:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

mobilisation

In the Prelude section, would “mobilization” be the correct spelling for moving troops and equipment to engage in war? 174.251.64.117 (talk) 03:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a matter of WP:ENGVAR and this article is written in British English so the "is" form is used. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing question

“On 14 March, the Russian source RT reported that the Russian Armed Forces had captured about a dozen Ukrainian ships in Berdiansk, including the Polnocny-class landing ship Yuri Olefirenko.“

Anybody know this source? The archives at WP:RSN have nothing on it, but quite a few other articles use it as a source on military hardware. The wikilinked article about the ship uses the same source, plus another one I don’t know. Elinruby (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC) “On 14 March, the Russian source RT reported that the Russian Armed Forces had captured about a dozen Ukrainian ships in Berdiansk, including the Polnocny-class landing ship Yuri Olefirenko.“

There are multiple articles about this ship on mulltiple sources including the Nation Interest and others here: [56]. Also on Navy Recognition website here: [57]. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Right Sector

Does the Right Sector participate in the 2022 war? The references are not unequivocal. The ABC text is biased, it quotes Donbas people only. Putin's opinions belong to pre-invasion period.Xx236 (talk) 08:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• To my best knowledge somewhere in 2016 Ukraine defense ministry put the ultimatum to all the militias (dobrobats) to either became a regular unit of the Army (or National Guard) or disarm. Most decided to became regular army units (e.g. Azov battalion joined National Guard and became a regular battalion, later regiment there). Right Sector chose to disarm and became just a not very popular political organization. Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• Well apparently I am not completely correct. They are armed again and fight under the name of Ukrainian Volunteer Corps Ukrainian_Volunteer_Corps#2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I mean the three references, do they support participation of the 'Right Sector' and its "far-right fringe"?Xx236 (talk) 09:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The Financial Times is paywalled but the first two do not, at all. The Washington Post article is a debunking of the claim and the ABC.au article extensively quotes a Russian citizen who moved to Donbas because she drank the koolaid. The article does get around to saying that that isn’t really right, and it’s by no means a validation of what Putin said. This is exhausting Elinruby (talk)

It still seems that the references are unequivocal, so something should be corrected. Xx236 (talk) 07:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

'Russian accusations and demands'

There is such section, but no 'Rejection of Russian accusations and demands', 'Critics'. Xx236 (talk) 07:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

We seem to include rejections in that section. Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

You are right, so perhaps the title should be changed?Xx236 (talk) 10:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Why? we do not say they are true, and it does reflect accurately what it is about. Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

A sign 'We sell cars' does not warn that we buy stolen bicycles instead. 'Russian accusations and demands' means exactly what is written. Xx236 (talk) 12:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Anonymous and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

The article Anonymous and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has recently been created. Any help improving it would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Donbas (2022)/Archive 1#Are we putting commanders or not?

In accordance with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, I have removed commanders/leaders from the infobox in the subject article because save one, none of the commanders listed in the article had any mention in the article that would support their inclusion and the one that did had only a single passing mention. An editor has reinstated these. There is a discussion on this at Talk:Battle of Donbas (2022)/Archive 1#Are we putting commanders or not?. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Commanders of the operation for Russia have now changed 3 times, the second one, Dvornikov, was apparently replaced about a week ago. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

See also, the discussion at Talk:Siege of Mariupol#Commanders in infobox. Please comment there. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Heads of State of DPR and LPR also be listed in the "Commanders and Leaders" section of the infobox under Vladimir Putin?

Considering that DPR and LPR are listed as belligerents, not merely support (as with Belarus), shouldn't their heads of state be included with Putin in the "Commanders and Leaders" section? I think Denis Pushilin (DPR) and Leonid Pasechnik (LPR) should be included. Seems inconsistent to list them in belligerents but not commanders and leaders. --2601:644:8501:3FF0:ACD5:F6:ABFE:50AF (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is to summarise "key points" of "the article" - ie the infobox must be supported by what is written in the article. The article as written does not show that they have a "key" role. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

There is no consensus in WP:reliable sources that these entities are sovereign states or legal belligerents, that they are legally or de facto independent, that their nominal political leaders direct their supposed forces. They are puppets, and the 1st Donetsk and 2nd Luhansk Army Corps are under the command of Russian officers and subordinate to the Russian 8th Combined Arms Army. The Russians are putting up Russian flags over cities they capture in Ukraine, including in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, and Russian government figures are talking about their plans to annex these territories that their president called “Russian land.” —Michael Z. 02:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 June 2022

Senomo Drines (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The heading “revision and resistance” video’s caption “June 2” should be updated to “June 6”

 Done ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me • contribs) 12:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Kraken unit

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/06/03/ukraine-kraken-volunteer-military-unit/

https://www.lefigaro.fr/international/avec-les-volontaires-des-forces-speciales-d-azov-et-de-kraken-qui-liberent-la-region-de-kharkiv-20220606 Xx236 (talk) 11:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

And the point is? Cinderella157 (talk) 11:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

To mention it in the text?Xx236 (talk) 12:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should make this as an edit request in the form: "change X to Y" where X (ie a passage of text would be where you would think it should be added and Y is the added text plus the passage of text. You could do this in your sandbox and link to that. Cinderella157 (talk)

Total Casualty figures

There is a discrepancy - looking at total Casualty figures in the Siege of Mariupol - it is given as 22,000+ deaths. The wide range given here takes one yahoo source that states 6000 deaths for Mariupol. Isn't this undue weight given the fact that no other source gives the 6000 number? I suggest using 22,000 for Mariupol and add the casualties for other areas on top. Please advise. mezil (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The 22,000+ deaths reported in Siege of Mariupol are civilian deaths. I'm not certain where it is in this article that you are referring to 6000 deaths being reported at Mariupol? Cinderella157 (talk) 08:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

It is given in the breakdown : Mariupol: 6000-2200 deaths. Please look at article Casualties of Russo-Ukrainian war for breakdown. mezil (talk) 10:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

It is given in the breakdown : Mariupol: 6000-2200 deaths mezil (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Please look at article Casualties of Russo-Ukrainian war for breakdown. mezil (talk) 09:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss issues with another article or articles when there is no problem with a figure reported here. It confuses people. It would also be a lot easier if there was a link to where the issue was - Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War#Civilian deaths. There was no issue of WP:WEIGHT. Both figures were sourced and both figures were attribute to the Ukraine (one the deputy mayor and one the mayor. The issue was "when" these figures were reported and there is a significant difference in the dates on which these figures were reported. The former figure is low and reported at a much earlier time (no surprise). The lower figure does not represent deaths as at 25 May. I have removed the lower figure from the table at Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War#Civilian deaths. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Now the table doesn't make sense. You have one city with over 22,000 casualties and yet the total is 11,000 - 27,000. The lower figure is still confusing. I think it's best to remove the 11000 figure as it just doesn't add up. mezil (talk) 11:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Done, but you do know that you could have fixed that? Cinderella157 (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Interactive Map

Can anyone include Institute for the Study of War's interactive map of Russian invasion of Ukraine as a link/source or embed it into the article? Here is the map https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/36a7f6a6f5a9448496de641cf64bd375 which updates daily.50.64.136.84 (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Page move?

Would it make sense to suggest a page move, to perhaps "2022 Russo-Ukrainian War" or sorts? The term "invasion" suggests only the opening phase of a conflict; it is now more than three months and the conflict is a full-scale war involving multiple parties, with wide global repercussions (economic/fuel crises etc.). Hence I think the term "invasion" in the title doesn't merit the scale or significance of the topic covered in the article; having it describe the first phase of the war in February is sufficient. The broader "Russo-Ukrainian War" describing the overall conflict can still remain as it is without going into details of the 2022 war.

I haven't been active on this topic, so perhaps active editors can voice opinions here? NoNews! 16:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think "invasion" suggests this is only the opening phase. The specific proposed title "2022 Russo-Ukrainian War" is too easily confused with "Russo-Ukrainian War", but I don't see a need to wordsmith a different alternative title at this time. VQuakr (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Support for VQuakr here. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

+1 Cinderella157 (talk) 00:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

RfC on "Supported by" in the infobox for Ukraine

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I'm not going to write the full novella that Levivich provided closing the last one of these RFCs, but the result is broadly the same. Numerically, the sides are fairly close, with no landslide in one direction or another, and the policy based arguments are not any more overwhelming for supporting or opposing. To, I'm sure, no one's surprise, there is No Consensus to include those providing military aid as supporters in the infobox. I will note that among support !voters there was some stipulations for who should be listed as providing support, lending some more weight to the oppose argument that it is a complex situation, and better explained in the article prose. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

---

Should we add "Supported by" for Ukraine in the infobox to list the countries providing military aid? --Mindaur (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment WP:RFCNEUTRAL is a requirement, and it is not met here. Please reformat your opening statement to actually ask a question (and only that), not justify your position. BSMRD (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment WP:RFCNEUTRAL. The RFC needs to specify if the support is military aid, financial aid, humanitarian aid, etc, by type of aid. The most basic type of relation between friendly nations is the military alliance, followed by prior treaties and agreements, followed by favored nation status for trade. The RFC needs to specify if it is only interested in "Western military aid" or the other types of aid as well. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support' Why not, it shows just how isolated Russia is. It shows that even previously neutral nations now condemn them. Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
• Question Mzajac, in a thread above, you stated: No. Allowing a state to use your territory for a war of aggression is an illegal act of international aggression, according to the UN’s definition. Allowing weapons transfers by commercial sale or donation is not, whether a party is at war or not. Could you please provide your sourcing for this statement as it would seem very pertinent to this RfC. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Cinderella157: Allowing the aggressor state to use your territory (i.e. be a "proxy") is illegal per United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314; it also defined as aggression by the Rome Statute. Meanwhile, Article 51 of the UN Charter enshrines the right to self-defense, explicitly including the collective self-defence.

  However, I do not think these legal aspects are relevant to the RfC question. Mindaur (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  UNGA Res. 29/3314, Definition of Aggression, Article 3:[58] “Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of article 2, qualify as an act of aggression: . . . (f) The action of a State in allowing its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State.” —Michael Z. 14:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  This illegal act of aggression goes beyond “supporting” aggression. Belarus ought to be listed as a belligerent. —Michael Z. 14:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  Agree. Mindaur (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  agree 208.114.154.7 (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

  • Follow-up Question: And what (if anything) is said as to countries supplying lethal military hardware specifically and more generally various other types of "support" (non lethal equipment, humanitarian aid or sanctions etc)? Cinderella157 (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

    What is said where? In the UN’s Definition of Aggression? Maybe you should read it over, but I don’t think it defines what belongs in “supported by” for the purpose of Wikipedia conflict infoboxes. It doesn’t even define who is a belligerent, only who is an aggressor, which I believe is self-evidently also a belligerent. —Michael Z. 01:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support adding "Supported by" for Ukraine in the infobox to list those providing military aid as per template established in other Wikipedia infoboxes on conflicts throughout history where arms were provided to a belligerent even though the providing country did not engage in the conflict directly, but was for the benefit of defeating the other belligerent. But do not list all 30 countries listed at List of foreign aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War, because that list includes those who have "pledged" to provide aid, but haven't actually yet provided it. Only those who have already been confirmed to have provided should be listed under "Supported by". EkoGraf (talk) 12:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support, but don't add NATO and the EU, add the individual countries confirmed to have delivered weapons instead. Super Ψ Dro 13:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose for three reasons. (a) They only provide hardware. Of course they could provide more, like modern aircraft staffed by contractors or volunteers, but they did not do even that. (b) That would be 40+ countries, they would clog the infobox. (c) That would be an implicit misinformation along the line of Russian propaganda, i.e. the false claim about "proxy conflict". My very best wishes (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  @My very best wishes: A few counter-points:

  • Regarding (a) and "only hardware": Ukrainian Armed Forces demonstrated incredible will to fight, resilience and professionalism. However, it is evident that the initial supply of weapons (and intelligence) by the West played a significant role in enabling the resistance. It is now entering another phase, where the West have begun supplying heavy weapons (US organized conference at the Ramstein Air Base with 40 countries participating signifies that) and that will have a major implications in Ukraine's ability to not only resist but potentially launch counter-offensives.
  • Re (b): We don't need to list all countries; I propose to include only the main contributors, including the EU and NATO and then add an interlink for other states.
  • Re (c): It doesn't matter; we make decisions based on WP:RS, WP:DUE, WP:N, etc. Russian disinformation is already beyond delusional anyway.

  -- Mindaur (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  (a) yes, sure, the delivery of weapons makes a lot of difference in all wars, but it does not warrant including the suppliers as "supporting countries" of field "belligerents". (b) OK, this is a good solution, but that should not appear in the field of "belligerents"; (c) I am saying that our infobox would be POV and as such would misled the reader in context of the currently happening misinformation. My very best wishes (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  It's not POV, it's just stating the obvious reality. Some people lock themselves on the fact that Ukraine doesn't have formal allies (a binding treaty) or that NATO doesn't send troops to defend it. However, in that case these countries would unequivocally be belligerent. We are talking about support here (specifically, the porposal is about military aid): over 100 pieces of heavy artillery, tanks, missiles, etc -- it's exactly that, it's material, it's substantial, it's major. Why ignore that? -- Mindaur (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  We are not ignoring it; there is a section about it on the page. However, such assistance is difficult to properly summarize in the lead, see comments just below. Do we include Turkey? This is a slippery slope. Should we include France and Germany as suppliers for Russia [59]? My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  Is My very best wishes stating that it would be better to include the explanation just provided about 'only provide hardware' as a separate section in the article. That Ukraine has no formal allies since Ukraine is not a part of NATO or the EU? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  It's false to say only hardware is provided. The US military itself has begun training Ukrainian troops. Its intelligence service has also provided location information that has helped kill a dozen or so Russian senior officers. CurryCity (talk) 05:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

  If you look at the Vietnam War Wikipedia page, you'll see that there is a dedicated section for explaining aid/positions of countries which supported each side. I think it would be appropriate to do the same; no matter how you spin it - you can't say that the western countries supplying lethal weapons to Ukraine isn't support. Jacob H (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment There is a wide range of things that could be considered support, the distinctions carry significant political weight, and have determined whether they cross certain parties’ red lines. For example:
  1. Belarus has committed aggression against Ukraine, according to the UN definition, by allowing aggression against Ukraine from its territory, including missile attacks and military incursion. (It should be listed as a belligerent, not a supporter.)
  2. Before the open invasion on February 22/24, there was a distinction between defensive and other lethal aid. This seems to be no longer discussed since.
  3. There is a distinction between lethal and non-lethal military aid, e.g., weapons versus body armour, military hospitals, training, intelligence.
  4. There is a distinction between military aid, that is gifts or grants, and commercial sales. Even in peacetime commercial sales of arms normally require political approval.
  5. Relevant to that, there is the question of permission by originating states in weapons transfers. E.g., Germany prevented the transfer by Czechia and the Netherlands of armoured vehicles to Ukraine because they had historically come from Germany, citing the principal of not providing weapons to a conflict. Germany has dropped this restriction, and now looks to be ready to start sending its own armoured vehicles and weapons.
  6. There is a distinction between military aid and humanitarian aid.
  7. There are states participating in sanctions against one side or the other.
  8. There are states, organizations, and individuals respecting sanctions out of fear of getting hit by secondary sanctions, e.g., some Chinese banks and businesses refusing to do business in the Russian Federation for fear of getting sanctioned for supporting sanctioned entities, because they value their business in the West.

  We need to set a threshold as to what constitutes “support.” I am not sure if, for example, Turkey is a military supporter because it sells Ukraine the dramatically useful Bayraktar TB2 drones, because politically has tried to play the role of mediator. Similarly, France, Germany, and other EU states seem to have provided more military technology to the Russian Federation than to Ukraine up to this point (at least to 2020).[60] —Michael Z. 15:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  I'd stick with what we did for the "Prelude to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" article, primarily focusing on lethal military aid; the label can be "Arms suppliers". Mindaur (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  Do you mean giving Ukraine lethal weapons as aid, including only defensive lethal weapons, but not selling Ukraine lethal weapons commercially? So, not giving Ukraine unarmed armoured vehicles, not giving it spare parts to bring jet fighters back into service, not giving it counterbattery radar, night-vision devices, reconnaissance drones, training, or military intelligence (which may include enemy plans and locations of enemy units, enabling their destruction).

  Seems reasonable. But then the article should make clear how “supported by” is defined. Then that is “arms donators” or equivalent? —Michael Z. 01:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose For all the reasons offered by My very best wishes. It is also not clear what is proposed, but regardless, various kinds of aid, including sanctions, financial, humanitarian and commercial and 'gifted/lend-lease' harware, so it would be difficult to regulate this in a coherent fashion. I believe a considerable amount of Ukr hardware is actually inherited from Soviet Union days, so we would thus have the absurdity of Ukr being aided by Russia (and vice versa?). The whole subject is better handled in text or in a related article. Pincrete (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment In response to arguments by editors that arms suppliers do not qualify as support for Ukraine, but Belarus should be listed as in support of Russia by aiding the "aggression" against Ukraine... I would quote the president of the United States who himself said just today that they are aiding Ukraine in its defense or the UK ministers from the past few days that the intent is to even push out Russia out of Crimea and diminish its military. So, I think the intent is quite clear. Belarus in support of Russia by providing the staging ground, most NATO/EU countries in support of Ukraine by providing arms and heavy equipment since the start of the invasion. Further, even though I don't object to listing Belarus in support of Russia in the infobox, there is more of an argument to list Western support of Ukraine, which is quite notable. And I would once again remind that we have added "Supported by" countries who provided arms only in various conflicts throughout the last century in our articles. Finally, any previous arms provided by France, Germany etc to Russia or Ukraine before the invasion is unrelated to why they are providing it NOW (intent). EkoGraf (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The weapons provided to Ukraine during the invasion still play a negligible role in the conflict. For example, the recent supply of 155mm artillery only adds 1% more to Ukraine's current artillery inventory. Furthermore adding countries such as the U.S. U.K. and other European nations to the infobox would play into the Kremlin rhetoric that Russia is fighting with the west, instead of with Ukraine. Viewsridge (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
  • "The weapons provided to Ukraine during the invasion still play a negligible role in the conflict." In the expressed opinion of the US President their arms support was what made the Russian military withdraw from Kyiv. EkoGraf (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  "Negligible role in the conflict" - that is simply not true. I could write an essay on this (incl. why 155 mm is significant in several ways and "1% more" is nonsense), but we would be delving deep into off-topic and discussions on military capabilities. Let's stick with WP:RS on WP:DUE/WP:N judgement; I already provided multiple sources: [61][62][63][64][65][66][67]. Mindaur (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  I don’t think the magnitude of the effect is key at all. Whether the USA supports with $33B in aid or a tiny postage-stamp country supports with the $6.99 and a box of first aid kits that it can scrounge up, it is still a concrete commitment to support (however we define it).

  But you are right that the wording must give the right impression about and define exactly what “supported by” really means (regardless of the number of states listed). —Michael Z. 18:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose for same reasons as last time, which include content problems, MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE issues, and mobile accessibility issues. I'm amenable to a German Wikipedia-like solution, where we add "(supported with foreign aid from other states)". ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Would accept the German-like solution. EkoGraf (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment US Congress passed the Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act of 2022: [68] [69]. It again illustrates the increasing scale of support for Ukraine. The revival of Lend-Lease is historic. --Mindaur (talk) 10:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Support

I rely on past Wikipedia articles as historical precedent on how things are normally done on Wikipedia without political motives changing.

Wikipedia articles that show weapon and other forms of suppliers under "supported by" Iran–Iraq War, Yom Kippur War, Nigerian Civil War, Vietnam War, Soviet–Afghan War

NATO is not only providing weapons but also electronic, recon and intelligence support.

ELINT is electronic intelligence and the US claimed they were doing it when the Moskva was sunk: https://www.nsa.gov/portals/75/documents/about/cryptologic-heritage/historical-figures-publications/publications/misc/elint.pdf

I think that we shouldn't make an exception to this article because it might not align with our political agendas or point of view. Ahm1453 (talk) 11:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Mainly per U|My very best wishes. There is clearly a big distinction between the support offered by Belarus which crosses a clear line and the assistance provided by countries to assist Ukraine or oppose Russia. There is also nuance to the type of assistance that cannot be simply captured in an infobox. An abbreviated listing would be misleading and a detailed listing would be contrary to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, which is to be a summary of key points - detail ≠ summary. The infobox is an adjunct to the lead, not a replacement and the article should not be written in the infobox. In consequence, WP:NOTEVERYTHING therefore particularly applies to an infobox. A bloated infobox also causes WP:ACCESSIBILITY issues - particularly for mobile users. The necessary detail is summarised in the lead and presented in the body of the article. That is sufficient and best meets our obligations under WP:P&G (IMO). There are some arguments here, that we need to show the support for Ukraine. While well intended, these are not NEAUTRAL. WP needs to be dispassionate and apartisan - writing at arm's length from the subject. There are also arguments the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a mandate. The argument does not consider the individual cases and why it may or why it may not be appropriate in one case but not another - it is a broad-brush assertion. More particularly, it does not consider whether this "otherstuff is "best practice". Few parent articles for modern-era conflicts since World War II have reached GA status or better (to my knowledge) - certainly neither the Korean War nor the Vietnam War. But ultimately, "best practice" goes back to conformity with WP:P&G (such as WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE). Unless one can show that this "otherstuff" is "best practice" (and in my observation it isn't) and the circumstances are similar, then an argument that appeals to "otherstuff" is unsound. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
• Current Events. There is an emerging consensus in news sources currently in motion that the correct reference might be to the USA with its 40 Allied nations forming a coalition to provide economic support along with military supplies and refitting to Ukraine for its battle with Russia here in "US and allies gather at Ramstein to discuss how to help Ukraine defeat Russia’s ‘unjust invasion’". The link to one of the latest articles is in "Stars and Stripes" under the title I have just quoted, BY JOHN VANDIVER AND JENNIFER H. SVAN • STARS AND STRIPES • APRIL 26, 2022. Link here: [70]. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with using the German Wikipedia solution of adding "(supported with foreign aid from other states)".

- I get that adding NATO etc. as belligerents is the Russian narrative, and I'm as pro-Ukraine as anyone, but realistically, the West is supporting Ukraine, and IMO it's WP:ADVOCACY not to have something about the West's support in the infobox. A link to List of foreign aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War is the solution IMO. Shimbo (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support' but only to list those states that provide direct lethal military aid. No political support and such things. Also avoid using supranational bodies like EU or NATO since support for Ukraine differ in scope and type from state and state.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

  The EU as an organization has also provided military support directly.[71] I don’t think NATO has to date. —Michael Z. 18:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Per My very best wishes. Belligerents should only list belligerents; there's far too many fine gradations of what 'support' can mean that will be flattened by a list of countries. --RaiderAspect (talk) 07:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support Agree with Ahm1453 and Mindaur in general, also specifically because "the United States military" is now training "Ukrainian troops" and there's been "a stark shift from Western support for Ukraine [...] focused now on delivering heavy weaponry and not only defensive system." If on the off-chance listing becomes too long, we can partially shorten or link. CurryCity (talk) 04:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC) NYT reports that direct assistance from US and Western intelligence services helped Ukraine successfully attack senior Russian officers, whose heavy losses astonished analysts. US goal has shifted to weakening and deterring Russia for the long term per statement by Def Sec Lloyd Austin. Even though I voted against in a previous RfC, events have since escalated. updated 07:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support List the individual countries who have provided lethal military support to Ukraine. That would maintain a neutral point of view--Waters.Justin (talk) 02:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - per My very best wishes. While there is a somewhat dubious tendency to add increasingly long "supported by" lists to infoboxes, there is no rule requiring to do so, and managing such list with huge number of supporters this conflict has would create whole a lot of issues for minimal benefit.--Staberinde (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose - Per My very best wishes. Only list belligerents who have made a formal declaration of war. Also as Cinderella157 noted, there is clearly a big distinction between the support offered by Belarus which crosses a clear line and the assistance provided by countries to assist Ukraine or oppose Russia. FobTown (talk) 02:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

  Nobody has made a formal declaration of war. EkoGraf (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. For those unaware, Belligerent, Co-belligerent and Non-belligerent each have brief WP articles. In my reading of them, many of the countries supporting Ukr fit most appropriately in the "Non-belligerent" categorization because the nature of their support most closely matches the examples provided in that article. If that reading is correct, naming these countries under the "Belligerent" section of the IB would be misleading and inaccurate and should be avoided. The "German-like" solution creatively finds a way to detach named nations from the belligerent label however and it might be acceptable. --N8_wilson 18:00, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Basically, vague, POV and inappropriate for infobox. Volunteer Marek 18:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose The list is quite large, and it would clog the infobox. CheeseInTea (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)CheeseInTea
• Support If providing intelligence, training, money, military equipment and sanctions against Russia is not support, I don't know what is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:1A3F:C906:438F:6037:998B:43DF (talk) 12:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Comment the above comment by an Ip geolocated in Germany sounds a bit dubious to me, said IP never edited Wiki before, and their first ever edit is here ...---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose The West is only providing money and some light weapons.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm concerned about the vagueness of the word "supported" - this could imply they are sending in troops, which they aren't. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose because "support" is a vague term that could mean a lot of different things, and has a POV problem too. Iraniangal777 (talk) 04:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Support - we should be consistent with how we treat other wars. Vietnam War lists many supporters of both sides that did not send troops directly. Similar lists of supporters exist for Iran-Iraq War, Korean War, and the majority of other major conflicts I can find except for WW2, presumably because the number of total belligerents is just too large. World War I, a featured article, individually lists 9 different British colonies/dominions in the infobox that aided the war effort, so an argument that we will 'clog' the infobox by including countries that supply lethal aid seems hard to sustain. It seems pretty clear that if military aid is being supplied to either party in the conflict, that should be included. Are we really going to act like the intelligence provided by the US being used to sink Russian ships doesn't count as support? TocMan (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

  A lot of these articles don't have a lot of editor attention. The infobox here was subject to 2 RfCs, which is probably more than the number of RfCs on supporters in the infoboxes of these 20th/21st century war infoboxes, combined. I raised the issue of IBs of 20th/21st century wars on WP:MILHIST and I think editors did agree there are some problems. Many of those articles are a mess of indiscriminate information anyway.

  Consider a more visible, GA-level article of a 20th century war, World War II. Commanders and leaders is significantly trimmed, the value of participants params is a single word "Allies" or "Axis" with a hyperlink. There is a high-level list of casualties, with a hyperlink for more info, but nothing insane. No equipment figures or other silliness like on the IB here or on these other 20th century wars. It's a tight infobox in line with MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. (nb: WW1 has not been a featured article since 2006, when it was delisted. The infobox, at the time it was an FA, looked like this).

  Your argument is that most infoboxes of recent wars are bad. I agree. That doesn't mean we proliferate more bad infoboxes across the encyclopaedia, but instead we should put effort into cleaning more of these articles up (their infoboxes, and their content too tbh). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for the correction on WWI, not sure why I had thought it was featured. Would you be able to link to the discussion you had on WP:MILHIST? My argument is not that existing infoboxes are bad, and I'm still not sure how including direct financial/material/intelligence support in the infobox is out of line with MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. It seems like it's both true and salient information that the Soviets and USA were both helping arm Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war, and that the US is arming Ukraine in the current war, etc. These things can have a massive impact on the source, ultimate outcome, and historical significance of each conflict. --TocMan (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Another data point I just found - we include Russian support for the Taliban in War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) even though it was only financial 'bounties' and Russia claims that it wasn't involved at all. Meanwhile US is providing weapons, funds, and intelligence to Ukraine and admitting as much. TocMan (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

TocMan, my reasons to oppose are much like those of ProcrastinatingReader. That WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not of itself a justification. It is only a valid argument if it represents "best practice" - and it doesn't. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE tells us not to write the article in the infobox - we have prose in both the lead section and the body of the article on this. The article is not omitting this detail. It is following WP:NPOV and WP:P&G more broadly in this respect. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Cinderella157 Thanks for your perspective. As you point out, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is fine if it represents best practice, and I remain unconvinced that this is not best practice. There are myriad military articles that include arms suppliers as supporters in the infobox, including featured articles about post-Soviet conflicts. This is a very different state of affairs than if only a few low quality articles existed that use the practice, which might have just never received good editorial attention. In any conflict but especially one with global implications, knowing at a glance the nature of support for each side is both useful and important. I am not sure what NPOV issue you think is resolved by keeping a slim list of supporters; but I think including more supporters quickly resolves any NPOV issue. If we include Belarus as a Russian supporter for letting Russia use its territory but not the United States for providing intelligence that was used to destroy a Russian ship, that may be a defensible line to draw, but it is inherently trickier than just showing all supporters - as we already do in other high quality articles. --TocMan (talk) 02:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

TocMan, You cite First Nagorno-Karabakh War as a FA and representative of "best practice". That article was promoted 25 February 2007 per this version. Since then, the article has undergone over 3,000 edits and doubled in size. Furthermore, the infobox now bares little resemblance to that in the promoted version. FA status only specifically attaches to the version promoted. Substantial variation in the article is reason to consider a review and whether it continues to FA criteria. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

That's fine, but doesn't do anything to address my overall argument. --TocMan (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Even before you identified the First Nagorno-Karabakh War, there was this discussion (Talk:First Nagorno-Karabakh War#FA criteria) about taking the article to FAR. In its present form, it does not represent "best practice". Cinderella157 (talk) 01:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support: Technical objections, such as a long infobox, are minor complaints and have been addressed already. Opposers do not seem to have read the Rfc, but are repeating obsolete arguments. Linking to a list, for example, is a very doable workaround. If "supported by" is not the most apt terminology, there are plenty of other great descriptors, such as "arms supplier", "lethal aid", "military training", etc. As a digital, web based, cooperative medium, Wikipedia should take advantage of its inherent flexibilities, and not be bound by dogmatic reasonings and self-imposed limitations. I find TocMan's argument,supported by sources, more substantive and consistent than the naysayer's. Additionally, even though the U.S. government has yet to openly target Russia, public attitude is shifting. One U.S. official, elected at the federal level, even said they're "fundamentally at war, although somewhat through a proxy, with Russia." The combination of lethal weaponry, direct training military to military, and rhetoric from its own politican, makes that country unique among supporters of Ukraine.Fantasix6 (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

This account has 9 edits to their name. Volunteer Marek 08:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

And? New editors do not start with 10,000 edits, they start with 0. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

But most legit new editors don’t immediately jump into controversial RfCs. Make a couple hundred normal edits, then show up to these things. Otherwise these RfCs become a brigaded, SPA, sock infested joke. Volunteer Marek 17:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support. I may be wrong on this technical note, but I believe if we included just the United States, and/or a link to the full list, it wouldn't even make the infobox bigger, since the Russian-allied forces + supporting Belarus take up more than that amount of space already. This would just be filling in blank space with text. At the very least, I think the US should be shown due to the extent of its support. With the revelations that America helped to target and sink the Moskva, and provided intelligence help in killing Russian generals, it's approaching actual engagement, per Fantasix6. I don't have a particularly strong opinion as to how the other supporting countries should be represented (as a linked list, listing each one out individually, as a collapsed list, not at all), but to not include any of the supporting countries doesn't make sense to me. --HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support. This is not a special case. There is a long-standing precedent for including at least the major supporters of each belligerent in infoboxes, as several others have listed examples of. Lightspecs (talk) 01:54, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose  This is infobox creep: adding some stuff just to add more stuff, without a basis supported by WP:RS. Factually, non-belligerent supporters of Ukraine against the Russian Federation and Belarus are the 141 states that voted to pass UNGA Resolution ES-11/1, condemning illegal “Aggression against Ukraine.” Military aid (donations), and military commercial sales, are routine transactions between states. When a state is in a war, such transfers don’t suddenly make the donor a belligerent or some kind of quasi-belligerent. And it would certainly violate WP:NPOV to label such states “supporters” and thereby equate their actions to those of illegal aggressor Belarus.[72] —Michael Z. 20:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

  There's a very clear difference between a vote at the UN, and providing military intelligence that was directly used to blow up a war ship, or $50bn in direct aid - that is not a "routine transaction" or ordinary "commercial sales". Re: Belarus it's bizarre to think that someone is only a 'supporter' if they support the bad guys, but supporters of the good guys don't count for some reason. TocMan (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, there is a difference, but those things don’t define belligerent status in a war, these actions aren’t participation in conflict, they’re not illegal, they’re not aggression. I don’t make these rules. The amount of fifty billion is not routine, but you are not arguing that 50B constitutes support but 10M does not, is it? UN members, including every state we’re talking about, are parties to treaties that define international conflicts and participation in them.

  On the other hand, the Russian Federation and Belarus both agreed to the definitions, promised to respect international laws, and then intentionally violated them. Bad-guy status follows from conducting a war of aggression.

  Ukraine is a belligerent because it is the victim of their continuing aggression into its territory for eight years.

  I don’t believe mine is the bizarre argument here. —Michael Z. 19:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  As others have pointed out, Germany and France, for example, have recently sold dual-use and military equipment, including weapons components like thermal fire-control systems for AFVs, to the Russian Federation. That doesn’t make them RF supporters in this war either. —Michael Z. 22:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  Has Germany and France continued to deliver these systems? Has Germany and France shared intelligence about Ukrainian military positions to Russia? Has Germany and France passed laws since the invasion to allocate massive amounts of financial and military assistance to Russia? Your argument is very bizarre. Jacob H (talk) 00:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support - In the future, we can argue about how to list the support, but reliable sources are consistently attributing the material lethal aid from the United States, EU, and others towards Ukraine's success, and to remove that information from the infobox would severely harm the usefulness of the infobox as a summarizing "at a glance" tool. This is vital information. The most effective argument against that I can see is that it would make the infobox larger and thus less useful, but this is countered by the fact that the Russian side already has multiple entries which extend empty space on the Ukraine side, which can be filled without increasing the size of the infobox. As for "equipment sales and transfers being routine" in response to Michael above, I think we can agree that the United States, at the very least, is providing a lot more than just equipment and money, in the form of military intelligence, which reliable sources have also attributed to Ukraine's success thus far. This is on top of high end equipment, and the response to the now famous quote "I need ammo, not a ride." Ukraine said they needed aid to survive, they got the aid, they've survived... all this looks like extremely notable information that people want to find in the infobox. Fieari (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  If intelligence makes the difference, let’s identify and list the states that are doing so as intelligence providers. However, many states share intelligence routinely in peacetime, so this does not make one a belligerent. If it’s provision of weapons, then do we list the EU, France, and Germany as supporters of the RF too, since they sold weapons components until March?[73] —Michael Z. 14:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

  States share intelligence all the time, especially if they are in alliances such as NATO. Ukraine is not in such alliances. Jacob H (talk) 00:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

  Jacob H, You're mistaken. As a member of the Open Skies Treaty Ukraine is, in fact, in an alliance to get intel from other countries. And, speaking of the "Open Skies Treaty," Russia withdrew from that treaty in December 2021, and, at the exact same time Russia began its massive military buildup on Ukraine border. 2 months later waged their illegal war on Ukraine. Strange timing, huh. BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

  The United States withdrew from the alliance before Russia, so your point doesn't make as much sense, but this isn't about whether the invasion was illegal or not: it is about, it is simply about we should be staying true to what is happening, and that is the United States and European countries are actively supporting Ukraine in the following ways: Financial, Militarily, Intelligence, Foreign Sanctions. Furthermore, the surveillance gathered by the U.S. and others goes way outside the scope of the Open Skies Treaty. The Open Skies treaty was signed to increase trust to prevent misunderstandings. The United States is not a member of this treaty, and it is the one that conducts the most of the surveillance flights, specifically over the black-sea and Poland (NATO). The Americans have admitted themselves that they provide intelligence directly to Ukraine, not through any partner like the U.K. which is a member of the treaty.

  By not adding the supporting countries, it seriously undermines the credibility of Wikipedia. You cannot reasonably argue that at least the U.S. & some other NATO member states are not supporting Ukraine militarily and by other means. Jacob H (talk) 02:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

• The lead section presently states: Many countries imposed new sanctions, which have affected the economies of Russia and the world, and provided humanitarian and military aid to Ukraine. There is a prominant section in the article 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Foreign military support and a daughter article linked from that section: See also: List of foreign aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War. How could it be reasonably argued that we are not already openly reporting the nature and extent of legal 'support' being provided by other countries to Ukraine and in a way that best conforms to WP:ACCESSIBILITY, WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and any other relevant WP:P&G. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

  The information is provided in the article, but it's my understanding that the info-box is used to summarize events, belligerents e.t.c… This has not been done, and from my understanding the only reason is that it would make the infobox too long, and this is answered in point 3 of the response to the RfC by @Levivch Jacob H (talk) 04:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  Typo in user reference, correction: @Levivich Jacob H (talk) 04:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry, but I'm not seeing that Levivich has contributed to this discussion? Cinderella157 (talk) 09:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  See the following: Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 7#RfC: Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox? Jacob H (talk) 06:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

  Levivich observes at point 3 in respect to technical limitations and accessibility: that's something we could change as a community if we wanted to. But such a change has not happened?. Levivich makes a number of closing observations on what a new RfC might propose (as a more refined question) such that it might lead to a consensus. This RfC has failed to head such advice and is likely to produce the same outcome as previous precisely because it has failed to head their advice. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Support The United States and the EU are providing lethal weapons to Ukraine, along with reports of logistical assistance. To try to understand this, think of Ukraine and Russia fighting without the assistance of other nations. Then, think of all the weapons flowing into Ukraine, possibly tens of billions of dollars' worth of weapons. While not fighting directly on Ukraine's side, these nations are apparently supporting Ukraine's side with powerful, expensive equipment. Nythar (talk) 03:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Thinking about it further, we have List of foreign aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War, but there isn't a link to it in the infobox. Nythar (talk) 03:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Think about the Russian weapons that would not exist without foreign support. France delivered bombs, rockets, missiles, and guns. Russian drones and combat aircraft have imported GPS units. Russian command posts, cruise missiles, radars, helicopters, and air-defence systems are full of US electronics. Russian airborne fighting vehicles and tanks have French sights and fire control. The Russian tank factory is shutting down production for lack of foreign components. Russian special forces were modernized in high-tech training camps built by Germany. Russian artillery is corrected using Chinese drones. (I can find the references for all of the above, if necessary.)

So sure, if we define “support” as providing military gear, then let’s list it all on both sides. —Michael Z. 17:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Support It makes sense, considering how many nations (even the Taliban) are rushing to support Ukraine, however you better also include Japan. Great Mercian (talk) 08:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Support There are many other articles that include the major supporters of each belligerent in infoboxes, and several examples have been cited previously. The reasons to not support this do not overcome precedence. Jurisdicta (talk) 03:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Request to close by participant agreement. A summary of this discussion so far could be written with striking similarity to the closure notes provided in the previous RfC Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox?. Most notably, On the strength of arguments, there is no global consensus to be applied that would give one side or the other sufficient weight to overcome the numerical split of opinion. In light of that, I recommend we mutually agree to close this RfC as "no consensus" in accordance with item #2 at Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Ending RfCs. I don't see any reason to tie up the time and effort of an uninvolved editor if we can agree that we haven't reached a consensus here. --N8_wilson 18:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Pinging OP and some early supporters. Can we agree to tie this up as "no consensus" and move to other proposals? If not, it seems like we've reached WP:WHENCLOSE and so a closure request by an uninvolved editor might be appropriate. --N8_wilson 15:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Ping remaining supporters. --N8_wilson 13:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Stop bothering Great Mercian (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Close It doesn't look like we've reached consensus here. Nythar (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

It might be worthwhile to have a formal non-involved editor close, but I highly suspect anyone can see that the result is no consensus. There are well reasoned editors on both sides of the issue, and the valid points on both side don't seem to be clearly and plainly answered by their opposition in a definitive manner. I don't see how we can say anything but no consensus, much as I'd personally and strongly prefer otherwise. Fieari (talk) 07:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Withdrawn. Given the trickle of comments posted after this suggestion it seems WP:Closure requests is more appropriate. --N8_wilson 17:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support: it's consistent with other conflicts to include nation state donors of military equipment as a "supported by" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finbee (talk • contribs) 14:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

References

• Support - the arguments and evidence presented by Mindaur and Fieari are convincing. It's beyond argument that the assistance (i.e. the support) of the US, EU and NATO nations, are a substantial contributor to Ukraine's success in the war. Thus this should be listed as support in the infobox. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support - Adding military support is consistent with other infoboxes. It is also logical to include as it impacts the abilities of belligerent(s) to succeed on the battlefield. LandyYecla (talk) 10:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dagestan and Buryatia people overrepresented in Russian army in Ukraine

The problem of ethnic composition of the Russian army, especially in Ukraine, exists. I do not know if official numbers are available. But some informations exist.

https://therussianreader.com/2022/05/23/buryats-russian-world/ Xx236 (talk) 07:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

https://spravdi.gov.ua/en/minor-indigenous-peoples-of-dagestan-dying-for-russian-world-in-ukraine/ Xx236 (talk) 07:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/north-caucasus-ukrainian-war-only-cemeteries-rear Xx236 (talk) 07:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

• Ethnic composition of a country's military personnel would normally be discussed under the heading of the country's military policy. In this case, for example, possibly in Domestic policy of Vladimir Putin with reference to enlistment policy or conscription policy, or, one of the sibling articles. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

The line about protests in Russia violates NPOV and should be modified.

The following line in the lead regarding protests in Russia should be removed or modified; "those in Russia were met with mass arrests and increased media censorship, including a ban on the words "war" and "invasion"."

To highlight the Russian government's censorship of war opposition while failing to mention the Ukrainian government's censorship of their war opposition violates WP:NPOV. As has been reported by reliable sources, the Ukrainian government has banned opposition parties sympathetic to Russia and has, in general, heavily censored dissent. The Azov regiment has also been credibly accused of abduction, torture, and killing of pro-Russia Ukrainian citizens. Because of these facts, this page should either highlight the censorship from both sides, or neither. DayTime99 (talk) 14:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Censorship during war is nothing new. US and UK have practiced it many times before. I would say it is a normal situation for countries during war. But not being allowed to say that your own country is at war is something wholly new. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

False equivalence and whataboutism isn't NPOV. VQuakr (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Neither of those terms apply here. Russia censors its dissidents, so does Ukraine. Ukrainian paramilitaries are even documented by reliable sources as committing "ISIS-Style war crimes" to intimidate opposition to the government. Highlighting only Russia's censorship is not neutral. DayTime99 (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, they really do. VQuakr (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

They all censor the press and the opposition, the difference is that the Russian ban upon the word "war" is Orwellian. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Please don't respond in that shallow manner. How it is a "false equivalence"? Please note that "Whataboutism" can be used both ways: could also be used to only mention the Ukrainian censorship and dissident imprisonment and not the Russian one under penalty of Whataboutism. 179.26.210.5 (talk) 04:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

that hrw report is from 2016 and is hardy applicable to the current situation. Cononsense (talk) 20:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Specifically, User:DayTime99 is misrepresenting the source regarding Azov. The report they cite doesn’t say anything about Azov members “killing pro-Russia Ukrainian citizens,” and that old report has minimal relevance because it refers to abuses by a volunteer battalion in 2014–15, and states that “by spring 2015, most volunteer battalions had been formally integrated into the official chains of command in the Ministry of Defense or the National Guard of Ukraine,” and this is the case with former Azov Battalion, now Azov Regiment.

More broadly: are you effing kidding me? What others have stated above: the level of human-rights abuses by the RF is far worse than problems in Ukraine (that only occurred as a result of the Russians invading and starting a war in 2014 in the first place). For one thing, Ukraine is in a state of martial law, and dealing with foreign invasion forces and collaborators trying to destroy its state and nation. Meanwhile the RF considers itself in peacetime, yet restricts its own citizens legal rights more egregiously, and has illegally denied rights in a sovereign state. The Russians have caused hundreds of billions of dollars in damage, illegally displaced millions, and forcibly deported, forcibly conscripted, abducted, tortured, raped, and killed tens of thousands, without any provocation.

So yeah, we could improve WP:NPOV, but DayTime99 ain’t gonna like it. —Michael Z. 20:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

For one thing, the article mentions the Kremlin’s false accusations of genocide against Ukraine in four places, but omits that a report by 30 experts says it is likely that the Russian Federation has violated provisions of the Genocide Convention, there is a possibility of genocide being committed, and there is an obligation for 150+ parties to the convention to take action to prevent it.[74] This is worthy of inclusion in the lead. —Michael Z. 20:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

First of all, the report I cited clearly says; "the Ukrainian authorities and pro-Kyiv paramilitary groups detained civilians suspected of involvement with or supporting Russia-backed separatists". Meaning I actually undersold the affair, it isn't limited to just the Azov Regiment (or as you put it, "volunteer battalions"). The report also discusses "enforced disappearances" in illegal "unacknowledged detention". The Ukrainian government has been directly ordering widespread censorship and squashing of dissent for years.

As for the war itself, let's recall this all started when the Ukrainian government that was pro-Russia was violently and illegally overthrown. Russia only acted militarily in the wake of that coup - hardly "unprovoked". But regardless of how/why the war started, it doesn't suddenly justify everything the Ukrainian government does. Who is committing "worse" censorship is up to reliable sources to decide, and right now they report both sides have been pretty censorious. If you want to be a partisan for Ukraine you should start a personal blog, not be editing an encyclopedia that's supposed to be neutral. DayTime99 (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

You're just quoting the Russian line. The government was voted out; no one except Russia thinks it was illegal. This is an obvious non-starter. Suggest moving on. VQuakr (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Violent rioting and trying to a kill a sitting president isn't legal. One doesn't have to be Russian to see that. DayTime99 (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The Verkhovna Rada did not riot nor try to kill anyone. They voted to remove a president from office after his government escalated violence and killed protestors, rammed through unconstitutional laws to grab authoritarian power, all under direct pressure by a hostile foreign power that he invited to invade his own country, and fled justice. The largest block of voting MPs was from his own party representing the constituency of Russian-speaking eastern Ukrainians.

VQuakr is right. You are trying to inject undue emphasis on certain peripherally related events to reflect a non-WP:neutral POV equating both sides, right in line with the illegal aggressor’s propaganda. —Michael Z. 02:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The Rada voted to do that under duress after Western-backed rioters brought the country to the brink of anarchy. And there's no false balance pointing out how Ukraine has been as censorious of its opposition as any authoritarian regime in the last 50 years. Focusing solely on one side's issues and ignoring the other's is how you get some of the worst war crimes in history. Don't go down that road. DayTime99 (talk) 03:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Characterizing Ukraine’s elected government as an “authoritarian regime” is an anti-Ukrainian, pro-war fringe POV. There is no consensus for your proposed edit and this is devolving into WP:chat. Time to put it to rest. —Michael Z. 04:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

You have failed to address the points my original post made, and all your arguments are essentially "Ukraine good, so their censorship good, Russia bad so their censorship bad". If this is the state of attempting to form consensus, that's a real shame. DayTime99 (talk) 04:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The fact their arguments have actually been "Ukrainian censorship and Russian censorship are on entirely different levels" and you choose to characterise them as that instead says a lot about how this is not going to reach the consensus you want it to. --110.141.161.200 (talk) 04:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

User:DayTime99, your “Russophobia screed” comment is an unacceptable accusation per WP:no personal attacks. Please strike or remove it. —Michael Z. 21:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

"the Ukrainian authorities and pro-Kyiv paramilitary groups detained civilians suspected of involvement with or supporting Russia-backed separatists" Just to be clear you're arguing that it's censorship that it's illegal to aid a foreign military in conquering one's own country? Benedict Arnold would certainly be sympathetic, that said I'm pretty sure in most countries aiding and abetting the enemy is considered treason. Anyhow I agree with Michael Z this has clearly devolved in to WP:chat and WP:SOAP and the edits obviously lack consensus. Alcibiades979 (talk) 12:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to just quickly respond to this since you seem ignorant of the situation. Their interpretation of "supporting Russia-backed separatists" includes moral support. Meaning even voicing an opinion in favor of letting them separate. This is censorship of acts far beyond people directly aiding Russia. I again point to how Zelensky literally banned many opposition parties. DayTime99 (talk) 05:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Who exactly is “they”? Was actor and producer Zelenskyy a member of the Ukrainian volunteer battalions when they still existed in 2014–15 or in cahoots with them? Or are your sources ascribing this to the entire Ukrainian nation as a rule? Please include specific quotations in your response, because the sources you’ve cited above do not support your assertions so far. —Michael Z. 22:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Censorship, banning left wing parties, kidnapping opposition politicians, shutting down opposition media (even before the war!) and murdering politicans that collaborate with russian troops (as Gerashchenko boasted) are all just whataboutism, forget about it jake! slava ukraina and long live the azov battalion (proudly part of the ukranian national army) 2803:9800:9504:7B33:4B6C:CC1A:D8EF:BD67 (talk) 21:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Source for “When a group of researchers commissioned a survey on Russians' attitudes to the war in Ukraine

The current source links to https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/why-do-so-many-russians-say-they-support-the-war-in-ukraine, but there is no mention of those numbers there. Can someone point to the correct source or add [citation needed] or remove it if misleading? VZakharov (talk) 06:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The issue of censorship in Putin's Russia has been taken up several times in the international press. Censorship and repercussions for speaking out is discussed in the international press as being subject to police arrest in Russia at this time, and fines in court against journalists speaking out. See the Media depiction section in this article and its main links if this subject is of interest to you. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

"Earlier this month, Maxim Katz, an opposition-minded politician in Moscow, and a team of researchers commissioned a poll on public attitudes toward the war; Katz reported that, out of the thirty-one thousand people who were called, twenty-nine thousand and four hundred ended the conversation as soon as they heard the topic."[75] Passes verification. Alcibiades979 (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

If verified, then it might be useful for either of the Main articles at Disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis or Media portrayal of the Ukrainian crisis. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I can verify it, I have a New Yorker subscription. I think VZakharov searched 29,000 but the article actually writes the number which is why he didn't find the relevant section. I've been really busy lately so other than minor things I don't have the time at the moment to really edit articles. If you'd like to add it to those pages those articles though I can send you the article. Alcibiades979 (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine supported by Colombia

Can someone explain how is it that Colombia (a country that isn't mentioned once otherwise in the whole article) is in the info box as supporting Ukraine because it's "allegedly" sending a demining team (the sources being some unknown Russian-language websites) while countries sending millions of weapons, money and providing military intelligence aren't?

189.193.65.250 (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

The invasion of Ukraine by Russia in 2022 has received widespread international criticism and direct critique from the United Nations. In addition to Colombia, for example, Japan and other nations far from the Black Sea have voiced support for Ukraine and sent various forms of aid to assist Ukraine. The links added in the infobox for Columbia in Russian state that Columbia has offered to send boots on the ground to support Ukraine on Ukrainian soil; neither NATO nor the USA have supported Ukraine with boots on the ground or planes in the air. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I have removed this, which was added an hour ago. Reliable sources (not shady Russian ones) have reported that the Colombian team will train Ukrainians in a NATO country but not cross the border. https://www.reuters.com/world/colombia-train-ukrainian-military-landmine-removal-2022-05-23/ https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/russia-ukraine-war-news-05-24-22/h_355cdc3e40d92353955b31ecf2c4bfca GordonGlottal (talk) 16:14, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Demining belongs to humanitarian aid or reconstruction, anyway. If it was general military engineering then it might be classified as military support. —Michael Z. 16:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I mean, in a broader sense I think that the UR-77 and M58 MICLIC would disagree with that categorization of demining (the former of which has been actively used by Russian forces in an offensive capacity as well), but it's unlikely that's what Colombia was purportedly contributing, so in the context of this article I agree it shouldn't be in the infobox. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:14, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

If there are no boots on the ground in Ukraine from Colombia, then it does not belong in the Infobox. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Pruning the lede down to appropriate size

I have removed the following, excessively detailed content from the lede. Full details can be provided in the article or sub-articles. The lede should be a concise summary. By necessity, many important facts will not fit in the lede. Jehochman ^Talk 12:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I reinserted the final sentence about the ICC; hopefully that's non-controversial, but I think it provides critical context to the article. The crimes against humanity/war crimes/ICC investigations collectively constitute an entire subsection of the article, which itself is split off into several subpages on the topic, so clearly it's non-trivial, substantial information; and it gives vital added context to the article about the scope of the atrocities being committed. Since it's only a single sentence, I don't think this harms the need for brevity/concision; the cost-benefit tradeoff is clearly positive here. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Extracted content

Putin also alleged that eastward expansion by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) threatens Russia's national security, which it has disputed. Russia demanded NATO stop expanding and permanently bar Ukraine from ever joining the alliance. Multiple nations accused Russia of planning to attack or invade Ukraine, which Russian officials repeatedly denied as late as 23 February 2022.

On 8 April, Russia announced that its forces in southern and eastern Ukraine would be placed under the command of General Aleksandr Dvornikov, and some units withdrawn from northern Ukraine were subsequently redeployed to the Donbas.

By 13 May, Russian forces near Kharkiv had withdrawn following a Ukrainian counter-offensive. By 20 May, Mariupol fell to Russian troops following a prolonged siege of the Azovstal steel works.

Numerous companies withdrew their products and services from Russia and Belarus, and Russian state-funded media were banned from broadcasting and removed from online platforms. The International Criminal Court has opened an investigation into crimes against humanity in Ukraine since 2013, as well as war crimes in the 2022 invasion.

References

Wording in one cell of the Causalities table is incorrect

It is currently 00:09:30 UTC. In the "Casualties" column, for the "Russian and allied forces" row, it states that 15,000–20,000 wounded: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Casualties_and_humanitarian_impact . However, the source says that number were killed. The claim of wounded is inconsistent with the provided source. I am not yet extended confirmed and cannot update this error. Could someone else?

Brom20110101 (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Linked article says 15,000–20,000 dead. Updated. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for making a change Brom20110101 (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Is the Kyiv Independent reliable?

Is the Kyiv Independent reliable enough for use in a featured article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemanth Nalluri 11 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

You can always check here at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources to see if it is red coded (do not use) or green coded (good to use). If its not on the list, then it might be usable. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

It is not on the list. Hemanth Nalluri 11 (talk) 01:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

It may be "reliable" but it is not "independent". Further, it is a news source. Per WP:NEWSORG, it is unsuitable for opinion. Of course these limitations do not just apply to the Kyiv Independent. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Problem with Ukraine War Animation

The Ukraine war animation has now reached the size limit allowing it to be displayed in thumbnail form. If the number of frames exceeds 104 (June 6th) the animation will no longer be able to be viewed in thumbnail form, as it would no longer make the following equation true, (length of image in pixels) x (width of image in pixels) x (number of animation frames) < 100,000,000. There are a few possible fixes, including lowering the the gifs resolution, dropping some frames, converting it to some other file format, or if we don't want to change anything about the gif itself, a subtext could be added underneath the image saying something like "please click to view the animation". I would like to get everyone's thoughts on what the best solution is before I change anything.
PS: I was told that some people can't even view the gif in its regular form when I added frames for June 7th through 10th, which is above the limit. I'm not experiencing that issue, and I don't know what could be causing it, if it is happening at all. Please see if that version of the Ukraine animation plays for you, and tell me the result. Thanks! Physeters^✉ 19:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

The current Invasion section is in phase one and phase two outline format. If you could break the animated file into two files, one for phase one (24 Feb to 7 April) and another one for phase two (7 April to present), then that should cut the size of the file nearly by half. Then the two new animated maps can be brought into the phase one section and the phase two section respectively to update the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

That could definitely be a solution, though I can't edit the article myself, so someone else would have to format it on the page. Physeters^✉ 20:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

You could add those 2 new files in on this Talk page, and then one of the article editors can place them into the needed sections. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

There is one problem that I just thought of. This just pushes the problem further down the road. Unless another phase is created, the same problem will happen once the animation goes past July 19th. If you still think this is the best choice, I will upload the already divided gifs. Physeters^✉ 21:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, downloads will work. I'll suggest that in mid July, when the time comes, just to do a third file for a break on or about July 18 and one of the editors will place in the article in the best chronological order possible at that time. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Here are the files. (Files now merged into main article and removed from Talk page; see article for merged new maps. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC)) Physeters^✉ 21:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Those maps look well done for the article. I've resized a little and added titles. I think it looks ok. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Very good, Thanks! Physeters^✉ 22:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

'controlled by pro-Russian separatists'

Any sources conforming independence of the 'separatists' from Russia?

The Kremlin and the separatist proxies have drawn on a conception of the region dating from the 19th century when it was part of an area known as "New Russia.", the puppet governments, https://abcnews.go.com/International/ukraine-separatist-regions-crux-russian-invasion/story?id=83084803

So rather 'controlled by Russia', 'controlled by proxies, puppets'.Xx236 (talk) 10:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Theft

household appliances, watches, bicycles.

Art, eg. Scythian gold. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/12/specialist-gang-targeting-ukrainian-treasures-for-removal-to-russia

Xx236 (talk) 10:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Right Sector - fringe?

"Right Sector ... is a right-wing to far-right". Even if there exist sources supporting 'fringe', there are different ones, so no.Xx236 (talk) 13:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Article too long?

The size of the article is a little more than 350 KB. The readable prose size is more than 100 KB as per [[76]]. So, can someone please remove trivial information from this article? That would help! Hemanth Nalluri (Talk) 22:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

The prose size is actually only 81 KB. Rousillon (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

How did you calculate that? Hemanth Nalluri 11 (talk) 02:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

With this. Rousillon (talk) 03:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

It would be better if the article was so long. Patachonica (talk) 02:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

What size limits are being suggested? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Archive discussion

The discussion that is dominating this talk page should be replaced with a link to the discussion just like how we did it to the first one on this page. Hemanth Nalluri (Talk) 22:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

If you're referring to the long discussion about "supported by" in the infobox, it will eventually be archived automatically as will most discussions. Right now, that's setup to happen about 5 days after the last comments - so approx. June 14th depending on your timezone. --N8_wilson 05:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

That was what I was referring to. Hemanth Nalluri 11 (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Possibly imcompetent source on casualities

There's a row indicating 3,528 killed among Russian forces from IStories. The data was compiled from an unaffiliated anonymous Ukrainian Telegram channel. The site does not look trustworthy at all (no about us page, no financing info, no editorial staff etc, same for telegram channel). I suggest to remove this source completely or at least somebody from experienced users should check that data for credibility — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.99.36.148 (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Potential Russian use of Tactical Nuclear Weapons

There is a section on the invasion, and a subsection (three good-sized paragraphs): 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Potential Russian use of tactical nuclear weapons

1. This seems out of place - as the larger section is about what has happened. The reader expects a summary of events. But this is speculative. 2. Given that this is speculative, the size of the subsection would seem to violate the wikipedia policy against giving things undue weight.

I would recommend 1. Condensing the subsection 2. Moving it out of the main invasion section.

(It is reliably source - it belongs in the article. I am addressing the size and and the position only). Jd2718 (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

This was recently discussed last month with the comment that international leaders of state are still responsing and reacting to Russia's use of nuclear strategy in the context of Ukraine. I'm adding a phrase today by Japan's prime minister that further int'l discussion is needed about Russia at the current nuclear non-proliferation meeting taking place. Still, if you have thoughts to shorten the material in that section, maybe add your thoughts here for other editors to comment as needed. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the length is more subjective - I will take a careful look and see if I can find a suggestion to condense, at least a bit. The position of the section in the article I think is more important - perhaps a separate section further down - but Prelude... Invasion... Support... Casualties... all describe what has happened rather than what might happen. This seems quite misplaced. Jd2718 (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

This was the comment from another editor last month on this issue: They have used nukes though. Nuclear weapons have two uses, one is destruction, and the other use is the threat of destruction. Every time Russia threatens to go nuclear it is using the weapons, this is one of their main uses. It also has fundamentally re-calibrated the conflict, western nations are obsessed with the threat and go to pain staking lengths to avoid escalation; such caution was in short supply when NATO helped end the Serbian genocide in Bosnia. I also disagree with the idea that this will be a footnote, Russia's using of nuclear weapons to create an umbrella around the Ukrainian conflict is noticed world wide and has smashed nuclear non-proliferation. 2804:14C:8781:8673:DF9D:44EE:7D88:C1A8 (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC). ErnestKrause (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I found that discussion, thank you. (May 8, archived May 10). I understand the editor's point, though I think they have stretched it very far, and I do not agree that the shadow of nuclear weapons is the same as their use, which is what I think they have implied. There is a bright line. In any case, I am not proposing removing this from the article. I will take some time and find what I believe is a more appropriate position (not as a subsection of the Invasion section) and bring it there. That was the more important of my two points. I'll wait and see if consensus forms (or if there is disinterest) and not address, at this time, the length of the section. Jd2718 (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's the shadow of their use though, the Kremlin and Russian propaganda has been openly discussing using Nuclear Weapons for the past couple of months. Vladimir Solovyov, a major talk show host and a Kremlin mouth piece, recently stated that Russia should launch ICBMs at the UK and then follow them up with nuclear torpedoes to create a radioactive tsunami;[77] the Kremlin including Putin, Peskov and Lavrov have also been constant in their threats of using them. Vladimir Putin has stated that he'll nuke anyone who intervenes in the war. So it's not the shadow, they're threatening it every chance they get. This has led leaders like Macron, Scholz, and Draghi to obsess over how to end the war in such a way that Putin doesn't feel backed in to a corner or humiliated, because they're terrified that if Putin feels his reign is threatened he will go nuclear.

This is Deterrence theory and Mutually Assured Destruction in a nut shell, both of which are accepted uses (not in the moral sense of course, but in the theoretical sense) of Nuclear Weapons. As far as the results of this go. China[78] is increasing it's nuclear arsenal currently as is North Korea[79]; Japan[80] and South Korea[81] are considering going nuclear, and India and Pakistan are doing their thing, not to mention Iran. As far as sources go for this, last weeks edition of the Economist was dedicated to this very idea, that Russia is destroying the nuclear taboo.[82][83]

This has also had a real effect on the war. Besides the assurance from the President of the United States that NATO will never intervene to aid Ukraine[84] it's also created a constant assessment of weapons, their capabilities and whether they're offensive or defensive to an almost OCD extent so as to assure Putin that NATO is doing nothing to attack Russia, or whatever. Which has slow rolled weapons delivery, has shown heavy preference for certain kinds ie Stingers and NLAWs, whilst others such as jets, ATACMS etc. are off the list, etc. etc. This is a very real impact that we can see on the battle field that is caused by Russia's nuclear threats. Ukraine's lack of artillery, it took the US months to get the resolve to send artillery for fear that 19km range could make it considered an offensive weapon. Full disclosure that IP address was mine, so as not to be accused of sock puppetry, I wipe my cookies a lot, some times I forget to log back on. Alcibiades979 (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The background section has been cut too severely

Regarding the cuts made in this diff. Key contextual events such as the Euromaidan are missing, and the text refers to things that are no longer mentioned (e.g. "Russia's annexation of Crimea followed in March 2014", which originally came after a mention of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest). I raised my objection to making severe cuts to the background in the discussion that took place beforehand and I'm disappointed to notice that ErnestKrause went ahead regardless without raising specific proposals (edit: without specifically discussing what information should be removed; I missed your suggestion regarding the number of paragraphs you'd like to cut it down to, but was expecting a discussion about which content should/shouldn't be cut) on the talk, as I don't believe there was a consensus for such a drastic reduction. While I'm definitely open to the idea of a significant shortening, I'd like to discuss specific changes first as I think such a massive cut is a significant loss for this article, the most visited article related to the current war.

I'd like to hear more opinions on the proposed cut (the current version). @ErnestKrause: could you please urgently fix the missing references to events so the text flows properly. I'll hold off reverting per WP:BRD for now until others have had their say (in case I'm the only editor who sees things this way), although WP:FAITACCOMPLI indicates that if there isn't a consensus for such a large removal, then the correct course of action is to restore the previous text and start cuts again from there, even if this seems like more work. Jr8825 • Talk 21:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Those edits were done a week ago when it looked ok to do those edits. Could you add in a sentence for Euromaidan and another sentence for Crimea annexation if you feel they are important. The general bulking down of the article was an important issue, and when you were not adding comments to my proposal from last week, I then went ahead with the shortening of the text. The readers of the article appear to have been ok with it, and if you want to bring in the 2 sentences which you mention are missing then you should add them in. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I apologise for not noticing your changes earlier, I'd presumed you'd bring your suggested text to the talk page first and have been busy IRL so haven't been tracking article changes closely. The problem is that regardless of whether readers are paying attention, the text as it stands has some pretty serious non-sequiturs (the annexation of Crimea is mentioned, but our text reads that it occurred "following" [something], but it doesn't say what; the text jumps from 1999 (the previous para.) to March/April 2014). More broadly, I don't agree that it was necessary or positive to lose the majority of that content, which was already tightly focused on useful information for readers. Why remove the history which helps readers understand how the invasion occurred? Jr8825 • Talk 22:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• Hi, I have read both versions. I would thank ErnestKrause for what is a pretty good first iteration of reviewing the background section. However, I would agree with Jr8825 that there is a bit of a leap from the second to the third paragraphs. It appears to me that Ernest has culled or retained sentences en bloc and this is a reasonable initial strategy. However, I can see that refinement of the remaining prose might reasonably lead to further economy. See for example my edit. I suggest that a brief paragraph to fill the gap and some judicious editing would leave the section at about its present size and IMHO this would be a good outcome. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
• @Cinderella157 and ErnestKrause: I've spent some time working on restoring what I think is the minimum necessary to retain an acceptably broad overview of the main events preceding the invasion. I've restored just over a third of what was cut on 6 June, and made some other cuts to duplicated cites or overly long wording. (Another example of the non-sequiturs the cuts produced: the section had an image of the Orange Revolution, but all references to it had been removed). The new section is more chronological and still significantly shorter than what we had before. If you can see places where wording can be simplified/shortened, please go ahead. In a number of places relatively important details have already been lost in favour of simplification/brevity, so I'd prefer to discuss further substantive shortening case-by-case. Your thoughts? Jr8825 • Talk 12:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry Jr8825 but I don't think this is an improvement. You have roughly doubled the size of the section when the improvement indicated should have no net change in size. I can easily see way too much intricate detail in this change. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The current readable prose size of the section is 4180 B (623 words). That's very reasonable for the background section of a complex event, and easily proportionate to the rest of the article (there are much flabbier sections). I don't agree the restored detail is too intricate, I believe it's all key historical context -- but if you could point out which bits you think are unimportant that might be a good way to move the discussion forward. Jr8825 • Talk 12:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Cinderella157 The comments from both editors are useful and if Cinderella would like to take a second look at either further trims or adaptations then it would be nice to see them. Its a little on the long side now, though Cinderella can do edits which seem reasonable. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

It would be a lot easier to compose a short paragraph than to trim the fat from three. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• Please see this edit. I have reverted to the version by ErnestKrause and added some text from the lead of Russo-Ukrainian War that fills the "gap" discussed above. Yes, the material I added will need some sourcing. I am not sufficiently fully across the material to do this but it shouldn't be a big ask. This edit is more consistent with the discussion to date about filling this "gap". However, as I indicated above, there is still scope for some tweaking. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  I don't agree about the necessity or helpfulness of making more cuts to the background beyond the shortened text I previously restored, as I think the length of the section was fine. Compare the size of the background section of Invasion of Poland, for example; both are high-level articles so should prioritise historical overview rather than technical detail about each phase of the fighting (which should be summarised at a equivalent level of detail to key contextual events and then covered at sub-articles). Cutting the background section down to the bare bones is essentially an editorial decision to focus the article on these day-to-day details of the campaign rather than a broader overview, which in my opinion goes against the 10-year test, part of the WP:RECENTISM supplementary guide. Basically, I think we're going beyond helpful cuts for concision, and these content changes are heading in the wrong direction.

  I accept Cinderella157's cuts (i.e. limited re-additions) this morning were skilfully done, particularly regarding Euromaidan, but I don't think they're the right editorial decision.

  I disagree with pretty much all of the substantive removal of content, and will lay out my objections point-by-point for discussion. I'm reverting the changes for now as I'd like us to reach consensus, or least seek additional opinions, before removing this content:

  • That Ukraine applied to join NATO -- essential background information for understanding the preceding tensions.
  • That NATO refused to offer Ukraine a path to membership, but promised membership -- key to understanding the direct lead up to the invasion, particularly Ukraine's vulnerability and Putin's rhetorical demands regarding this.
  • The Orange Revolution -- a good way of thinking about this is the following: suppose the US was invaded by a country which had been seriously meddling in its politics for the previous decade. A peaceful overturn of a stolen election through popular outrage and the Supreme Court had taken place, giving power to a politician who wanted an independent path, the aggressor country's preferred candidate had engaged in electoral fraud. An attempted assassination had been made on the popular leader, possibly attributed to the aggressor country. This would obviously be seen as vital contextual background for the ensuing invasion. There's no reason to treat Ukraine's recent history any differently, the Orange Revolution is mentioned in most RS background introductions to the current invasion as a key turning point in Ukraine-Russia relations. Also, we're once again left with the picture thumbnail but no mention in the actual text.
  • Putin and his regime's opposition to, and insecurity regarding, the Orange Revolution and Ukraine and Georgia's efforts to turn politically westwards. There are two very strong cites to analyses by subject-matter experts emphasising the importance of this point (Anthony Cordesman and Gideon Rachman).
  • The previous summary of Euromaidan and Maidan Revolution. Two key events directly preceding the beginning or Russia's outright hostility towards Ukraine. The previous summary was succinct and included valuable information, such as the nature of the protests and the cause (Yanukovych's attempt to sabotage Ukraine's shift towards the EU) the brutality of the crackdown and Yanukovych's removal from power (and how this was exploited by Russia in Eastern Ukraine as a launching point for war). Simply cutting this down to "revolution" saves very little space in return for substantial loss of valuable contextual information.

  Jr8825 • Talk 12:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• There is a tendency to think that more detail is better, but for readers on congested networks an excessively large article will load slowly, if at all. We can help the reader by making editorial decisions to include just enough information, and to move excess detail into sub articles which the reader may explore if they would like more detail. Jehochman ^Talk 15:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• Jr8825 Its not clear if you are accepting Cinderella's comments as you have stated or if you are reverting Cinderalla. Since 2-3 editors seem to feel that the Background section is on the large side, then it would seem better if you could restore Cinderella's edit in order to allow other editors to be more receptive to your discussion here on the Talk page. Both Ciderella and Jehochman seem to understand your position; they are asking if you could merge your edits into the sibling article which would assist in the bulking down of this large article approaching 400Kb. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  I can see an argument for keeping Cinderella's shortening of the Euromaidan summary as it successfully manages to cut a couple of sentences, although as I said above, my current opinion is that it's a loss for the article as the removed content is key information, and cuts can be better made elsewhere.

  I think both the Orange Revolution and Euromaidan should be mentioned. I think the pre-existing approach (a minimal explanation of what each of them are) is a good thing to have in this article given that it's the main jumping point for readers coming to the topic. If a consensus of editors believe this is too much information, then obviously I'd respect that, although I'd prefer a wider discussion to gauge this as at the moment it's just only a small pool of editors sharing our views. I think it'd be beneficial to have more input at this stage; hearing other voices might lead me to adjust my view further. I'm not sure that most editors still believe the background section is too long, especially after the changes that have happened (since the start of the initial thread on cutting the background sections, it's been reduced by roughly two-thirds). Perhaps an RfC question could be "Is the current background section too long/detailed?"

  @Jehochman: in terms of improving loading speed, reducing the background section is going to have minimal impact -- it's currently 18,894 bytes (most of which is cites), compared to 55,350 bytes for the Prelude section and 123,613 for the invasion section. An issue I raised previously (I think in the last thread) is that citations make up a big chunk of these sizes and there are likely unnecessary duplicated refs throughout which can be removed. There's also a tendency to include too much detail about military developments as they occur, because of recentism (which is understandable, but requires constant pruning and seems to be being more neglected because of the focus on the background section).

  One possible issue with the background section now is that it covers a similar amount of ground to what it did before, but in much less space. This makes it denser, and maybe harder to read? It might also give the impression of it being very detailed, whereas in reality all of the details are significant points/events which have been condensed together heavily and could easily be fleshed out further in sub-articles. Removing some details similar to Cinderella's approach could be a solution, but I think more care is needed to avoid losing bits of linking context. It's a catch-22, as removing too much information makes events harder to understand (events in the Donbas make much more sense when Euromaidan is summarised, and Russian propaganda coupled with Yanukovych's disputed removal are factored in, an explanation we currently do quite well). Jr8825 • Talk 17:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Support for Cinderella157 and Jehochman on this. Also, pinging Elinruby who did some of the re-editing on the other sections of this article. The article size is again approaching 400Kb which can be daunting to readers of the article. One suggestion might be to note that there is a great deal of duplication with the Russo-Ukrainian war article as to both of them covering a 'deep history' version of the events leading to the 2022 Russian Invasion. There is no reason for maintaining two versions of this 'deep history' going back 30-35 years, and it seems a useful endeavor to merge the two subsections of the Background section into the Russo-Ukrainian war article, possibly along with perhaps 2-3 subsections of the Prelude section as well. The read time for the article is currently 40-45 minutes which is over Wikipedia policy guidelines and this makes a large demand upon new readers who are going through the article from top-to-bottom for the first time. Suggesting here that the merge-to-sibling article measures be done to deal with the bulking down of this long article. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I've started an RfC below to widen participation in this discussion. I'll add my own comments later. Jr8825 • Talk 01:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, there are big issues with this article and particularly with sections subsequent to the start of the invasion in distinguishing WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING, and writing in an encyclopaedic style. This is an problem inherent to articles about current ongoing events where pretty much the only sources are news sources and inexperienced editors want to indiscriminately add stuff from every source that can be found. Ultimately, as phases of the war stabilise, these too can be improved. What we can address now is the background and the prelude. Arguments that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST only has weight if the other stuff here (or at Invasion of Poland) is "best practice". It isn't. All of the material relating to the background is covered in detail in subordinate articles. Our obligation here is to write a coherent, tight abstract of these events. While I am not saying that this version, in collaboration with ErnestKrause, is the best possible outcome, IMHO it comes very much closer to fulfilling our obligation than this version by Jr8825. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

TL;DR - unclear what the current status is of this discussion. Have today set aside to to recuperate from a red eye on top of red eye plane trip and could see what I could condense out of the section today. I am extremely unavailable for several days starting tomorrow. I agree that the events of 2014 are critical. I also agree that some stuff should probably be moved to Russo-Ukranian War. I am willing to spend some time today on condensing the background section. Moving text to another page is slow and takes a lott of concrntration; I may or may not be able to do that today, especially if there is disagreement about what should stay or go.

Bottom line, I could spend about six hours on this today if there is agreement and if not will not be available for pretty much anything for about a week Elinruby (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there's any urgent rush, as I've started a related RfC below to help establish what level of detail/overview we should be working towards with the background section. If you'd like to make bold changes to the current text, feel free to go ahead, although it might be helpful to note the changes in the RfC discussion too. Jr8825 • Talk 23:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

ok. A bit hesitant given the RfC but will take a look in a bit Elinruby (talk)

Ukraine support tab

If Belarus is listed as a supporter of Russia, then surely the US, Sweden, Estonia etc should be listed as supporting countries of Ukraine? They're providing more help than Belarus. A bit weird? Dopeliciouss (talk) 09:03, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

And so it starts again ... Pls see #Link to most recent closed and archived RfC: Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_9#RfC on "Supported by" in the infobox for Ukraine. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

HAve any attacks been launched from their soil? Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems that a large portion of this information is already in the Reactions sections in the form of a geopgraphical map which highlights all the countries supporting Ukraine and opposing Russia. If this geographical map were changed into an Infobox which simply listed the supporting countries with a short nod of what the support provided consists of, then the Ukraine support information would be provided in a more useful Infobox. This information is already apparently coded into the color scheme used in this image already in the Reactions section of this article. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 June 2022

Under the "Belligerents" section, provide a link to the section "Foreign Military Support". This is consist with the article "Russo-Ukranian War" 108.36.196.232 (talk) 12:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

There is already a link to it in the Background section; I've added a second link to that article in the "Foreign Military Support" section as well. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Spasatel Vasily Bekh

This is a general page, I am not sure if destruction of a tugboat deserves so much place here. Xx236 (talk) 09:44, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

tend to agree. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

+1, can it be moved to a sub-article? Jr8825 • Talk 17:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

is there a subpage for naval conflicts? Elinruby (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by editor Yantar. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Section on occupied territories

I think a new dedicated section dedicated to briefly summarising Russia's occupation of new territories (e.g. grain theft, protests, arrests, cutting of internet, media changes) might be warranted. See, for example, the Russian wiki's equivalent section (you can use Google Translate to get a rough idea of what's covered). What are others' thoughts? Jr8825 • Talk 17:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

They are currently expanding into the Donbas; is that what you mean? ErnestKrause (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

no, I'm thinking predominantly of Russian policies in Kherson, Zaporizhzhia Oblasts etc. (and Mariupol) Jr8825 • Talk 02:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

There is the practical issue of trying to 'predict' which target the Russians will choose next for concentration of forces in the event that Severodonetsk is overtaken in the coming weeks; need to follow reliable sources on this. It sounds like you wish to separate out Invasion policy from Occupation policy, which sounds like separate articles. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Controversial topic?

Should this article be marked as "controversial" with the "controversial warning template?" Hemanth Nalluri (Talk) 4:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

The invasion section of the article is already template tagged to apprise editors. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I looked at the "invasion and resistance" section and there was no "controversial" template tag. Hemanth Nalluri 11 (talk) 04:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

The "Under development in recent changing events" is the template in use. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Russian casualty claims

On the Battle of Donbas (2022) page, I have been keeping track of Russian Ministry of Defense daily briefings, where they announce the number of Ukrainian troops killed in the Donbas. I have literally gone onto Russian government websites each day and Telegram pages and found independent news pages corroborating those claims to cite them in that article. I've done the same with LPR claims, DPR claims, as well as Ukrainian claims for Russian casualties.

In my spare time, I'm going to find the LPR and DPR claims about killed Ukrainian soldiers for 24 February - 18 April, add them onto the claims from 18 April to present, and put them in the table for this article. But this new section is not about that.

I am still missing a few briefings, but if you go onto that page I've tallied 12,500 killed Ukrainians in the Donbas from 21 April to 20 June alone. Given that the most recent Russian figure in the table stands at 23,367 and that is dated from 18 April, does it make sense to add up these figures (which gives us about 36,000+ killed) and keep the "+" sign to indicate that the casualties from other regions is still unknown? PilotSheng (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

The figure of 36,000 is not all that outrageous because the Ukrainian government claims to have killed 34,000 Russian troops, and in the daily briefings by the Russian Ministry of Defense, they claim to kill something like 200-400 troops in the Donbas each day, which is somewhat in line with the latest Ukrainian admitted daily figure of 200-500 (per Axios). PilotSheng (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Should the causalties table be maintained as a table which posts both Russian claims and Ukrainian claims next to each other when available. There appear to be discrepencies between the reports from the two countries. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

In the case of the casualties table here in the main article and in the casualties article, I think we should stay focused only on single references or a combination of no more than 2 or 3 that include information on overall or larger totals and avoid combining daily tolls. The daily toll reports/claims should be delegated to individual battle articles. EkoGraf (talk) 23:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Be cautious with adding up separate reports, unless it is explicitly clear that they do not overlap. Be mindful of the difference between casualties occurring during some period and being reported in it. Don’t forget “casualties” or “losses” often means killed, wounded, lost, captured, and missing, but not always. —Michael Z. 18:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. EkoGraf (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Sanctions and ramifications

Do the recent edits quoting Russian opinions belong here? Xx236 (talk) 08:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

As they are a party, yes their views have some relevance. Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

'Some relevance' in the general text is not enough. Sooner or later the page will be shortened. The Gazprom news is unsourced. Xx236 (talk) 11:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

it now is sourced. Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

'President Putin spoke to investors'. Putin is fighting the war and he uses lies in this war. Xx236 (talk) 07:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I personally think that most of this material belongs to International sanctions during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine that is the main article for the section Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Sexual violence underrepresented here

Something should be added.Xx236 (talk) 07:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree. We could add a snippet in the lede such as... "...the war, which has been characterized by wide spread reports of war crimes and sexual violence by the Russian army,..." then more could be added to the "Legal Implications" section on the sexual violence that has occurred. As a side note I'm not sure how good a title "Legal Implications" is to a section concerning War Crimes and violations of Geneva Conventions. The word "implications" implies something different to me, such as a change in accounting standard, not necessarily killing people, but anyhow. Alcibiades979 (talk) 09:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Whatever is written in the lead should be supported by the article body. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

It already is supported under Legal Implications, that said I think it's reasonable to add more to Legal Implications about the sexual violence that has occurred as well as the war crimes in Bucha for instance all of which seem to be fairly definitive of the conflict. Alcibiades979 (talk) 22:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

If it is already mentioned, then detail should go to the subordinate page. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Xx236, What did you have in mind for adding? Alcibiades979 (talk) 11:33, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Problem is the human rights minister was fired over fabrications in relation to rape cases. Most of the outragous claims in that regard turned out to be false. 2A02:8388:2100:E400:C824:9941:9A0D:5854 (talk) 15:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 June 2022

In the section "Crimes against cultural heritage", add this additional statement at the end:

"Notable heritage sites the war has destroyed include the All Saints Monastery in Donbas and the house of Russian composer Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky in Trostyanets." Skippy2520 (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

It might be useful to include titles and dates in your citations for the future. Your link to 'All Saints Monastery' is to Canada and could not be used. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

There is an extra quotation mark in the updated section. Mind removing it? Skippy2520 (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

You mean the unmatched quote mark? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Skippy2520 (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I believe that means the Skete of All Saints in the Sviatohirsk lavra complex. —Michael Z. 21:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Did you link it in the article? ErnestKrause (talk) 23:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Notes on background section

I have not yet looked at the alternate versions (and I suspect this will be a problem with most of the votes on the RfC) but in case this is helpful, I do have some thoughts on the section as it is as of this writing. Some of these thoughts also applied to previous versions. It is currently unclear to me whether the consensus is that the section is too long or too short.

For context, I have historically followed news events quite closely but did not pay particular attention to Ukraine until the invasion, after which I did a deep dive and have since done at least a copy-edit on pretty much all the en-Wikipedia articles on the topic. So I consider myself informed on the topic but with no deep expertise, and might be able to channel a best-case scenario for an intelligent casual reader. So here are some concerns about the background section:

• Does the average reader realize that Ukraine was once part of the USSR? We don’t quite spell out how Soviet nuclear weapons came to be in Ukraine.
• ”irredentist” is exactly the right word but probably unfamiliar to most people. Consider re-wording; might be possible to condense while doing so
• we define “Donbas” in several places
• ”In 1999, Russia signed the Charter for European Security, which "reaffirmed the inherent right of each and every participating state to be free to choose or change its security arrangements, including treaties of alliance".” I see the need for this observation but possibly the quote could be condensed
• if we are going to mention Normandy Format we should probably define it. It might be better to reword.
• by 2015 sources say that the Ukrainian separatist leaders had all been replaced by Russian citizens, and I believe this is still pretty much the case
• why was “since Ukrainian independence” added to the header? Is it needed? It’s an ambiguous phrase, since Ukraine was theoretically independent once the Soviet Union dissolved, but was then run by a succession of puppet regimes. If we mean since Euromaidan we should say that instead

In hopes some of the above is helpful Elinruby (talk) 18:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

These are very helpful observations. I'll see if I can come up with suggestions in the near future. I think resolving some of these will result in pushing the section size and detail up though, so if the consensus in the above RfC leans towards B (favouring a more condensed version), then adding things such as greater explanation of the Normandy Format/the point about separatist leaders being Russian citizens doesn't seem feasible.

One point I'd make though is that "run by a succession of puppet regimes" isn't an accurate characterisation of post-1991 Ukraine. Even if Kuchma and Yanukovych weakened institutions and put the country's autonomy at risk, it has had multiple free elections, and Kravchuk and Yushchenko's presidencies in particular were not oriented towards Russia. Jr8825 • Talk 20:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

It looks like it was Mzajac who changed the section title to "...since Ukrainian independence". ErnestKrause (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I am pretty sure Mzajac knows more than I do about Eastern Europe, but this isn’t really a knowledge question. It seems like extra words to add ambiguity. I am also not adamant about this, if there is a reason why we need them. But the section starts with the dissolution of the USSR, whereas Ukrainian sources at least seem to consider that independence began with Euromaidan Elinruby (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I changed the heading from a negative definition “Post-Soviet background” to a positive one, “Background since Ukrainian independence.” It was negative in two senses: 1) defining the scope by what it once was and no longer is, rather than by what it is now. And 2) “Post-Soviet” is a biased cliché that stereotypes an extremely diverse set of states by what they no longer are. —Michael Z. 20:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Ah! Good answer, Mzajac. I agree with that as far as it goes. But I was under the impression that the header had merely said “Background”, which was the reason for the question. I am not sure whether I conflated this with another article where I made that edit, or somebody subsequently added “post-Soviet”, and it isn’t important enough to me to check. My suggestion is that “Background” does the job, may avoid ambiguity, whether political in nature or not, and loses two words if we are trying to lose words. Yes it is a small cut, but so are all of the cuts I have been making. So, to be clear, I am not advocating “post-Soviet”, just deleting “since independence”. Unless there is some definite need to specify the timeframe that I am not seeing. Elinruby (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Just “Background” is fine. —Michael Z. 17:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Since the RfC statement was revised, it makes it clear that neither version would be set in stone. It is a case of which is closer to an ultimate optimum.

I'm not seeing that any of the comments/proposals by Elinruby substantially add to the text at present (B) and some might reduce. I would only suggest that we shouldn't expend (too much) effort until the RfC is concluded. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I actually consider “Normandy Format gratuitous vocabulary as the section is written, since as I recall, the names of the countries are given as well. As for independence/puppet regimes, this is my point; some people might consider that Ukraine was independent at that point. Others seem to date this from Euromaidan Elinruby (talk) 02:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

On the point about the Normany Format, I think it might've been me who originally added the mention of it. If it was, I presumably judged that the context suggests to the reader what the Normandy Format roughly is (a group of countries involved with Minsk), and the wikilink (and link popup) suffices for those who want a proper definition. MOS:UL has this to say: "articles explaining words of technical terms, jargon or slang expressions or phrases [are appropriate to link] — but you could also provide a concise definition instead of or in addition to a link".

I like the balance between detail/concision there, although you're correct that to point out the Format isn't explicitly defined. My preference would be to leave it as-is (I'm likely biased) as I think it's nice to name-drop the Format, but I don't think mentioning the grouping is essential by any means. The main disadvantage of removing it without a rephrase is that it would no longer apparent why France and Germany's opinions on the implementation of Minsk matter. Do you have a suggestion for rephrasing and/or defining it? Perhaps you have a bolder change to the surrounding sentences in mind? Jr8825 • Talk 16:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

possibly can suggest something, will work on it. As previously noted, I am travelling this week and only available in small spurts. I cannot confirm or deny your theory about whether the average reader would intuit this as I was already familiar with the term. I am uncertain whether somebody new to the geopolitics would understand it. This isn’t something I am vehement about, just a question I am raising, and I do think you have a point about why they were involved. Elinruby (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine’s governments were absolutely not “a succession of puppet régimes,” except arguably Yanukovych’s from the day he gave in to Russian pressure to cancel signing of the European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement on November 21, 2013, until Ukraine’s parliament dismissed prime minister Arbuzov’s caretaker government on February 27, 2014 (less than 100 days).

“Since Ukraine’s independence” means either the day Ukraine proclaimed independence, in August 1991, the day Ukrainians ratified the declaration in a referendum or the following day when its independence was Internationally recognized, in December, or perhaps even the days of the signing of the Belovezha Accords, or the Almaty Protocol, or the day the USSR voted itself out of existence, December 25. One can argue about how much Russian influence on it there was during the years after that, but that is an opinion about politics and not the conventional meaning of the phrase “Ukrainian independence.” —Michael Z. 20:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

why do we need to specify since independence in this first place? Elinruby (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

His response appears to be that the single word section title "Background" is ok. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Saw this, thanked him, made the change, thank you Elinruby (talk) 03:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Russian Armed Forces and Royal Air Force confusion

Probably a stupid change, but in the casualties box it says RAF. I confused this for the Royal Air Force instead of the Russian Armed Forces, though it is hyperlinked. Anyone else agree? ~~~~ Harveywalker500 (talk) 12:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I can see why it might cause issues. Why is it abbreviated English? Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to get rid of the abbreviation, particularly since the page is written in British English. Alcibiades979 (talk) 14:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Or use RuAF, Russian AF. —Michael Z. 14:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Or do what with do with the Ukrainian, and use the Russian abbreviation. Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

That makes sense: Ukrainian Armed Forces = ZSU, and Russian Armed Forces = VSRF. It would then be consistent to use DNR and LNR, not DPR and LPR.

Although now I see they are only used once in the table: is abbreviation really necessary? —Michael Z. 16:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any discussion at all about British military aircraft being sent to the Ukraine. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

A familiar abbreviation in a different context is still unhelpful and confusing. Best just to write it out or use a clearly distinct abbreviation. —Michael Z. 17:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Also we are writing for posterity. Rembmer, we regualy have to field "but NATO is a combatant" requests, if people see RAF they might make assumptions based on "faulty" understanding of the situationSlatersteven (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

"Write it out" seems the best here. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Updated (diff) to Russian Armed Forces. By "box" I thought "infobox" but this appears to have been a table in prose which can take a written out form with less concern for brevity. IMO the full form also honors the spirit of MOS:LINK better by removing one more pipe. With no strong objection to the full form as discussed above it seemed appropriate to just change it and leave a note here. --N8_wilson 05:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

South Ossetia

Can you add South Ossetia to the attacking side, they have battalion or so in Ukraine. 79.100.80.172 (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Any reliable source for that ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

This issue was discussed over a month ago on this Talk page with the following result for the RFC: RESOLVED: There is a consensus that South Ossetia is not acting as a belligerent state but that the reports are in reference to Russian nationals enlisted in the Russian Armed Forces. Text has been added to the article body in reference to the reports. In accordance with the general consensus arrived at in other discussions, since South Ossetia is not acing as a "state" in this instance, it should not be added to the infobox. To do so would contradict material written in the body of the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC) ErnestKrause (talk) 22:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Per the above, we need RS saying they are a party. Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, that's why i asked for a RS.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

South Ossetia as an entity is not involved in the conflict. South Ossetians that are taking part are either as volunteers or contractor servicemen of the Russian Army. EkoGraf (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 June 2022

change the length counter from months to days. At the time of writing it would be change the '4 Months and 3 Days' to '122 Days' Scu ba (talk) 20:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Elapsed number of months appears to be the preference in the international press for reporting the length of the invasion. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template.
 Later however, if a consensus develops to change the current format, just re-open the edit request. --N8_wilson 01:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

The casualties tab needs totals

There should be totals on the casualties tab so as to make it easier to ascertain who's winning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:A702:EA85:9C63:999:8E75:C32B (talk) 04:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

As per earlier editor consensus, the casualties section of the infobox does not contain figures since they vary widely depending on the sources. Instead it links to the casualties section, which contains group-specific figures. EkoGraf (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Update your front page and add the US : CIA Paramilitary and US Special Operations Forces on the ground in Ukraine

The time has finally come to bury your biased views and add the United States as a party in this conflict. There are US boots on the ground. The Americans are actively helping Ukraine against Russia.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/25/us/politics/commandos-russia-ukraine.html?searchResultPosition=1 109.38.141.24 (talk) 21:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. But that source doesn’t say the USA is party to the conflict. I don’t suppose it is at war against the RF for allegedly coordinating supply in Ukraine any more than the RF was at war with Bulgaria, Czechia, Germany, or the UK when it sent assassins to kill people there. —Michael Z. 23:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

When this reaches the level of 'military advisors' on the ground in Ukraine, then it seems intriguing. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

But providing intelligence to take down Russian warship should be considered as a support. Also the article says USA is a part.

"Some C.I.A. personnel have continued to operate in the country secretly, mostly in the capital, Kyiv, directing much of the vast amounts of intelligence the United States is sharing with Ukrainian forces, according to current and former officials" RandomPotato123 (talk) 14:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Providing intelligence and providing political consultation from political leaders in the USA and other nations is generally not considered to be the equivalent of providing boots on the ground or planes in the air. The section in the article on "Foreign military support" covers much of this. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I think there is enough in the article to explicitly say that the US is providing military training in other countries to the Ukranian military, non-lethal aid, weapons, & intelligence support. I do not think that this is emphasized well enough in the Foreign military support section. Peaceray (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

You are extended confirmed; if you have RS then maybe you could edit something there? ErnestKrause (talk) 18:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I also edit a lot of different articles & generally put my attention elsewhere (WP:CUV, WP:WC, WP:GNOME). I have generally chosen to let others edit this article. This page is on my watchlist, & if I do not see that someone else has made the changes, I will circle back later. Peaceray (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

just about every other conflict page on wikipedia has countries providing material support listed in the infobox, but not this one derp derp derp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.249.184.141 (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Actually, as the closing editor noted in an earlier discussion: Editors pointed to a number of other articles about wars that included, or did not include, a "support by" section in the infobox. There is ample precedent for both approaches and no universally-consistent practice. --N8_wilson 17:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Just another IP user, but it does seem increasingly bizarre not to identify the countries supporting Ukraine in the infobox.

An article on Canadian Special Forces in Ukraine: https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-special-forces-operating-in-ukraine-new-york-times-reports 50.99.251.223 (talk) 17:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

There's quite a bit of context available on the topic of "supporting" countries in the infobox as it pertains specifically to this article. For any editor interested in making this suggestion again please take a moment to familiarize yourself with the two lengthy previous discussions which are pinned at the top of this page. --N8_wilson 17:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

And also the documentation for {{Infobox military conflict}}, specifically the guidance for the combatant fields.  —Michael Z. 18:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine fights alone?

It is a fact that Ukraine is supported by over 30 countries. You even list them at foreign support. I like wikipedia, i am not pro-russian(my country is member of EU and nato), but let us not pretend that we didn t support them. I do think that billions of $ and € and six round of sanctions is more then support, and 100x more then the support of Belarus.

In the moment you write Donbas and Luhansk Republic as support for Russia, you officially admit its existence. That doesn't bother me either, just stating a fact. 2A02:2F07:D801:6100:B0E1:524C:41D6:2D64 (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Two edits by this editor.Xx236 (talk) 07:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

We don't present anything. For example, no NATO country (or come to that any country) has allowed attacks from its soil, apart from Belarus (as has been stated (more than once) on this talk page). So there is no comparison to be made with any other nation. And of course, we admit that the Donbas and Luhansk republics exist. As we do with any number of other unofficial bodies. Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Support for Slatersteven here. No country has sent boots on the ground or planes in the air to support Ukraine. Sending money and military supplies from different countries is not the same as sending boots on the ground. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

It just seems strange and idiosyncratic with other wikipedia articles. Of course, no Western country has given the Belarus level of support, but other pages for conflicts do have a "material support" section. The US has also aided with intelligence sharing. Of course, the infobox cannot and is not supposed to completely summarize all of the intricacies of a conflict, but EU and NATO support has made a significant impact and is a pretty large part of the political aspect of the war. 209.6.135.165 (talk) 22:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Then again, things like WWII in Europe do not include lend-lease inside the info-box, so it seems that this is just a bit of uncertainty site wide. The Vietnam War page, for example, lists Sweden as a supporter of North Vietnam. So I revise my first comment, I think its fine as is, as long as this is consistent. It's just too undefinable. 209.6.135.165 (talk) 22:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

There is a Foreign military support section in this article. Is that what you mean? ErnestKrause (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I mean specifically the "Supported by:" expandable tab which is in the info box of some other conflicts. 209.6.135.165 (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

So. As i said and you did whatever you did with my post. I have no secrets. You need no ip tracking. I am from romania-targu mures.

So what makes you think that letting attack from belorus is support and giving weapons and moneyis not. Read your own wiki article abbout support and military support. And if this is correct, change that.

http://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Support Herminator2 (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Three edits by the user. Xx236 (talk) 07:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

You don't have to excuse yourselve before anyone here for stating facts. This article is biased as hell with lots of western propaganda, Wikipedia should be ashamed of itself. Daimler92 (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

OK then I will ask you, which NATO country has had an attack learned from this soil? Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

It is Support Type of support: Military Subtype of support: combat service support. As simple as that according to your own definitions. Herminator2 (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Providing safe conduct for Russian troops to move through Belarus to invade Ukraine is considered to be belligerent. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

No as that refers to (and I quote "describe entities that provide direct and indirect sustainment services to the groups that engage (or are potentially to be engaged) in combat."), organizations like Royal Logistic Corps. Also we are not a wp:rs anyway. And, wp:consensus was that we only include nations that are in some form DIRECTLY involved in military operations, not just supplying arms (hence why we do not list any of Russia's arms suppliers, such as China). Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I am really sorry to hear such prejudices about my motherland. China has never been one of "Russia's arms suppliers". Russian oil is cheap, and tend to be cheaper than ever. We need energy to provide a better living condition to the citizens. So we buy it. That's all what's happening. I don't really know why persuing an urbanized living condition for those GuiZhou people or GanSu people in poverty can be interpreted as "be someone's arms suppliers". We don't really have much choice because China is still a poor country with over 1.4 billion mouths to get filled. Our financial strength is limited. If we can import shale oil from USA at an even lower price, Russia oil should "be abandoned" by us :D Bao Zi (talk) 03:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

To Bao Zi. Not sure who you are responding to on 23 June. Normally, Wikipedia answers on Talk page are placed in chronological order and you can state which editor you are responding to by name. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

To Ernest. Thanks for your guidance, I am new to Wikipedia... I was responding to Slatersteven. Bao Zi (talk) 03:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

To Bao Zi. Since it has been 2-3 days since your first message, then you can try to contact Slatersteven on his Talk page regarding 'military operations' or by using ping described here: WP:Ping. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Okie. For me that sentence means that if you give a bullet to someone who s engaged in a war is combat service support. As i said i don t really care, i find the article biased, but as citizen of a pro-ucrainian country of course i just stop donating. I thought we support them. My bad. Have a nice day yall. Herminator2 (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Odd then that the article only describes military formations that provide combat support.Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

To summarize: financial support and military supply are things that happen in peacetime, and do not make a state a belligerent. (BTW, some of these countries have supplied military equipment and weapons to the Russian Federation too.) Belarus’s wartime provision of its soil for acts of aggression is itself legally an act of aggression, according to the UN’s definition.

This keeps coming up in talk. Is there a way to make the infobox section more self-explanatory on what it represents, say with better labels? —Michael Z. 15:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I doubt it, as it keeps coming up, and however we word it still will. Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems that if the color-coded geography maps in the Foreign military support section were converted into Infoboxes in that section, then those new Infofoboxes would provide much of the data about foreign support which editors are looking for. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@Michael Z.: Might be a question for Template talk:Infobox military conflict and/or the related Wikiprojects (WP:WikiProject Infoboxes & WP:WikiProject Military history). I've always thought at least wikilinking the Belligerents label to the appropriate article could help a little with the distinction. --N8_wilson 02:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

There is a lot of articles in WP that includes not boots on terrain countries in the infobox. (Sweeden in Vietnam, Lybia in Iran-Iraq, Korean war...) in some articles infobox i have seen "weapons support", "diplomatic support" and "financial aid" I think is 100% clear that Ukraine have received financial, diplomatic and weapons support from a lot of countries. So why is not listed in this article infobox and is in other war articles? Please edit the infobox to add this foreign suppor to ukraine or lets modify a lot of war articles to make consistent with the "boots on field" criteria in this article. DrYisus (talk) 12:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Explain me why Nazi Germany is in the infobox supporting Ethiopia in the Second Italo-Abyssinian war and Czechoslovakia is supporting Bolivia and Italy Paraguay in Chaco war, but United states, UK and European Union are not in the infobox supporting Ukraine? I am only trying to understand WP criteria to include a supporting country in the infobox. DrYisus (talk) 12:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Speaking about the article here, then the criteria being applied is whether a foreign country is providing boots on the ground or planes in the air to support Ukraine. At present, no country is doing this. See the section of Foreign military support in this article. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

CIA personnel operate in Kyiv according to former & current US officials. At least USA should be added to "Supported By" for Ukraine

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/25/us/politics/commandos-russia-ukraine.html RandomPotato123 (talk) 03:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion about covert operations is being discussed below in a separate section. See the separate section. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Belarus didn't set foot in Ukraine but it is considered a supporting country as well. The US, the UK and the European Union should be included as supporting country for the Ukraine counterpart Marcodicaprio90 (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

No, but attacks were launched from its soil, direct attacks. Name another nation where this applies? Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but NATO sent weapons and offered Ukraine logistic and military support – it is public domain. If we mention Belarus in the chart, we should do the same for NATO members. Marcodicaprio90 (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Belligerent's claims of enemy casualties

An issue has arisen at the article Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War. As per earlier consensus established at the War in Donbas article in 2014, self-admitted casualty figures and those presented by 3rd party sources (example UN) were to be included into the casualty tables, while claims made by belligerents about their enemies losses were to be only presented in text/prose form outside the tables due to the possibility of propaganda inflation (unreliability). This consensus extended to the Casualties article which was born out of the start of the War in Donbas. Recently, a consensus at this article's (invasion) talk page, reaffirmed the old consensus in regards to the Casualties article, but that the belligerent's claims of their enemies losses would be included in the table located in the casualties section of this article (since all casualty information was moved from the infobox to the casualties section due to bloating). @Volunteer Marek: has requested that claims of enemy losses now be included in the table of the Casualties article as well, just like they are here in the Invasion article. In principle I do not object to this (having identical tables would be less confusing) as long as there is editor agreement, so we could verify a new consensus moving forward (overwriting the old one). Between, discussion has been started at this talk page since the last consensus reaffirmation was made on this article's talk page a few months ago, so this could be considered a sort of continuation. Opinions, objections, no objections? EkoGraf (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The information at the Casualties article has been moved from text/prose form into the table as per Volunteer Marek's request temporarily until the move is further solidified in case of agreement here and the move becomes permanent. EkoGraf (talk) 01:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

There is no easy solution to the tendency of nations at war to wish to downplay their own casualties and to seemingly exaggerate the number of casualties inflicted upon the opponent. Apparently, by exaggerating these statistics, nations at war can infer claims of their own national prowess and downplay negative sentiments among their own civilian population observing the conduct of their troops in the field. Maintaining a chart which lists both sets of casualty claims, opponents versus allies, along with independent casualty statistics like the UN, seems the best approach to this situation. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Controversial statements

two self-proclaimed breakaway statelets in Donbas controlled by pro-Russian separatists

The statement is not obvious so it does not deserve to be quoted in the lead. The statelets are controlled rather by Russia. I will remove the phrase.Xx236 (talk) 07:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

The Lead should summarize the text. It does not, the reference 30 is used only here and it says 'Critics have accused Russia of aiding in the insurgency in eastern Ukraine, though Moscow has denied it.' Xx236 (talk) 07:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

state-controlled channels

Name one channel not controlled by the Russian state. Probably the same in Ukraine. Xx236 (talk) 07:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• Strictly speaking NTV (Russia), the second most popular TV channel in Russia is a private entity controlled by Gazprom Media that is a subsidiary of Gazprom. It is even more pro-Putin than the state-controlled media. In February 2022 there were Euronews and Dozhd TV channels that were in opposition to the war. They were blocked in March. Probably still available via internet and VPN. Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  Gazprom is 50% plus owned by the Russian state. —Michael Z. 14:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

How many глубинка people use VPN? Especially in Tuva, Dagestan and Buryatya, the areas overepresented in Russian army.Xx236 (talk) 10:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I suspect none. My observations were about Saint Petersburg there I have misfortune to be between 23 February and 3d of March. In February there were a few TV channels critical to this war available from a normal TV packages. In the beginning of March there were none. I suspect no critical to Putin materials were available outside of big cities from the very beginning. Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

It is not the same in Ukraine. It is completely different. For example, here’s a study of the effects of war on 39 independent regional newsrooms.[85] See Mass media in Ukraine#Media outlets: “By the end of 2014, Ukraine hosted 1,563 broadcast licenses, of which 1,229 were held by private stations, 298 by communally-owned stations, and 36 by state broadcasters.” The largest media are owned by a variety of political interests.

Why would you even show up in his discussion and make that up? —Michael Z. 14:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

The page is about the 2022 war, not about 2014. I am sorry, I have been unprecise, I have meant that Ukrainian media are censored. And I have written 'probably'.

I 'show up', because the text says 'Pro-Kremlin television pundits like Vladimir Solovyov and Russian state-controlled channels like Russia-24,[613] Russia-1,[614] and Channel One[615] follow the government narrative'. The phrase suggests that there exist independent channels in Russia. Xx236 (talk) 06:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

And speculating that the Ukrainian state likewise controls all channels, is unhelpful. It is false. You can compare these countries on press freedom indexes. Per Freedom House, Ukraine is 2/4, Russia 0/4.[86] Per RSF Ukraine is 106th/180, Russia 155th/180.[87]  —Michael Z. 15:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

You quote pre-war data.Xx236 (talk) 05:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

https://politicalscience.ku.dk/about/news/2022/ukraine-fights-propaganda-with-censorship/ During the years-long conflict with Russia, Ukraine has used some of the most far-reaching methods of censorship to defend itself against Russia's information war and online propaganda.

I support such policy, but facts exist.

https://repositori.upf.edu/bitstream/handle/10230/52403/Butkovskyy_2021.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Xx236 (talk) 05:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Hirske–Zolote cauldron

Some days ago Russian forces managed to surround Ukrainian troops in Hirske and Zolote. This is something that has not happened often, as far as I know the only other examples are Mariupol, Chernihiv and Slavutych. These three have articles on their respective military engagements, but the surrounding at Hirske and Zolote does not. I was wondering if a specific article could perhaps be written about it. Probably not as not much actually happened, but I'd like to see the opinions of other editors as I feel like this event has no appropriate article for coverage other than the broad Eastern Ukraine offensive and the articles on the towns themselves. We have some similar examples in Wikipedia, like Falaise pocket or the Kamenets–Podolsky pocket, but these are far more obviously notable. The Kholm Pocket is the one with the smallest scale I've been able to find. Super Ψ Dro 22:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

This does not appear to have been a lead story as covered in the headlines of the international press recently. RS should be the starting point I think for making requests from other editors about possible inclusion of new material. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

There's several sources available, [88] [89] [90] [91] [92]. Super Ψ Dro 10:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

As I recall, this is part of the Russian advance on Lysychansk at this time; it is a parallel to the situation leading to the fall of Severodoensk where this Wikipedia article did address that the surrounding villages and hamlets were being captured as part of the advance upon Severodenetsk. By analogy, the march and advance on Lysychansk could receive a similar edit to the one previously done for the advance on Severodonetsk. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

ISW’s June 24 update mentions contradictory information about this area.[93] The next two say “Russian forces likely encircled Ukrainian forces in Hirske and Zolote on June 23–24.”[94][95]

As far as I can tell, the Russians (MOD and Kadyrov) announced on June 24 that they had “fully blocked” 1,800 or 2,000 Ukrainian forces in the area. The next day the Ukrainians (Arestovych) announced they had withdrawn. No triumphal fanfares followed, so perhaps that’s all there is to the available information. —Michael Z. 14:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

For a NPOV this should mention that Russia does not view this as an "invasion" but rather as a legal "special military operation" justified by Article 51 of the UN Charter

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Details elaborated on by Scott Ritter in "Russia, Ukraine and the Law of War. Crime of Aggression (part one of a two-part series, lays out international law regarding the crime of aggression and how it relates to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine)", By Scott Ritter, 29 March 2022 https://consortiumnews.com/2022/03/29/russia-ukraine-the-law-of-war-crime-of-aggression/ 24.42.166.244 (talk) 13:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Why? Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Consortium News is an unreliable source per WP:RSP. The "special military operation" is already mentioned in the article. — Czello 13:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Scott Ritter is not an unreliable source, very relevant Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. Russia has been charged & convicted without a trial. Russia's version should be included. 24.42.166.244 (talk) 13:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Then why did he publish in a non RS? And (AGAIN) we do say Putin called it a "special military operation" (5 times). Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Consortium news is unreliable, however. — Czello 13:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the same article has been published here: https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2022/03/30/russia-ukraine-the-law-of-war-crime-of-aggression/ , here: https://popularresistance.org/russia-ukraine-the-law-of-war-crime-of-aggression/ , here: https://www.sott.net/article/466104-Russia-Ukraine-the-law-of-war-Crime-of-aggression , and here: https://scheerpost.com/2022/04/01/russia-ukraine-the-law-of-war-crime-of-aggression/ 24.42.166.244 (talk) 13:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think that kind of makes our point, RS are not picking this up. Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Also: Interview with Ritter in Deconstructing Preemption, De-Nazification, Right to Protect … in the Eyes of Empire of Lies (and Hate) April 11th, 2022; Scott Ritter: "I believe Russia has articulated a cognizable claim of preemptive collective self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter." https://dissidentvoice.org/2022/04/deconstructing-preemption-de-nazification-right-to-protect-in-the-eyes-of-empire-of-lies-and-hate/ 24.42.166.244 (talk) 13:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

We talk about this in five separate places, what more do you want? Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I do my best to WP:AGF, but let's call a spade a spade. This IP is a bad-faith editor who has said that it's false for us to say Russia launched an invasion, they've suggested renaming the article to "USA's proxy war with Russia", and they've complained about western propaganda which resulted in copyvio revdel'd posts. The IP is taking pro-Kremlin talking points and at this point we should simply hat this thread per WP:DENY. — Czello 13:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

This needs closing as a violation of wp:tenditious. Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Troop numbers updated

I remember reading several weeks ago, I believe in the ISW that Russia had committed upwards of 330,000 Soldiers to the invasion. I believe that, along with more recruits who have joined the forces of the DPR and LPR around with the estimated 10,000 - 20,000 foreign mercenaries who have reportedly been flown in by the Russians should be included in the "Strength" section. As for the Ukrainian side, they have also highly increased the number of fighters they now have, I believe their president also recently reported that up to 700,000 people were participating in the "defense of Ukraine" in some way or another. Either way, the strength section should be updated to reflect more current figures of troops involved on both sides. History Man1812 (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)History_Man1812

I've seen this preliminary report which would effectively double or triple Russia's current invasion size in number of troops deployed; however, when are they to arrive, when are they to be deployed, are they still to go through training before arriving in Ukraine, etc.? Must answer RS as well. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I believe most of that number includes replacements for casualties Russian forces have already sustained (some estimates place Russian losses so far at above 80,000, including killed, wounded, missing, and captured. Once again, this is a higher estimate but it would explain the new troops committed, and that number also seems reasonable given the intensity and scale of the fighting, as well as the numbers and professionalism of both sides involved. History Man1812 (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)History_Man1812

The source cites Ukrainian intelligence, and includes a breakdown of 330k already committed (but not necessarily trained and in the field?), including Rosgvardia and mercenaries but not foreign troops, and unknown whether it includes DLNR.[96]  —Michael Z. 17:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Russia has active troops up to 1.01 million; it might make sense to wait until at least part of the promised 330K troops are confirmed as getting to the Ukraine border. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Not sure how you’re envisioning “confirmed.” All troop strengths in this and related articles are just estimates given by sources someone decided is good enough to repeat.

Is that 1.01M confirmed, or an estimate by IISS? I presume about a third or less of that is ground forces. —Michael Z. 02:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

That number is confirmed in the Infobox of the Russian Armed Forces Wikipedia article by RS from 2021; it would make sense to find out if 1.01M is to be augmented by 330K, or if the existing active troops are to be re-allocated to Ukraine from their existing assignments accross Russia at this time. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

330k is the total committed, including ~190k initially assembled, plus forces diverted from elsewhere since (presumably Russia, Kaliningrad, Syria), plus mercenaries and reservists recruited since February 24. —Michael Z. 16:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The linked source you are citing states; 'Russian forces grouped 150,000 servicemen into battalion tactical groups'. Which is down by attrition from the original troop allocation of battalion tactical groups from 190,000. This is the way the Wikipedia article is currently oriented, in terms of boots on the ground. The current number appears to be 150K Russians in the field at the end of June 2022, after attrition since the start of the invasion. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Minor edit request

Foreign military support section, Foreign military involvement subsection : "On 5 May, a US official confirmed that US gave "a range of intelligence"... should have a "the" before "US gave". Astrosalad (talk) 01:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• Done Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Ukrainian refugees from 2022, crossing into Poland.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Error in number of refugees

It is estimated around 8.4 million Ukrainians have fled the country not 6.4 million 5.59.117.168 (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source for this please? — Czello 21:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Ignore this, I see the existing source has been updated. Thanks. — Czello 07:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Problems with Ukraine War Animation Part 2 gif

Here we are again. So just like last time, we are about to hit the limit of frames the gif can have if we want it to play in thumbnail form. The limit is 104 frames, and the Part 2 gif will pass that limit on July 19th, so it is still possible that a natural breaking point will occur where the gif can be split. @ErnestKrause proposed changing the gif to only show every other day, which would extend the deadline to November 1. I know some people might have a problem with this, but it seems like the best option, other than splitting the gif in two. If there are any other possible solutions, please let me know! Physeters^✉ 02:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

This sounds like the best approach. Maybe give others a chance to read your note above and comments over the next day or two, and then it looks like the best approach to update the article until next November. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Unlike the part 1 gif, the second animation seems to cover quite a few periods of time where territorial changes were either minimal or nonexistent. Taking advantage of that, another option would be to group these periods of relative inactivity into single frames so that only significant changes "use up" available frames within the 104 limit. I don't like how that could mislead viewers with respect to the pace of the conflict but I've seen it done on other sites so it might be less of an issue than I perceive it to be. It's also worth noting that splitting on June 19 doesn't necessarily mean we need a corresponding new "phase" per-se in the prose. We could just continue the animation below the previous. I'm fine with any of these honestly - including the every other day solution. Thanks for all your work on this Physeters. --N8_wilson 🔔 01:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

You are welcome @N8wilson! Your idea of removing duplicate dates would remove 48 days, extending the deadline to September 4(assuming there are no duplicate days after July 10). Unfortunately, many of these frames are in large groups, (such as from April 27 to May 11, minus the 29th, 8th, and 9th; or all of July up to today minus the 1st, 3rd, and 6th) as opposed to being scattered throughout, so I don't think it would work. Physeters^✉ 02:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Media depiction manipulated

The article currently reads some press reports grew increasingly unsure about a possible Ukrainian victory in the conflict. The German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung noted, after the loss of Severodonetsk, that the chances for a Ukrainian victory "tend towards zero". with two sources given. One is Süddeutsche Zeitung itself. The other one is an Al Jazeera article that has the opposite tenor, claiming the loss of Severodonetsk is of minor military importance but the Russian forces are running out of ammunition and are demoralized: To some observers, Moscow’s long-term perspectives in the war do not look promising because of heavy losses and demoralised manpower amid Western sanctions that prevent the production of high-precision weaponry.[97] SovielHungerhabichgarnicht (talk) 02:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Avril Haines has just stated to expect a long and protracted invasion; and Joe Biden is sending another 800 million dollars US to assist Ukraine's military efforts. What does this mean to you? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I was wondering about that as well. I think we might be able to say that "Süddeutsche Zeitung noted", but that might violate undue as it is one news organ. Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

The statement “some press reports grew increasingly unsure,” comparing two current reports to nothing at all, is an opinion that does not even meet the definition of WP:original research. Please remove the sentence, or perhaps the paragraph with two cherry-picked sources.

Ukraine has been conducting a fighting withdrawal for two months. After every notable advance, some non-expert media and pundits have declared a disaster. But overviews by experts maintain that Russian advances are glacially slow and no Russian strategic objectives are being achieved while attrition and degraded troop quality continues. —Michael Z. 15:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I removed this without seeing this discussion. My reasoning was as follows: Al Jazera says the opposite of what this paragraph says. That leaves a single Op-Ed in the Süddeutsche Zeitung to document this supposed trend. Deleting paragraph and This mischaracterized an OP-ED by a single journalist as the position of the newspaper. This paragraph may need to be altered further, having [should be "haven't"] checked al jazera but the fact that a single journalist in a country full of defeatists (Germany) wrote something defeatist is not really notable. So basically, I think we're all in agreement. The Al-Jazeera article says that the loss of Severodonetsk isn't strategically important and quotes experts to that effect. Now I have seen a Washington Post article about differing assessments in the US, with some saying the US isn't doing enough to help Ukraine and a minority saying US assessments are too rosy and Ukraine can't win, but that's not really about media coverage. German "intellectuals" and "pacifists" have been calling for Ukraine basically surrendering for various reasons since before the conflict, though they don't call it surrendering, which is how the article in the Süddeutsche Zeitung has to be contextualized.

The long and short of it: Defeatists and Ruscists gonna defeatist and Ruscist. The paragraph was OR.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Calling a whole country defeatist is racist. Someone who has special editing rights to edit a protected article should stay neutral also in discussion. Opinion polls show a large part of the German population wants to support Ukraine with more weapons, and German media are divided. Just because the government doesn't do it quickly doesn't mean all of Germany is defeatist just as when the US and UK started the war of aggression in Iraq didn't mean the whole countries are criminal. I think it would be important to cover some of the different views in western media, also to show that there is a plurality of opinions that is allowed in the western countries. It just should be neutral and with due weight to the different positions and with sources that actually support what is written in the article. SovielHungerhabichgarnicht (talk) 11:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. I'm allowed my opinions. At any rate, saying a country is full of defeatists - which Germany is - is not the same as saying that every German is defeatist. "Intellectuals" and "pacifists" in other countries don't regularly garner headlines for publishing open letters calling for the West to force Ukraine to give up.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Reactions

Alleged racism at the beginning of the section. No context (young men competing with mothers and children). Regarding Indian students. https://www.outlookindia.com/international/five-reasons-why-indian-students-couldn-t-leave-ukraine-before-war-started-news-184406 Xx236 (talk) 07:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Several countries, abandoned by their embassies. https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20220302122312854

The page quotes two texts:

• India Times
• Deutsche Welle - German government propaganda Xx236 (talk) 08:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

There were cases of racism, but the number of Ukrainian refugees was millions and the numbers of foreigners - thousands. So the Reactions are biased.Xx236 (talk) 08:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

A lot lot of media reported of racist treatment of foreigners who fled Ukraine. Calling Deutsche Welle German government propaganda without any evidence in how far their reporting is questionable doesn't seem helpful to me. SovielHungerhabichgarnicht (talk) 11:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I have read hundreds of DW texts. An example https://visegradpost.com/en/2021/03/10/deutsche-welle-manipulates-the-truth/Xx236 (talk) 12:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

There is generally the problem of German public media.Xx236 (talk)

You posted a link to an article originally published in a newspaper "close to Hungarian president Viktor Orban" - known friend of Vladimir Putin. Deutsche Welle is generally considered an excellent source. Some Hungarian propaganda newspaper - not so much.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

"Excellent'? By whom? All German public media are influenced by the German government, which was Putin-friendly till February, still is. Orban is bad, Merkel is good. Neutrality.Xx236 (talk) 06:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Belligerents - Supported by

There are a ton of western countries supporting and military supplying Ukraine (whole of NATO, Australia, Japan ect). Yet none of them are mentioned in the section. As per other wikipedia articles about conflicts, military assistance to a country in the form of providing weapons is considered a semi-belligerent mentioned in "supported by" section.

I hope the editors familiar with the article see my post and make the necessary changes. Thank you all for your work! NickTheRipper (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

There is no “semi-belligerent” status in international law. We know providing weapons doesn’t make one a belligerent, because it is done constantly by a large number of states without ever creating a state of war. Please see multiple previous discussions above and in the talk archive. —Michael Z. 21:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

All the other wikipedia articles (about military conflicts) list countries in "supported by" section that have even provided just diplomatic support to the belligerents (e.g. see Vietnam War for reference). Also I don't see how international law has to do anything with how a wikipedia article is structured. Thanks NickTheRipper (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Assessment of military alliances is normally done by observing boots on the ground or planes in the air. No country has provided Ukraine with boots on the ground or planes in the air. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it's kind of laughable to assume that Ukraine is not supported by anyone in the world in its war against Russia. But I guess wikipedia's political bias has changed a lot from when I used to edit back in the day... NickTheRipper (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

We are not saying that, we are saying they are not beligerants. That their level of support does not rise high enough to really count as involved in direct conflict. Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take the time to answer even though I know that will not change your pov.

>Michael Z

"There is no “semi-belligerent” status in international law." International law has nothing to do with how a wikipedia article should be structured. "We know providing weapons doesn’t make one a belligerent, because it is done constantly by a large number of states without ever creating a state of war." Never said otherwise. Providing weapons makes one support a belligerent.

>ErnestKrause

"Assessment of military alliances is normally done by observing boots on the ground or planes in the air." A party does not have to be in an alliance with a belligerent in order to provide support to them. Also units (on the ground or in the air as you said) would make a party full-fleged belligerent (providing they take part in hostilities). "No country has provided Ukraine with boots on the ground or planes in the air." Again that would make a party a belligerent.

>Slatersteven

"We are not saying that, we are saying they are not beligerants" Ok, we agree here. They are not a belligerent. They are providing support for one. "That their level of support does not rise high enough to really count as involved in direct conflict." I think you have not understand what I am trying to say here. These parties are involved in the conflict not enough to be listed as belligerents but enough to be listed as supporting a belligerent. NickTheRipper (talk) 17:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

But what criteria do we use? China is selling kit to Russia, France and Germany were (but no longer are). Sanctions, do they count, what about political support? Do we list those nations who have given political support to Russia as aiding them? Where do we draw the line? Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

You are really correct here. I assume Wikipedia guidelines exist for the uniformity of such pages. That is something editors familiar with editing conflict pages know. That said, just by a quick surf through such pages it was easy to understand that the current format of the section is certainly incorrect. NickTheRipper (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

But they are not uniform. Starting with the list of ongoing armed conflicts, I clicked through to the articles about international conflicts, and it looks like a minority of them have supporters listed in the “belligerents” section of the infobox. —Michael Z. 19:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

That is the case because not all conflicts have major parties supporting a belligerent. NickTheRipper (talk) 03:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I made a quick look at the page you sent and apparently the first 8 conflicts that I clicked all had "supported by" section in their infobox. I clicked them as they are listed in the page until I found one that it does not have the "supported by" section in it (excluding the Ukraine-Russian one). For reference Internal conflict in Myanmar, War in Afghanistan (2001–2021), Yemeni Civil War (2014–present), Tigray War, Colombian conflict, Oromo conflict, Somali Civil War, Allied Democratic Forces insurgency. NickTheRipper (talk) 03:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The principle (and policy) is called wp:consensus, when things are not directly contradictory to policies (and even sometimes even then (see wp:iar, a policy I loath)) local consensus determines what is an is not relevant to an article. This means that sometimes pages do not follow the same logic. In this case, local consensus is that we only include directly involved parties. Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

When you say "local consensus" you mean for this page only? NickTheRipper (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Sort of, I mean on any page where the local consensus differs from what is generally done, but is not (technically) against policy. So in this specific case yes, this page as opposed to another. Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok understood what you said. I saw the "local consensus" and unfortunately I was not here to defend my point. The reason why I made this post in the first place though is that the belligerent section is way to misleading for a new reader. Yet again anyone following the news knows (?) that Ukraine is supported/backed by other countries. NickTheRipper (talk) 18:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Would you add something to the Foreign military support section which is not there at this time? ErnestKrause (talk) 18:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I am talking about the template. And no, I have nothing against anything written in that section. NickTheRipper (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

For the Vietnam War Soviet Union and China are listed as supporters of the North Vietnam, even though we still don't which kind of support it was. For this war we have a detailed list of Ukraine's supporters, but they're not mentioned in the chart. Marcodicaprio90 (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Who is "we"? The political and military support by the USSR and communist China to North Viet-Nam during that war is very, very well-documented.50.111.18.139 (talk) 16:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Same criteria as stated by Slatersteven above for Infobox; "In this case, local consensus is that we only include directly involved parties." ErnestKrause (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, please add the UK. Thousands of Ukrainian soldiers are being trained on British soil right now. Stop your biased views. Game over.

https://news.sky.com/story/we-see-them-as-brothers-in-arms-here-uk-training-thousands-of-ukrainian-recruits-in-england-12648559 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.38.137.43 (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• The fact that Ukraine stands alone in Belligerents section is an absolute joke, going against all other articles about conflicts, but of course the imfamous discussion has it already solved. It only shows how Wikipedia isn't impartial anymore, instead under heavy influence of western government agencies and specific lobbying groups. Sad, really. --Novis-M (talk) 08:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:DEADHORSE. Volunteer Marek 09:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

US on the ground

According to the NYT and numerous other sources, US has boots on the ground in Ukraine via many CIA operatives since at least 2015. This article mentions nothing that Ukraine IS supported by the US, NATO and EU. 120.17.193.129 (talk) 01:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

See FAQ above. Volunteer Marek 02:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Which influential countries don't? Xx236 (talk) 06:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

The fact that Ukraine stands alone in Belligerents section is an absolute joke, going against all other articles about conflicts, but of course the imfamous discussion has it already solved. It only shows how Wikipedia isn't impartial anymore, instead under heavy influence of western government agencies and specific lobbying groups. Sad, really. --Novis-M (talk) 08:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

We also do not list China or Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Kyrgyzstan. So we are in fact being consistent. Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, China, Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Kyrgyzstan do not have _any_ personnel in the conflict, nor they materially support Russia. Various NATO countries have sent numerous war materiel, they are actually training Ukrainian personnel, and they have boots on the ground (that one is hard to support with evidence, as it seems that western media outlets are in self-imposed censorship in support of the war effort, and information from other side is summarily removed as unreliable). Ђидо (talk) 15:12, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Are you sure https://www.rferl.org/a/kyrgyzstan-russia-invasion-ukraine-fighting/31795637.html, they may be mercenaries but are they? We also have Syrians serving in Ukraine (with official support) https://carnegieendowment.org/sada/87382. Also China has been asked by Russia to supply arms, they may be doing so. :And thus we go back to "how do we define support."Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

That article says in the first sentence:

> A 25-year-old native of the southern Kyrgyz city of Osh, Sardarbek Mamatillaev received Russian citizenship just a few months ago.

...and rest of the article is bringing more examples of either Russian citizens of Kyrgyz heritage, or residents of Russia _voluntarily_ joining armed forces of Russia. Nothing in that article indicates any support of government of Kyrgyzstan.

Ђидо (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:DEADHORSE. Volunteer Marek 19:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Deaths in June, ethnic/geographic differences

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/10/world/europe/russia-recruits-ukraine-war.html June,

225 dead Dagestan, 3 mln

185 Buryatia, 1 mln

9 Moscow, 12 mln

30 St. Petersburg, 5 mln

Another source https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-ukraine-war-women-soldiers-home-buryatia-tyva/31940262.html

more than 100 Tuva (period?), 0.3 mln

Xx236 (talk) 09:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Redut mercenaries

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/108385/pdf/ Xx236 (talk) 09:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

When does an invasion become, simply, a protracted war?

At what point shall we rename this article from "2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" to something more resembling reality, as was the case with the Iraq-Iran war, which followed a similar pattern? LordParsifal (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Russian forces are still invading: more of them are still crossing from Russia into Ukraine, and they are advancing and occupying more territory. So the title doesn’t in any way contradict the objective reality. —Michael Z. 21:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the wording that wikipedia has chosen is very confusing. It has labeled the Ukrainian-Russian conflict from 2014 onwards a war so it is forced to find a different wording for this article. In reality whoever mentions Ukraine-Russian war means the one started in February. No one actually means a "continuous" war from 2014. It feels like an artificial label used exclusively by wikipedia. In my opinion the first article should be renamed to Ukraine-Russian conflict and that one to Ukraine-Russian war. As for the -Russian invasion- wording it better suits the "first" part of the war, as the war itself approaches a stalemate and becomes protracted. NickTheRipper (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this. I understand the distinction and the need to not downplay Russia's involvement since 2014, but eventually the invasion is over, and we're just looking at a regular ground war, which is where I think we're at right now but we lack a name to call it, this would also help the scope of this article. It seems like most RSs at this point have also transitioned to just using war. Alcibiades979 (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

To be fair, prior to the 2022 invasion a number of Ukrainian politicians (mainly those opposed to Zelensky [who was a moderate figure until the 2022 invasion], and the most anti-Russian figures) claimed that the country had been at war since 2014. I'm guessing that's why we have the current wording on Wikipedia, due to certain editors taking this position. YantarCoast (talk) 20:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

“Claimed”? Are you saying Zelenskyy denied that Ukraine was at war? Source, please. I don’t think you’re painting a picture in line with the facts. —Michael Z. 21:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

That was my impression from watching Прямий канал for something like three years. Anyway, here you go (sorry, it's not in English). Apparently, Ukraine wasn't at war (apologies if it doesn't fit in with your view of the situation). YantarCoast (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Of the two articles, Russo-Ukrainian War is the one which dates back to 2014 and is much older than this 2022 Invasion article. If you have comments on how the two pages should relate to one another than you can bring it up here. Both pages seem to serve their own respective purposes. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Aa the infobox already says "Part of the Russo-Ukrainian War". Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

References

@LordParsifal: @Mzajac: @NickTheRipper: @Alcibiades979: My thoughts exactly. A title with invasion would be fine if this was a short conflict, but the way it's looking this is turning into a protracted conflict. An example of a similar situation is Soviet-Afghan War, where the Soviet Union invaded, but it ended up going into a years long war, hence it has that title. On the other hand, we've also got the War in Afghanistan (2001-2021) in which there is a separate United States invasion of Afghanistan article that deals with the initial few months of the invasion. With this Ukraine war, we could go into one of these ways. Personally, should this war continue for a couple more months, I would support renaming it to War in Ukraine (2022-present) or (if it ends this year) War in Ukraine (2022). These are very neutral titles. Unless in the future this conflict becomes known as the Ukraine War (like the Vietnam War), it could better become Ukraine War, but not at this time. --WR 13:04, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

How about naming the 2014-2022 period the First Ukraine War, and then the 2022- period the Second Ukraine War, like we do with the First- and Second Congo Wars? LordParsifal (talk) 03:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Nobody says there are two wars. Nobody calls this the second war. —Michael Z. 06:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

• This is a relatively settled name which would appear to be reasonably consistent with sources. For us to claim this has now transitioned to a war and should be called a different name would be an argument of WP:SYNTH. If good quality secondary sources arrive at a consensus for a name, we should adopt that. However, at this point we are having to largely rely on WP:NEWSORG for sources. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, all correct. But it still irks me that this is still called an invasion. Precisely what irks me is how long this might go on. Will it still be called the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine a year from now? Or 2022-2023 Russian invasion of Ukraine? It just sounds ridiculous. It's a full-scale conventional war between two full-sized, fully armed, fully warring parties. It's Iraq-Iran. LordParsifal (talk) 03:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

This is not a symmetric war. Russia may do anything, Ukraine is not allowed to attack Russia or Belarus. Not mentioning nuclear threats. Asymmetric warfare?Xx236 (talk) 08:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

When there is consensus in good quality sources for an alternative name, that will be our que for a change of name. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:12, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Xx236|Xx236, what do you mean by, "Ukraine is not allowed to attack Russia"? 216.24.45.37 (talk) 12:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

RfC on cuts to the background section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There are two proposed versions of the Background section of this article (version A and version B), both of which might be further refined. Which of these two versions is the better option moving forward? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

(View change as a diff here.) (See previous discussion 1, previous discussion 2.)

Previous RfC statement, retained for context: Should the previous background section ("A") be reduced in size? Is the shortened background section ("B") better or worse? Jr8825 • Talk 01:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Notified at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Survey

Keep A - this covers quite a bit of essential information that I think gives a good picture of the background to the topic. I don't think it's necessary to cut it out. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I would prefer B. We do not need to repeat the long story of Ukraine in the 21st century, readers can read the details in the articles linked from the section. On the other hand I think that we have to add that hostilities of the War in Donbas were largely ceased following Minsk Treaty and Zelensky's pacifist politics. Since 2020 up to February 2022 were only a handful of civilian victims from the both side almost all are from the landmines that had been installed in the active period of the war. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

could you expand more on the pacifist politics on Zelensky and they relation to de escalation, also the compliance of the minsk accords, with proper sources preference given to ukranian own sources, and in second place western media outlets. Juanriveranava (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I see no reason not to reduce it. So B. Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

While it might be possible to shave off a few more words, I think A is already pretty succinct, so my argument against (significant) reductions is that this necessitates losing background information I consider valuable. I listed the information removed in B which I think should be kept in the previous discussion. What's your opinion on these points? Jr8825 • Talk 15:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Keep A, perhaps it's a little on the long side but the current invasion is one part of a very complex broader problem of Russian aggression, and it's good for readers that the background section contextualises it. Using bytes as a benchmark is foolish; a much better criterion is whether the text delivers information that's relevant to readers. If anything I'd have two other aspirations - to shorten the lede a little (in principle a lede should be a brief overview before the body of the article covers many different details), and to resolve some of the templates at the top of the background section, relying more on links in the body of the text. However, the former would be an extremely difficult task, fraught with reverts! bobrayner (talk) 10:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Either Keep A or restore the long-standing version, If this article was, in fact, too long, then it would have made sense to trim it. But it's well within the limits of WP:PROSE, not too long at all. One thing that I am not sure of is would readers actually visit Russo-Ukrainian War for the rest of the background?. Rousillon (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Is there anything in particular about the older version that you prefer to A? Content-wise I think they cover most of the same ground, but A does so using less space. I think several other editors felt quite strongly that the older version took up too much room. Jr8825 • Talk 16:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Keep A, mainly for context. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Concerned that both miss the point. The background of the invasion is that Putin wants the USSR back. See [98]

[Putin] calls the Soviet collapse the "greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century." Russian forces seized the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine in 2014, and remain to this day. Putin wrote last summer that Russia and Ukraine are really one country — which they were for long periods over the centuries.

Adoring nanny (talk) 00:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I think this is already covered at least in part by the sentences on Russian imperialism at the end of the section. Perhaps more should be made of this -- suggestions welcome. Jr8825 • Talk 02:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Covered in part, sure. But it is the reason for the war and should be treated as such. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Keep A, I think that the 2004 elections and Ukraine-NATO developments are important and are often mentioned when the origins of the conflict are discussed. Alaexis_¿question? 14:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Jr8825, while it is good to garner further participation, I think that your RfC is premature.

• It assumes that there is an intractable stalemate wrt the two version. That is not my perception.
• It presumes that neither version could be improved by iterative editing.
• You yourself acknowledge that version A could be improved per this edit stating above: I can see an argument for keeping Cinderella's shortening of the Euromaidan summary as it successfully manages to cut a couple of sentences ...
• The RfC might be worded more neutrally?
• The RfC gives a binary choice. Considering the above, the phrasing and choices presented for comment, it is unlikely that a workable consensus will be arrived at. It is the inherent nature of RfCs.

You may wish to reconsider this, at least for the present. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it's necessary to engage more editors as our positions on the two questions are incompatible. There have been 2 lengthy discussions. While I've expressed willingness to accept some of the above proposals, this has been out of a desire to find compromise, not because I've felt the changes are necessarily positive. Ultimately, both camps seem to think each others' preferred version is moving the article in the wrong direction, and as you feel further significant cuts are needed beyond the already reduced text linked as "A", I can't see how my concerns can be accommodated. We fundamentally disagree over whether A or B is closer to the right level of detail, so more perspectives will hopefully shed light on strengths/weaknesses of the two approaches. Although the questions are narrow in order to focus discussion, there's no need for a binary outcome if participants review the opposing options and offer feedback. Jr8825 • Talk 03:11, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm open to your suggestions regarding the RfC wording. Jr8825 • Talk 03:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Nether version is necessarily the best or ultimate version and one might be edited up, the other might be edited down. I have already indicated this passage: In February 2014, clashes in Kyiv between protesters and Berkut special police resulted in the deaths of 100 protesters and 13 policemen; most of the victims were shot by police snipers, where the numbers killed is "intricate detail" it is sufficient to say that there were widespread protests and possibly, that these resulted in deaths. Also: ... candidate Viktor Yushchenko was poisoned with TCDD dioxin ... - it is sufficient to say he was poisoned. And that is without really looking. A better proposition in phrasing the RfC is to acknowledge that both are a basis for further review and which is the preferred basis for this further review. The questions posed by the RfC are not "equal". Consequently, there is an intrinsic and subtle bias. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Per your invitation, I have added an alternative RfC statement. I understand that you hold the personal view that your version is a minimal level of detail. But I also note your willingness to accept some changes. I hope, where I write: both of which might be further refined, it is an acceptable statement of the reality of WP. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for providing an alternative statement. I fully agree these are frameworks for future refinement, not the finished product. Best, Jr8825 • Talk 15:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment. It looks fairly plain that if Jr8825 and Cinderella can agree on a version off-page for this edit, that it would be accepted by the active editors as adequate and not require the full thirty day RFC cycle. It seems that Cinderella is basically asking that Jr8825 trim back some of his 8Kb expansion to the article; is that possible to do? ErnestKrause (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm confident we'll be able to agree on small refinements such as the ones Cinderella suggests just above this, but as there are differing views on the bigger question of how much and what information should be included it's helpful to draw wider feedback and establish which base we should work from. Jr8825 • Talk 23:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Lack of response on this RFC suggests that it is not establishing abundant feedback. After 10 days are you sure you need this RFC for another three weeks? ErnestKrause (talk) 00:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Friendly fire, Embarrassment and mishaps

During the Russian invasion there has been a few friendly fire incidents such as the tank battle russia vs russia, the Russian warplane that was fired upon by the Russian navy, the SAM missile that did a 180⁰ turn destroying the SAM missile launcher, the sinking of a Russian landing vessel after it hit a Russian sea mine russian tanks that drove through a mine field so theirs a bit of missing information 101.188.18.162 (talk) 07:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Obvious Border Adjustments Ignored for Decades

I would suggest the article should include a blurb about the various territorial adjustments that have been ignored for decades (much like older colonial Africa/colonial Asia border adjustments) -- when the USSR collapsed in 1991. At the time -- the SSR borders were "phony borders" based on internal USSR politics. The various SSRs spun off using those borders -- yet Russia SSR insisted that various adjustments were needed. Events happened too fast, the West recognized the SSR states, and Russia SSR under Yeltsin did not press the issue...hoping to get immediate economic aid from the West. They asked for $15 billion -- they got $1.5 billion -- with Bush Sr more concerned about USSR nuclear weapon issues than cultivating real Great Power to Great Power good will. The West favored the small SSR spin-offs rather than the main Russia SSR successor state, and relations soured a few years later over the first and second Chechnya war. NATO expanded in additional waves. Putin took a leadership role. 9/11 happened. Good will over the Russian offer to let the US military build a huge base in former Soviet Asia...dissipated. The various enclaves and separatist movements in Eastern Ukraine, Georgia, etc. drew Western criticism. Georgia was goaded into trying to resolve its separatist issues by talk of Georgia joining NATO -- in 2008, that led to a brief Russia-Georgia war where Russia was labeled the aggressor for intervening. These border adjustments and separatist mini-states (Ossetia, Abkhazia, Donbas states) have led to the impression of Russia as an aggressor. In reality these are issues left over from the USSR break-up/divorce. Chesspride216.144.161.51 (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Russia was really gunning to "adjust the borders" to let the peoples of Tartarstan, Bashkortostan, Chechnya, etc. leave the Russian Federation, right?

Despite the rather dubious framing of the OP, Russian revanchism/Great Russian chauvinism might have a place in the background section. We mention that there was a surge in irrendentism after Crimea, but not the origins. Maybe that's enough, no strong opinion on my part.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

That’s a disinformational narrative. The Russian Federation recognized Ukraine’s borders. There was no significant separatist movement in Crimea or the Donbas before the 2014 Russian invasion. Please ignore this and wait for sourced suggestions about concrete changes to the article. —Michael Z. 21:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Mzajac, true. I was referring to Russian nationalists in Russia. The OP's comment is mostly misinformation.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Russia has been aggressively "adjusting borders" since at least 1991 (or since Yeltsin's time). Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:SOAPBOX Phiarc (talk) 21:14, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

A typo

It should be "BBC News Russian & Mediazona" instead of "BBC News Russian & Meduza". Also the link doesn't work, it should be https://zona.media/casualties (in Russian, 2022-07-15 data) or https://en.zona.media/article/2022/05/11/casualties_eng (in English, 2022-07-01 data).

Also it should probably noted that they say they count only those dead who were identified (by mass media, the Russian government, or their relatives on social media). Arzet Ro (talk) 07:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done. Kleinpecan (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Wrong Grammer, missing sources and politics.

The entire passage of: effects on ukrainian scociety[sic], seems to be written to push a political agenda. The information given by the sources is not checked and taken out of context 2A02:8108:97C0:1DC0:2D0C:7933:671C:3BF8 (talk) 10:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Can you give some examples of this context? Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Belligerents section needs updating

It is fair to add the EU and NATO countries that support Ukraine with weapons, when Belarus is included in the belligerents list as supportive. 2A00:A200:0:813:56E:D75A:58E0:768F (talk) 10:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

As has been pointed out (countless times) no attacks have been launched from NATO soil, so they are not analogous. Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree to an extent.

Belarus is listed as a belligerent because Belarus allows Russian forces to launch their missiles from Belarussian territory and Russian forces attacked Ukraine through Belarus. The same could not be said for NATO and EU countries.

NATO and EU countries have only provided material and intelligence support. Therefore I feel like they could be added as "Arms suppliers". But nothing more. 94.16.40.154 (talk) 12:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Some of them provided weapons and components to the Russian Federation too, so I don’t think that criterion for inclusion on the list will yield the result you desire. —Michael Z. 17:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Per Michael, I would oppose. Some companies in GER, SLO, ITA and FRA have supplied parts for weapon systems to RF. How would you list those? This would be NPOV. A09090091 (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

If Belarus is under Russian belligerent then surely it’s only fair to list all of the countries supporting Ukraine with arms, training and intelligence? 82.47.195.126 (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

No, because Belarusian territory is used for direct attacks into Ukrainian territory. This makes Belarus guilty of the crime of international aggression according to the UN’s definition.

If Ukraine launches missiles from Estonia into Russia, or moves forces across the border from Latvia into Russia, then we can consider adding one of these countries to the belligerents box.

Provision of arms, training, and intelligence happens between states all the time in peacetime, and doesn’t create a state of war, so it doesn’t make a state a belligerent when there’s a war among other states. Israel and France have provided weapons and components to Russia since the start of the Russo-Ukrainian War, and Germany set up training centres and trained Russian troops before and possibly at the beginning of the war, but none of these states ought to be listed as supporting Russia against Ukraine. —Michael Z. 02:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• I could live with a note in the infobox that says "See section Foreign aide" - particularly if it stops this popping up nearly every second day. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• Has anyone looked at the option of changing the geographical maps in the section on 'Foreign military sales and aid' into Infobox format for that section. Doing this would make this discussion about belligerents and supporters much clearer. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 July 2022

For countries who support Russia, add North Korea and Iran as both have said the support the invasion and are willing to provide aid 166.181.81.169 (talk) 01:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. I'm assuming this is for the support section in the infobox? The amount of support they have provided is not sufficient for inclusion in the infobox. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

We all know Iran is providing drones, but where's the source for North Korea? All I find is "rebuilding Ukraine". Dawsongfg (talk) 03:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

"Potential Russian use of tactical nuclear weapons"

Why is there a section on this, longer than the section e.g. on naval warfare aspects of the war? It seems completely out of proportion considering it deals with a purely speculative situation. Yakikaki (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

The information may seem speculative but it is RS speculation that is worth documenting in an encyclopedic manner. If you have information that would be worth adding on naval warfare then Wikipedia:Be bold. The Meta Boi (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

What's the big issue though as long as it's not saying "Russia will use nuclear weapons on Ukraine"? But kind of agreed to merge it with another section. Dawsongfg (talk) 03:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Change the picture "Countries sending military aid to Ukraine during the 2022 invasion"

At the time of the Invasion, the Crimean peninsula is Russian, and cannot be painted blue! At a minimum, it should be painted as a disputed territory. HellSAS (talk) 11:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Russian POV, unrecognized even by their “ally” China.—Ermenrich (talk) 11:50, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

• • Firstly, not only Russia, and secondly, I'm not asking you to color it in the color of Russia on the map. I ask you to mark it as a disputed territory, because now it is under the absolute control of Russia. You can even call it occupied, but it is definitely not under the control of Ukraine now. And such nuances can harm the neutrality of the article. HellSAS (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)HellSAS

To be fair that seems a valid idea, "occupied by Russia since 2014" seems valid. Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Because it's a de jure map. Even if we were to change it, there'd be many things we'd have to change such as Syria, Yemen, a part of Ukraine etc. Dawsongfg (talk) 03:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

"Second phase – Dnipro–Zaporizhzhia front"

I do not know the subject, but Dnipro is probably not a front city now. Xx236 (talk) 07:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Russian Wikipedia

Do you think that Russian Wikipedia is subject to the state and facts cannot be taken from it? 212.164.204.35 (talk) 13:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

See wp:rs, no wiki (in any country) is an RS, and so no we can't take "facts" from one. Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

• I meant information with sources. 212.164.204.35 (talk) 13:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Then why talk as if you will use a wiki as a source, rather than (say) just say "can I use XYZ.com as a source"? So now we need to know what sources you want to use. Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

  It seems like you're asking about whether Russian Wikipedia is subject to the media laws prohibiting coverage of the war that disagrees with the state line. My understanding is that the Russian government has threatened the Russian Wikipedia project for contravening the state line, but has not yet taken concrete action against the website itself (although there was the case of a ru.wiki editor in Belarus who was arrested for their editing work). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

  The Russian Wikipedia article still refers to this as an 'invasion'; which may require some adjustment in the lead section of this article which did say that the term is not allowed in Russia. ErnestKrause (talk) 11:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  The Russian Wikipedia is not 'in Russia'. Why should it be? There are millions of native speakers around the world. Xx236 (talk) 05:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  It doesn't matter where the wiki is (it's on the internet). What matters is where its editors are and how much they can be deanoned or have already deanoned themselves. 198.58.158.232 (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not necessarily used by the state, but regardless Wikipedia isn't a reliable source for obvious reasons. Dawsongfg (talk) 03:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable sourceXx236 (talk) 08:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 17 July 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved per strong consensus. Closing early, since this is a highly visible article, and the proposal has no chance to gain consensus. No such user (talk) 12:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

---

2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine → War in Ukraine (2022) – Reliable sources such the BBC use this title in their headings. Interstellarity (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• Weak support – I have thought this article should mention 'war' in its title, as it is about the war that ensued after the invasion rather than details of the invasion itself. I think this would be good, with the Russo-Ukrainian War article renamed to War in Ukraine (2014–2022) and become more limited in its scope. —QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose  The Russo-Ukrainian War has been ongoing for over eight years. That is what reliable sources have been referring to with the name and variations. The use of a disambiguation string in parenthesis in a title implies that the thing is a different thing with the same name; i.e., that one War in Ukraine ended on February 24 and another one started. That’s misleading and factually wrong. —Michael Z. 23:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose — Totally disagree. It has already happened that the Russo-Ukrainian War has three components: the occupation and annexation of Crimea, the war in the east of Ukraine (Donbas), and the last third component is a large-scale Russian invasion. — Uliana245 (talk) 00:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose — The argument for changing is not really spelled out. If it's just because a single SEO friendly page on BBC.com uses that term, I can find 20 other pages that use "Russian invasion of Ukraine". Would also help if it was spelled out what the nominator's issue with the current name is. | MK17b | (talk) 02:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose — If they moved to War in Ukraine, it could confuse the reader because we already have an article Russo-Ukrainian War. HurricaneEdgar 03:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

It is not our duty to dumb things down for the reader to make them not confusing. We just present the facts in an encyclopaedic way. If the reader doesn't understand that then they shouldn't be browsing an encyclopaedia. Buttons0603 (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• Agreed Cherrell410 (talk) 04:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  Even "we just present the facts in an encyclopedia" The fact that war has been ongoing 8 years ago. (invaded and annexed Crimea) (War in Donbas (2014–2022)) But some reliable sources call this war as an invasion. HurricaneEdgar 01:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  Also, the term "invasion of Ukraine" has been used in several articles.

  Prelude to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

  Belarusian involvement in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

  Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

  List of military engagements during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine HurricaneEdgar 07:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - This was definitely an invasion of Ukraine, by Russia. GoodDay (talk) 04:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose There is already an article that describes the war overall, although I believe the scope of this article should be streamlined to just cover the invasion part of the war and not continue past that part.--JOJ ^Hutton 14:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support, this has gone on for a while now and shows no sign of stopping. Buttons0603 (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose — This was an invasion that escalated the Russo-Ukrainian War. It is not a war but rather a phase of a war. When the news uses the term "War in Ukraine", they are referring to the Russo-Ukrainian War because they are covering recent events, and recent events of the Russo-Ukrainian War are also recent events in the 2022 invasion because the 2022 invasion is the current phase of the war. Cyrobyte (talk • email) 20:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose different RS use different terms to name this war -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - As many above me have already said, we already have an article, the Russo-Ukrainian War, which covers the aggression between Russia and Ukraine starting in 2014 and going to the present. This article is specifically about the Russian invasion starting on February 24, and the current article title reflects this well. Renaming the article to War in Ukraine just seems pointless. Not only does it make the article's title less descriptive, but it may be confused with the aforementioned Russo-Ukrainian War article. "War in Ukraine (2022)" should only be a disambiguation redirect to this article with its current title. Physeters^✉ 21:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Name is non-descript, doesn't even make clear who invading party is. Yes, invading party. That is not POV, if one country sends troops into another without the latter's consent, it is an invasion. This is elementary, and saying otherwise is in fact what is POV.--Calthinus (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support, as the Invasion of Iraq and Iraq War. Same thing now, the invasion is over now it looks like a long war. Maybe split things MachoCarioca (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  That sounds like a proposal to split the article. The subordinate subject mentioned (the war article is parent of the invasion article, in summary style) ends at a milestone: “This early stage of the war formally ended on 1 May 2003 when U.S. President George W. Bush declared the "end of major combat operations" in his Mission Accomplished speech, after which the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) was established as the first of several successive transitional governments leading up to the first Iraqi parliamentary election in January 2005.” As the Russians are still trying to advanced and have not achieved strategic objectives, there is no clear-cut end to the “invasion” phase. In fact, it is a subordinate article to the parent Russo-Ukrainian War. If it did get too long, it could be split into a multiple fronts phase and a concentrate on Donbas phase that started April 18, but I think there would still be an encompassing parent article. —Michael Z. 00:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  Even more simply: both Russian and Western sources predict that Russian forces are still trying to take the rest of Donbas, and likely all of the oblasts along Ukraine’s Black Sea coast if not come back to assault Kyiv again as well. So the invasion remains in progress. —Michael Z. 15:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

How is the invasion over? Was there a formal declaration made by at least one leader that it was over? If so, when and by whom? Otherwise the invasion will be over when either Ukraine capitulates or pushes the front back to Russian borders. 198.58.158.232 (talk) 09:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Russia is the aggressor.-TenorTwelve (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• negative, there is already an article called Russo-Ukrainian War.
  • the war is not only in Ukraine. rather, it involves almost the entire Russian Federation.
  • The biggest combats take place in ukraine but there are also bombings in russian territory. Matias Taboadaxx (talk) 12:44, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: War in Ukraine has been going on for the past 8 years there's no need to change the article name. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 13:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose This page is about the invasion itself, not the war. We already have a page for that. Absolutely no need to change the title of this. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 14:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. As what others have said here, this is about the invasion rather than the war itself. 2001:1970:4885:CC00:0:0:0:2BC8 (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• Weak support. Describing the invasion proper as the "War" versus the current format of describing the whole bucket of initial conflicts (eg, Crimea, Donbass), buildup, attempted truces and peace, then the invasion as one "War". Would fit with how Wikipedia has handled other historical conflicts that had a similar buildup then invasion. See Second Sino-Japanese War starting at the invasion proper in 1937 and not including the Japanese invasion of Manchuria or Defense of the Great Wall. WanukeX (talk) 00:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose This page is about the specific intentional full-scale large invasion of a sovereign nation state by another neighboring nation state that occurred in February 2022. It is not the article about the much smaller and more "hidden" by false information invasion and taking of territory that happened in 2014, nor the smoldering conflict of the subsequent 8 years. N2e (talk) 01:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I would support if it wasn't just Russian fighting Ukraine. Disabled Lemon (talk) 04:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support WP:NPOV should be maintained. 2001:8003:9008:1301:812C:B4D7:52DA:31CB (talk) 07:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support I support naming article War in Ukraine, since this conflict is considered first major conventional war in Europe since WW2. Strahinja28 (talk) 07:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Strahinja28: FYI The war has been ongoing since 2014 when Putin decided to invade Ukraine. A reliable source has said this invasion is the biggest attack state since WW2. CBCTV 18 WONDRIUM HurricaneEdgar 08:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

  I can't read the first source, but I don't think the second is reliable; it is probably the largest in Europe since WWII (depending on how you count the Yugoslav Wars) but not the largest in general. BilledMammal (talk) 12:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Maybe there should be 3 articles, one called "Russo-Ukrainian War" which is about the whole war, and then make an article about the two phases and so maybe create an article called something like "First phase of the Russo-Ukrainian War" and maybe rename this article to something like "Second phase of the Russo-Ukrainian War" but I'm unsure.94.38.155.78 (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose; we need an article on the invasion, and this article is that. However, it may be appropriate to split the content into two phases; one phase about the invasion under the current title, and one about the ongoing war, but that should be a separate discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 12:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The nominator failed to support his nomination with adequate rationale. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose; no need to reiterate reasons listed above. King keudo (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• Strong oppose It's still an invasion, and we shouldn't be pandering to Russian dis-information by re-defining things to suit their narrative. Ukraine is occupied at the moment, war would imply that its Ukrainians fighting amongst each other and that both sides are the agressors and defenders in equal proportions which is certainly not the case. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose When there is consensus in good quality sources for an alternative name (not WP:NEWSORG sources), that will be our que for a change of name. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• Weak Support I think it is not the time yet to create a new article called War in Ukraine and differ it from 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Eventually we will have to do the same as what happened with 2003 Invasion of Iraq and Iraq War, however I do not think we are there at this point. Personisgaming (talk) 02:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose On the basis that 1. There are mystery attacks in Russia, they claim it's Ukraine therefore being a major point to keep this from being "War in Ukraine," also there's war in donbass and russo-ukrainian war (which isn't really the best, it might as well be called tensions or something but that's another story). Dawsongfg (talk) 03:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Opppose 2022 invasion is just a part of the war started in 2014. Calling both of them "war" will cause a confusion. Leo0502 (talk) 10:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose The '2022' weakens the case; it's part of a bigger picture already, in which the current title is more informative. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 11:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Belligerents section for Ukraine

Belligerent section for Ukraine shows blank which is total bullshit as if no country supports it when the whole Western world led by US and UK supplies it with high modern weaponry and sanctions against Russia 197.186.5.116 (talk) 11:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Supporting Ukraine is not quite the same as actively participating in warfare, as the term 'belligerent" would imply. Kleuske (talk) 11:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

It's in Supported by section. Dawsongfg (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

belligerent

/bəˈlɪdʒ(ə)r(ə)nt/

Learn to pronounce

adjective

a nation or person engaged in war or conflict, as recognized by international law.

Niehter the UK or US are engaged in warfare (as defined in international law) they are supplying arms to a combatant.Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Please see the FAQ Q2 at the top of this page. —Michael Z. 20:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

srbin.info as a source?

The website seems to be heavily positively biased towards russia. A lot of its articles cannot be verified through prominent news outlets. It also seems to heavily rely on sputnik as a source, which is a wikipedia deprecated source.

Your input would be appreciated. Eddmanx (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

If there are any biased cites in use, then it is useful to present a citation which is opposed to it. That way other editors can determine if one is more reliable than the other. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

or even mention why you are telling us this. Presumably it’s cited in the article somewhere? Elinruby (talk) 00:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 July 2022 (2)

Change "Institute for the Study of War (ISW) has been reporting on Russian military bloggers, known as milbloggers" to "The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) has been reporting on Russian military bloggers, known as milbloggers" Originalcola (talk) 03:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done Nythar^T.C 06:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

NATO expansion

The text says "Several African leaders said the western expansion of NATO contributed to the war" I suppose this should be eastern expension?

Teun Spaans (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Probably, but it's a moot as the entire sentence was OR and has been removed. It built on one single source, from 2018, so obviously not suitable to describe reactions to the invasion. Jeppiz (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Translation is incorrect. The term "western expansion" refers to the expansion of the influence of Western Europe and the United States to the east in the form of NATO. TheRatProphet (talk) 12:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Differentiate between lethal and non-lethal military aid

Some countries only provided non-lethal military aid, and it’s slightly misleading to list them alongside countries that provided heavy weaponry or combat weapons. I would suggest using two shades of blue for this purpose. 2A0D:6FC2:4970:A100:21C8:F806:25C4:99AF (talk) 10:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Care to provide a list of nations that have only given no lethal military aid? Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

List them where? As far as I can tell, they are only mentioned in prose. Blue, of course, denotes a link, and denoting information only by colour is not good WP:accessibility practice. —Michael Z. 14:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Here so we can discuss how to word it, and to enable us to assess the sourcing. Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 July 2022

Change "The International Criminal Court has opened an investigation into crimes against humanity in Ukraine since 2013, as well as war crimes in the 2022 invasion." to "The International Criminal Court has opened an investigation into crimes against humanity in Ukraine over war crimes in the 2022 invasion." as the lead should contain information directly related to this event Originalcola (talk) 03:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

The cited source mentions that earlier probes dating back to 2013 will be included in the investigation. Maybe this could be reworded but I think removing that context completely might not be the most appropriate change. --N8_wilson 🔔 16:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Russian shelling port of Odessa after 1 day of deal with Turkey and UN

https://amp.france24.com/en/europe/20220722-live-ukraine-ports-to-reopen-after-grain-export-deal-with-russia-says-turkey

https://www.euronews.com/amp/2022/07/23/russian-missile-strikes-in-ukrainian-port-hours-after-grain-deal-claims-odesa-mp https://www.ukrinform.net/amp/rubric-ato/3535226-russian-missiles-hit-odesa-port.html Vyacheslav1921 (talk) 10:12, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/us-pledges-more-military-aid-ukraine-peace-seems-far-off-2022-07-22/ Vyacheslav1921 (talk) 11:13, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

The American envoy to Kiev has criticized this action. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

This should be included. FWIW the Russians deny responsibility (CNN), but afaik they still deny ever killing any civilians, so... Elinruby (talk) 00:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Adequate investigations into the killings of civilians have not been conducted, which is not convincing enough. Unfortunately, there was no clear evidence to observe (but I would like to see), alas, only walls of text and photos of corpses. 213.87.102.249 (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

This is about the shelling of the port. Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• Today MFA of Russia confirmed what shelling is russian

https://news.ru/vlast/zaharova-vyskazalas-po-povodu-raketnogo-udara-po-odesse/ https://www.svoboda.org/a/mariya-zaharova-prokommentirovala-raketnyy-udar-po-portu-odessy/31957376.html Kyiv* Vyacheslav1921 (talk) 09:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• Added into Odesa section of Second phase of invasion with citation. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Change in number of refugees who have fled Ukraine

The article on the refugee crisis caused by the war states that the number of people who have fled Ukraine is now 9.9 million not 9.6 million citing the UN refugee agency among other sources. Can someone look into this please? 2A00:23C8:905:2701:2135:2504:3AA0:4023 (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Second animated map caption needs an update

The caption under the animation currently says from April to 11 July but the animation runs to the 24th of July. 2603:8080:5701:9E54:E0FB:BA41:E1D9:182B (talk) 01:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Updated to 24 July. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Terminology section

Can we add the “Terminology” section to the article? The terms used in Ukraine are “ Russian invasion of Ukraine”, “ resistance against full-scale Russian aggression”, etc while Russia uses the term “special military operation”, etc.. Neutral terms are “Russo-Ukrainian war”, “Russo-Ukrainian conflict”, “War in Ukraine”… -76.68.77.13 (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

most of those are not names, they are descriptions. I am dubious that this would really add anything of value. Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

That’s a false balance. Russian invasion of Ukraine is objectively accurate and neutral. —Michael Z. 17:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I can't find any neutrality problems with "Russian invasion of Ukraine" and "resistance against full-scale Russian aggression". Super Ψ Dro 08:50, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

It is not full-scale anyway. You can look at size of Russian army and compare it to forces in Ukraine. And you will not find terminology like USA invasion to Korea, Belgrade or Vietnam. It's up to you, anyway. Also neither Ukraine, nor Russia officially declared a war. Which is quite strange and confusing in this situation. The best term, imho, Russo-Ukranian conflict. Because here is Russia, here is Ukraine, and here is the conflict. No war declared. And officially the Russian army has been taking part in this only since February 2022. There is no evidence otherwise, except for propaganda from either side, as I understand it. TheRatProphet (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

"And officially the Russian army has been taking part in this only since February 2022" is not true: [99]. Kleinpecan (talk) 13:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

“Full-scale” is relative: the war reached its full scale after February 23. The RF is estimated to have committed 85% of its fighting force[100] and is stripping units away from border defence elsewhere. Sounds pretty full-scale by any measure, to me.

States generally do not declare war these days. A declaration by an invading power would just be evidence of the crime of aggression. But a thousand reliable sources point out that Putin’s “special military operation” is a lame euphemism for the biggest war in Europe since WWII.

Russian army invaded Ukraine in February 2014. —Michael Z. 18:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

These were mercenaries, not russian army. I think this is clear from the attention to the war in Ukraine in 2014 and in 2022. 213.87.102.249 (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Or not https://www.vox.com/2014/9/3/18088560/ukraine-everything-you-need-to-know. Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Of course, Russian soldiers were there too, but they were not active. Please note that for 8 years of the presence of the "Russian army" only in the last 6 months everyone started talking about war and invasion, although before it was just a "fight against separatists and terrorists"? Russian soldiers and the Russian army have a huge difference.

8 years ago, if Russia had introduced an army, I suspect that Ukraine's allies would have been able to strangle us with sanctions, which is why the active army did not join until recently. 213.87.102.249 (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

As it was not Russian and Ukraine had not invited them, it was a military invasion. Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Not the invasion of the Russian army, but it's quite logical, yes.

Ukraine demanded assurances from Russia that it would not attack Ukraine, at that time there was already a conflict in the Donbas. Somewhere in 2014 or 2015 213.87.102.249 (talk) 15:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

What a load of reversals and doublespeak: They weren’t there. Of course they were, but not invading. Well, yeah invasion, but not an invasion invasion. (Also, please don’t mention Crimea, Ukraine.)

Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2014, violating international law and its own non-binding and binding assurances. Its invasion continues uninterrupted to this day. It’s a waste of time to debate this. See WP:CHAT. —Michael Z. 15:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is "full-scale" because the partial-scale invasion began in 2014. The 2022 invasion is indeed full-scale since the initial goal of the invasion was to occupy the entire country of Ukraine and instate a regime change. This initial goal ended up being thwarted when Russia was unable to capture Kyiv, so the scale of the war was drawn back to only occupying eastern and southern Ukraine.

Russia's initial invasions of the Crimean peninsula and the Donbas region back in 2014 can be considered "partial-scale" since they were only fragments of Ukraine, rather than the entire country. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

"WarTok" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect WarTok and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 31#WarTok until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. MB 01:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Infobox casualties and losses

The infobox “Casualties and losses” section currently links to the article section with no data. It should at least give the reader an idea of the magnitude of losses. I suggest we put the range of losses estimated by third parties or accepted by reliable sources, even if it is a very wide range. —Michael Z. 16:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I suggest we wait till it's over, and we can actually get some authoritative figure. Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, there are too many sources to account for to do that currently. —Biscuit-in-Chief :-) ^{(ˈ[d̥͡soːg̊ʰ] – [ˈg̊ʰɒ̹nd̥͡sɹ̠ɪb̥s])} 17:33, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

You expect sources will disappear in the future? —Michael Z. 18:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

What are you possibly envisioning? There will never be an “authoritative figure” but only more estimates that continue to disagree, probably widely. For example:

• Soviet–Afghan War
  • Soviet forces killed 14,453 or 26,000 (larger figure by 80%)
  • Mujahideen 56,000–180,000 (221%)
  • civilians 562,000–2,000,000 (256%)
• First Chechen War
  • Russian forces killed 5,732–14,000 (144%)
  • civilians 30,000–80,000 (167%)
• Second Chechen War
  • civilians killed 40,000–80,000 (100%)

 —Michael Z. 18:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Wow! There were no insurgents killed by the Russians, amazing! 2601:85:C101:C9D0:200B:EB29:38C6:8D49 (talk) 19:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Any speculation that casualty figures will somehow improve and become more suitable for the infobox in the future is WP:crystall ball gazing. The casualties line is for the best estimated range of casualties. There is no standard for what is not reliable enough, and surely the estimates available today are of better quality than the thousands entered in infoboxes for historical battles.

If there is a concrete reason not to state them according to some guideline or supportable logic and data, then please provide it. Until then, I will enter the best third-party estimates in the infobox. —Michael Z. 14:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Slatersteven and Biscuit-in-Chief. Plus also per earlier established consensus where it was agreed among editors no casualty figures will be included in the infobox due to the wider range of claims (to avoid bloathing) and only a link to the casualties section would be provided where the readers can see the competing claims/figures. A new consensus would be required to start adding the claims/figures to the infobox. EkoGraf (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

More importantly the given casualty figures were misrepresenting the sources. The sources explicitly mention only those deaths confirmed by name and explicitly state that "the data collected does not reflect the actual level of casualties'. Yet, our table pretended that these were total deaths.

This is the third time I've found someone trying to pull this trick off. Don't do that again. Volunteer Marek 18:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Figure was not presented as an ultimate total since there was a note beside the figures which clearly stated it was only a confirmed figure thus far, not final and with confirmations ongoing, with estimates higher. But going to write it in the format as per our earlier discussions/agreement regarding these figures where it is more overtly emphasized its only concerning confirmed deaths by name (similarly to the form as Mzajac wanted earlier). The new form would then make the note redundant and not needed. EkoGraf (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

The most charitable interpretation I can give to that is that it's the "insinuate falsehood in plain view, but protect yourself by burying the truth in a footnote" kind of thing. When readers see "5000 deaths" they'll think "5000 deaths" not "Hmmm, 5000 deaths, maybe I should click this little blue number by the 5000". Volunteer Marek 18:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that @EkoGraf’s removal of an overt “confirmed” makes the table misleading. Even that is insufficient to differentiate the completely incomparable figures of confirmed number X but we know it’s many more, and estimated total number Y. These should not be in the same column with a single label implying they are comparable or contradictory. If a note is really redundant, then remove the note. Key definitions of data must be readable inline. And there’s no reason to abbreviate “conf.” when the table wraps and we can write “confirmed.” —Michael Z. 20:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

The note has already been removed since we added the over emphasis they are confirmed deaths. Although I find the idea a good one and agree a larger differentiation between confirmed and estimated/claimed figures would be nice, the breaking into two different columns leads to unnecessary overall bloating (widening) of the infobox and leaving a large number of boxes empty. The current form of the table has been stable for the past 5 months following earlier discussions and consensus in March what should be included in the table. So I would recommend either a new consensus be reached, or (compromise proposal) at the very least we break the table into two different ones. One for confirmed casualties (by 3rd parties and self-confirmed by belligerents) and estimates/claims (by 3rd parties and by one side of their enemies' losses). EkoGraf (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Between, there are a few figures that we could maybe remove due to them becoming highly outdated at this point. Namely the US estimate and Russian claim of Ukrainian losses from mid-April (confirmed figure by Ukraine has already superseded mostly the US estimate). EkoGraf (talk) 22:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

VeryControversialArticle edit request on 30 July 2022

Please change the short description to {{Short description|none}} per WP:SDNONE. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Not clear what is gained by that. The article has redirects at the top of the article, and lists relevant categories at the end of the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

adding united states/nato as supporting ukraine in the infobox

self explanatory, the united states sent himars artillery, & billions of dollars in military aid along with certain nato countries, might as well list them as supporting ukraine in the war if belarus will be listed as supporting russia 2603:9001:2B09:9A93:74D3:9AF1:269C:E865 (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ at the top of this page. --McSly (talk) 13:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 August 2022

The first sentence under the map of Ukraine would read better as: "The Euromaidan protests and a revolution named the Revolution of Dignity resulted the removal of pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014, after which pro-Russian unrest erupted in parts of Ukraine." 14.203.161.145 (talk) 13:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

You need to get wp:consensus first. Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Sponsored by

Why Belarus is listed as sponsor of Russia when USA not listed as sponsor of Ukraine?203.219.83.10 (talk) 00:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Belarus is providing safe conduct to military troops from Russia invading the Ukraine; USA has no boots on the ground in Ukraine. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Seriously? How about Americans that been captured and killed in Ukraine? How about strong rumor from everywhere that HIMARS actually operates by Americans (may be other troops from NATO)? How about training? And how about all those American weapons that been supplied to Ukraine? Is it not "sponsoring"? But then what it is? And FWIW there is NO invasion on Ukraine by Russia from Belarus land. Also it is my typo - in article it says "supported by" (not "sponsored" as I typed) and it would be completely silly to deny that Ukraine not supported by all NATO and particular by USA and UK. 203.219.83.10 (talk) 03:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Implausible Rumors in the Russian conspiracy information space and individual captured members of the Ukrainian foreign legion (not aware of any captured Americans) do not equal NATO involvement. Russia’s initial attack on Kyiv was through Belarus and Russia continues to launch missiles from Belarus. Simply suppling arms etc is not the same thing.—Ermenrich (talk) 11:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Quick google search https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-russia-zabielski-drueke-zelensky-mercenaries-1717950 America actively support Ukraine and it would be completely silly to deny this fact. Belarus trying to avoid to be involved though it is not that easy for them. And "Simple shipping" in volume that exceed all country GDP is not count? Ok, I guess everyone has own logic. 61.68.116.79 (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

American citizens fighting for Ukraine does not equal American soldiers or the American government doing so. No more than an American citizen walking up to a Russian citizen and decking them means America and Russia are suddenly in a state of armed conflict. --2001:8003:1C20:8C00:1185:788B:A3B1:51F (talk) 06:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I should add: by your logic we should add Belarus and Russia to supporters of Ukraine due to the Freedom of Russia Legion and the Kastuś Kalinoŭski Regiment.—Ermenrich (talk) 11:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Belarus is in a pendulum position between the United States and Russia, it seeks to be as neutral as possible and in no way participates in the Ukrainian conflict.

The United States not only sends equipment, they also send trainers (otherwise the equipment would be useless).

You are only going along with the American and Russian propaganda that wants to draw a bipolar conflict. Hant Blue (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Well there are Syrians fighting for Russia, should we add Syria? There are also mercs from Lybia, should we add lybia? What about Serbians? Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Amazing proof you got there buddy. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:891A:1C58:B1C1:A93D (talk) 02:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

If you want I can find sources supporting each of those. I did not bother as there is not a lot of point, as we have (in fact) done so before for mercenaries fighting for the Russians. Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Refer to the FAQ no. 2 at the top of this talk page. —Michael Z. 15:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Illegal to say "war" in Russia

ErnestKrause, since you were using the nomenclature of Russian Wikipedia to argue that saying war is not illegal in Russia, see this Reuter's article [101]. Russian Wikimedia is being fined in Russia for "propaganda," and Reuters says as of yesterday Russia does not call what is happening a "war" or an "invasion", criminalising the use of either word.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Ermenrich Your citation from Reuters is better than the NPR one currently in use, and I think I would support you to replace the NPR cite with your Reuters citation in the lead section. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

The Russian Wikipedia is international, it is not Russian. Xx236 (talk) 07:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Russia has blocked Wikipedia within its borders - this site is edited by people outside of the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.57.70 (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not blocked in Russia, but for some reason it still has a pro-Ukrainian subtext. 213.87.102.249 (talk) 15:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

"pro-Ukrainian subtext" - you appear to have made a typo. The correct spelling is "Neutral point of view". Alsee (talk) 05:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

No it's not neutral, the sources used are not neutral, the name of the page is not neutral. for comparison the Gulf War contains an article containing the word war and two other articles containing the words operations (Operation Desert Shield) ( Operation Desert Storm) articles which otherwise do not exist in English (again a lack of neutrality ).

And that doesn't date from yesterday leaning pro Ukrainian, even if it means going to give reason to putin when he speaks of "neo Nazism", the articles concerning stephan bandera affirm that he resisted Nazism (Ukrainian nationalists resisted it well but stephan bandera is not part of it) in particular the French article which has in addition the title of "good article", which some complain about in the discussion tab, and no modification to date.

I am not saying that we should follow the instructions of any government, just that there is a problem of neutrality in certain articles.

to compare, the article on the January tragedy is perfectly neutral and presents just as well the non-neutral opinion of the different countries without seeking to establish an objective truth as Wikipedia should do. Hant Blue (talk) 18:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Hant Blue, see WP:COMMONNAME.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

That's not repond at what I say. Hant Blue (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

It absolutely does. The article is called "2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine" because that is how most sources refer to it. If and when they start calling it something else, we'll change as well. If you feel this policy is not followed on other articles, best take it up there.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

It was forbidden to specifically call the special operation a war, for example: "6 months ago, Russia started a war." However, after checking one of the Russian media, I note that they say only "special operation" and not a single word "war".

Perhaps they are afraid even to be able to get under the article, it is quite possible to call it a war and a special operation at the same time. 213.87.102.249 (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Moreover, it is unclear why this should be called a war when the countries have not declared it to each other. 213.87.102.249 (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The vast majority of wars since 1945 have not been officially declared. Declaring war is illegal according to the Convention for the Definition of Aggression (penned by a Soviet diplomat), and declared or undeclared acts of aggression are illegal according to the United Nations. Defending a country against aggression doesn’t require making any declaration, either.

Obviously, the Kremlin lies to its own citizenry, using a euphemism for its eight-year-old war of aggression. —Michael Z. 20:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Merging discussion

I've started a merging discussion at Talk:Battle of Dovhenke#Merge into new article. It involves a reorganization of some battles of the invasion and may be relevant for this talk page. I think there should be some discussion on the four theaters Wikipedia has made up for covering the invasion and whether some battles could be moved around or grouped together in subtheaters. Super Ψ Dro 09:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

About the images and videos in the articles related to the conflict

I would like to ask why in all the articles about a military conflict there are so few images of personnel and equipment in action, or images of military actions. the articles are dominated by damaged buildings. Is this a war between buildings, where they throw walls and stairs at each other? There are thousands of hours of video and millions of frames, thousands upon thousands of photos, all without copyright, in all social networks, or published by the defense ministries of each country, and in the articles you hardly see any image of military actions. 152.206.209.212 (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

WP can only use images that are free of copyright (except for some narrowly defined purpose). Images on the net and social media in particular are not free of copyright just because they have been posted in the public domain. The "owner" must specifically release the copyright before we could use them. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

well, editors should try a bit and look for images, among the tens of thousands there must be some that can be used. and/or reduce the number of images of damaged buildings, it's almost ridiculous, as I say, it looks like a war between buildings. An example of what I am saying about images from the ministries of defense, in the article on the Battle of Antonov Airport there are several images taken from videos published by the Russian MoD, and one form the Ukrainian military. So, there are images of this kind that can be used. 152.207.201.81 (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The article appears to have a large number of images which support the text as written. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Prisoners of war

Please add a link to Olenivka prison explosion, an article about the massacre of 50 Ukrainian POWs by Russian soldiers. --WithUinH (talk) 06:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: It's not clear where the changes you want should be made or in what fashion. SWinxy (talk) 02:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@SWinxy: I want to add a link to Olenivka prison explosion inside {{See also}} template beside such links as Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War#Prisoners of war, War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Treatment of prisoners of war, Torture of Russian soldiers in Mala Rohan. This is a significant event so it must be presented in this paragraph. --WithUinH (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine already has a link to this article. I think it's probably more appropriate there than in the "See also" section to keep the end matter from getting too lengthy. If there's a good place to work it into existing prose though, that might be the best. --N8_wilson 🔔 15:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I think 'Prisoners of war' is more appropriate place for that, because it's about treatment of Ukrainian POWs by Russian soldiers. That section already has link about alleged Torture of Russian soldiers in Mala Rohan, so I think there should be a link about treatment of Ukrainian POWs as well. --WithUinH (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done I misunderstood your request. The clarification you provided to @SWinxy was a better reflection of WP:EDITXY and helpful after I re-read it. This is probably fine but I'll note that both Olenivka prison massacre and Torture of Russian soldiers in Mala Rohan seem to be covered in some fashion within the article War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Not sure if it's preferable to have all three links but I'll leave that question to future editors. --N8_wilson 🔔 03:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Pentagon on Russian casualties

The Pentagon’s number three official says Russia has suffered between 70,000 and 80,000 casualties since invasion of Ukraine began. — goethean 23:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion for the best form for such an edit and how to update the related charts in this article. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Loose ties / Similarities

Has border security in Alaska, the Aleutian Islands and over the Bering Strait been tightened since the invasion? This is because Putin might believe that Russia may have been swindled/defrauded over the 1867 Alaska Purchase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 09:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Sources? Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

You referring to something like this? https://www.google.com/search?q=alaska+russia&rlz=1CASEEH_enUS1018&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi15NaJ8Ln5AhXklIkEHfu9BAAQ_AUoAXoECAEQAw&biw=1366&bih=768&dpr=1&safe=active&ssui=on 149.20.252.132 (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Has any link been established between the Russo-Ukrainian war and the current tensions between China and Taiwan? (unsigned editor)

Discussion of either close analogies or loose analogies in geopolitics is usually not done in specific articles about invasions dealing with specific themes. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

2022 Russian theft of Ukrainian grain

I have started a draft for the 2022 Russian theft of Ukrainian grain. Any help would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 02:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Endangering of civilians by Ukrainian forces

Recently Amnesty international published a report, stating the Ukrainian forces are endangering civilians as per amnesty report Military bases set up in residential areas including schools and hospitals Attacks launched from populated civilian areas Such violations in no way justify Russia’s indiscriminate attacks, which have killed and injured countless civilians Ukrainian forces have put civilians in harm’s way by establishing bases and operating weapons systems in populated residential areas, including in schools and hospitals, as they repelled the Russian invasion that began in February, Amnesty International said today. Such tactics violate international humanitarian law and endanger civilians, as they turn civilian objects into military targets. The ensuing Russian strikes in populated areas have killed civilians and destroyed civilian infrastructure. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/08/ukraine-ukrainian-fighting-tactics-endanger-civilians/ I see no mention of this in article, kindly add Mrboondocks (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I think we can include a line or two about the allegation. Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

would you mention that as an allegation when Amnesty says same about Russia indiscriminate fire ? or war crimes by Russia ? Mrboondocks (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, as they are not mutually exclusive. Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

This is not the first report or article about it, let's see some previous examples:

• March 28, Washington Post, "Russia has killed civilians in Ukraine. Kyiv's defense tactics add to the danger" [102] ;

• April 18, The New York Times, "To Push Back Russians, Ukrainians Hit a Village With Cluster Munitions" [103]

• May 15, July 8, July 26, UN's Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, "SITUATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN UKRAINE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ARMED ATTACK BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION (A/HRC/50/CRP4)" [104] [105] [106] ;

• July 21, Human Rights Watch, "Russian, Ukrainian Bases Endangering Civilians" [107] ;

• a August 7 CBS article about the latest report, [108]

Why is this the one that has raised so much noise, when the previous ones from UN and HRW basically say the same things? 152.207.201.41 (talk) 03:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

It's need to mention that according to Human Rights Watch, also 'Russian forces established military bases in populated areas, needlessly endangering civilians' https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/07/21/russian-ukrainian-bases-endangering-civilians. --WithUinH (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

yes, perhaps make a section of how both Russian and Ukrainians are using populated areas and endangering civilians Mrboondocks (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC) strike sock puppet

That’s absolutely a false balance, ignoring WP:due weight. The release actually says Russians committed war crimes, not necessarily Ukrainians, and look at how many reports about Russian war crimes Amnesty has published.

This report is most notable for all of the controversy surrounding it and criticism levelled against it.[109][110][111][112][113][114][115][116][117][118][119][120]

This is already being discussed at Talk:War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Amnesty International: Ukrainian fighting tactics endanger civilians. —Michael Z. 05:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• This report was widely debated, but criticized so much that I do not think it should be used on this page. This is rather for page Criticism of Amnesty International. See for example, reports by Politico, CNS News, etc: [121], [122], [123]. My very best wishes (talk) 02:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  There is an RfC on this here: Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#RfC_on_military_objectives_near_civilians_and_Stara_Krasnianka_attack Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Bulking down of article which is approaching 450Kb in page size; page split of Reactions section for bulking down process

Page split from main article at 2022 invasion of Ukraine by Russia following CWW due to bulking down the article because of large page size at the main article. The article was approaching 450Kb in page size which is excessive by Wikipedia standards and conventions. The new page may be found at 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine reactions. The link is included in the abridged section of this article as well. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

But there already were reaction pages. See Government and intergovernmental reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and Non-government reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. What's the point of that new split page? Super Ψ Dro 08:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

The three articles you refer to are all somewhat different in the perspectives they take and they seem to inform each other about the events and issues which they describe. Possibly there are links which could be added between the three articles which would allow readers to interface between all three articles. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

"TikTok war" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect TikTok war and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 13#TikTok war until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Same thing said twice in a row

In section "Casualties and humanitarian impact" subsection "Casualties" we can read the following two sentences:

Both Russian and Ukrainian sources are widely considered to inflate casualty numbers in opposing forces, while downplaying their own losses for the sake of morale. Both sides also tend to be quieter about their own military fatalities.

Since "downplaying their own losses" and "tend to be quiter about their own military fatalities" say the same thing, could not the second sentence be removed? Ribidag (talk) 07:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Good point; I've removed the second sentence. — Czello 07:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

British English?

I'm curious why this article uses British English? Don't get me wrong, as a Brit myself I feel a throb of pride when I see a "u" in "colour", but why was it chosen for this article in particular? Asking out curiosity rather than a desire to actually change this. Anyway, Rule Britannia, God Save the Queen, etc etc 🇬🇧🇺🇦 — Czello 08:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

We do, where? Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

If you click edit on the main article, there's a big banner at the top saying it uses British English. — Czello 10:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

My recollection is that the banner has been in place for a very long time but since when, I do not know - too many edits to trawl through. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:16, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Same reason as usual, some editor(s) used it very early on (in the first few hours by the looks of it), and it became the status-quo. There's been a tag since the end of day one. Added by a sock, mind you, but it was a formality since Brit English was already consistently used by that point. Jr8825 • Talk 12:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian Estimate of Russian casualties

The Ukrainian estimate does not include anything but Russian regular military forces. It does not include LPR, DPR, Wagner, or any other military or paramilitary units. Goliath74 (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Need more watchers at Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant

Could use more watchers at the above page. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Belligerents - United States involvement

Involvement of the United States in this war is, by conservative measures, on par with USSR involvement in the Vietnam War. By liberal measures even much greater. I suggest we either add US into the infobox, or remove USSR from the infobox in the Vietnam War and then revise all other war infoboxes. Otherwise, it is pointless to continue calling Wikipedia an independent encyclopedia. --Novis-M (talk) 23:08, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Question #2 at the top of this Talk page addresses this issue. Biden has stated and repeated that there will be no boots on the ground in Ukraine. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Words of a career politician are surely a good reassurance.--Novis-M (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

See FAQ. Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is impossible to criticise those who give orders around here.--Novis-M (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

No, as no one gives "orders around here". But we have discussed this multiple times. But to address your point From July 1965 to December 1974, more than 6000 generals and officers and more than 4,500 soldiers were sent to Vietnam as specialists by the Russians", how many boots on the ground does the USA have (in Ukraine)? Slatersteven (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

What about India listed as a supporter of one side the in the https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War, citing "Humanitarian aid", "India, a close ally of the Soviet Union, endorsed the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and by the end of the hostilities, offered to provide humanitarian assistance to the Afghan government"? 188.26.163.17 (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Russian Supporting Countries in the war with Ukraine are Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Kyrgyzstan, do we add those? What do we mean humanitarian aid, military aid, political aid?Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

A Sensible Proposal for renaming pages to be consistent and logical with other Wikipedia pages, and more easy to understand

TL:DR, Rename this to Russo-Ukrainian War, and rename the other page to Russo-Ukrainian Conflict.

Longer Answer: In other long conflicts with periods of intense violence escalating into full scale war, and long periods of down time with small scale engagments and casulties with the odd small flair up, Wikipedia has, by in large, a very consistent system.

Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict covers the entire period of tensions from 1988-present day, within it containing seperate articles for the wars (the term reserved for the intense fighting in the early 90s and 2020) and some notable flairups outside of it.

Afghanistan Conflict covers everything from the 1978 Saur Revolution to todays Panjishir Conflict, all part of a single continuous conflict, but the various seperate civil wars and interventions within are categorized separately.

Libya Crisis(slightly different term due to...reasons I'm not sure, but same principle), covers both wars and the period of low level violence inbetween them and after the 2nd one ended.

Therefore, this current flareup is the Russo-Ukrainian War, part of the larger Russo-Ukrainian Conflict(which also includes the 2014-2015 War in Donbas, and a period of low intensity fighting inbetween(Mid 2015-February 2022) that perhaps should have a seperate article ala what the others do. Of course, the others were all crafted with far more hindsight than we had when we made the War in Donbas article years ago, but with further clarity now a restructing to something like. Russo-Ukrainian Conflict Page (Which describes the seperate War in Donbas, 2015-2022 Donbas Skirmishes, Russo-Ukrainian War, all of which get their own pages) TheBrodsterBoy (talk) 01:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

We've had similar discussions before. I'm pretty sympathetic to this idea. Jr8825 • Talk 02:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Although I think there should definitely remain an article called invasion of Ukraine, it should just be narrower in scope. Jr8825 • Talk 02:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

06:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

When the average person says ‘Russo-Ukrainian War’ or you ask them ‘When did the war start?’, they’re not thinking about 2014, they’re thinking about this year. You could redirect invasion to that, or perhaps in the future it might be wise to give Phase 1 and Phase 2 dedicated pages ala his Operation Barbarossa and Operation Bluebell do, but for now, Russo-Ukrainian War SHOULD be this page, it fits the common usage, and it fits Wikipedia precedent, this fits exactly with what Wikipedia has done with other multiphase conflicts, most notably Nagorno Karabakh(another post soviet conflict).

So my proposal is.

The other page(currently Russo-Ukrainian War), becomes Russo-Ukrainian Conflict, discussing the conflict in the broadest sense just like what the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict and Afghanistan Conflict pages d. For more specific phases, there are specific articles. The major ones being-

Euromaiden(page is fine as is)

Russian Annexstion of Crimea (again, fine as is)

War in Donbas (2014-2015, I personally advocate for splitting the current article in two, one for the active phase that ended in early 2015 that was a true war. Maybe rename it to Donbas War, uncertain)

2015-2022 Donbas Skirmishes (For the low intensity phase. This is what Libya and Nagorno Karabakh did, and more notable flairups can get their own articles, like the 2017 battle of adiivka)

The Russo-Ukrainian War Buildup/2021-2022 Crisis (again unchanged)

Russo-Ukrainian War (which would be this page).

So yeah, that’s my proposal. It fits the average persons understanding, and it lines up with Wikipedia precedent with other long conflicts with pauses. This page should be Russo-Ukrainian War, that page should be Russo-Ukrainian Conflict, and it would probably be a good idea to split the Donbas one in half, the 2014-2015 situation was a true active war, while the 2015-2022 situation was a simmering frozen conflict with the odd flare up. I hope you back me on this good sir. 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:9957:F09A:E13D:8B3F (talk) 06:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm still a very new editor, so my opinion here may not hold much weight but I do oppose changing the name of this article in this manner at this time. Until more academic and scholarly eyes have judged the events and progress of this conflict, and we can reliably point to specific shifts in the pattern and behavior of the invasion as identified by scholars and their peers, this should remain the Invasion article. Are any mainstream sources shifting to calling this just a war, or are we stil mostly seeing documentation along the lines of "Day (x) of the Russian Invasion", and so on? King keudo (talk) 18:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Opposed. Our naming is not based on our folksy impressions of “the average person’s understanding,” but on WP:reliable sources. They all say there has been a war for eight years. Any serious proposal to change titles of important articles should refer directly to guidelines, sources, and evidence of usage. —Michael Z. 21:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

My source is this is what we've been doing for every other conflict with flare ups and frozen periods. Nagorno-Karabakh, Afghanistan, Libya, and more. The "Afghanistan War" article isn't for everything from 1978-present, that's the Afghanistan CONFLICT article, and each of the individual flare ups and wars gets their own page. Why is this not the case here? We had the 2014-2015 War in Donbas, a period of frozen conflict, and the current full scale Russo-Ukranian War. Russia and Ukraine were not involved in a full scale war with Russian plainclothes boots on the ground and Ukraine fighting back until this February. So I do have sources, my source is the massive amount of precadent from conflicts with similar patterns to organize it that way on this site. TheBrodsterBoy (talk) 23:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

TheBrodsterBoy those are not sources in the sense meant here. See WP:reliable sources.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok...Ok....I'll come back in a while when I have all my affairs in order. I'll get your reliable sources, I'll provide links to all the precedent I've found, I'll provide common usage, and I'll make a proper request for the move. I've put enough time into this, I ought to do it properly. TheBrodsterBoy (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Just a further note, what you want to be doing is looking for the WP:COMMONNAME for the topic, and what the boundaries of the topic(s) usually are here (when experts discuss the (full-scale) invasion, do they include the fighting up to today? when experts discuss the Ukraine-Russia war, are they usually referring to fighting since 2014 or 2022, or perhaps both? How do scholars refer to the 2014 invasion?). You'll need to use reliably published sources (preferably journal articles or articles by professors, although articles in reliable news outlets and by other experts can also demonstrate usage). Pointing to precedent on Wikipedia itself isn't helpful, as it's an argument that's often disregarded by editors (see WP:OTHERCONTENT and this essay). As others have said, it's perfectly plausible that experts haven't settled on common names yet, in which case we might have to wait a few years before evaluating how best to present and divide our content. Hope this helps, Jr8825 • Talk 00:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks.

Yeah I figured precedent wasn't gonna do too much good. I've seen official names get thrown out for common names and common names thrown out for official names. Still, better to have it or not.

I'll find the proper sources, back it up with examples of common usage and the precadent, and present my case for neatness reorganizing. TheBrodsterBoy (talk) 02:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

There hasn’t been any “frozen period,” either. The 2015–22 static trench war had more casualties than the 2014–15 mobile conflict. —Michael Z. 03:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, even at its quietest there were constant ceasefire violations. I saw reliable sources call it "almost-frozen", but never "frozen" in the same way as other post-Soviet conflicts. Jr8825 • Talk 03:14, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree also. NB From a different point of view - just trying to find this page is difficult because the title starts with the year. That's quite important for people using search engines. Putting 'Russia' or 'Russian' into the search does not find it either. Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Support for Ukraine by the Belarusian opposition

A couple of months ago Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya stated "We understand that, without a free Ukraine, there cannot be a free Belarus." And on top of that, the opposition also supported Ukraine in the Battle of Kyiv. So I was thinking we should add the Belarusian opposition to the belligerents section on the Ukrainian side. I got these sources here, here, and on the infobox on the Battle of Kyiv. 2601:600:827F:67C0:6088:8A2C:A09B:17CE (talk) 01:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

The Kalinouski Regiment, which is taking part in the military operations supporting Ukraine, is a clearly notable example, so at least part of the opposition in Belarus belongs to the category of belligerents. 2A02:AB04:2C2:E300:A90B:40F9:721F:1D44 (talk) 07:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

No more so than Syrian mercenaries or god knows who are are supporting Russia. Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Draft:National Republican Army (Russia)

I have created a draft article for the Draft:National Republican Army (Russia), the group which may be responsible for the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina according to Ilya Ponomarev. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 22:56, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Attacks in Crimea

In the last ten days there have been two or more large explosions in Crimea https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2022/08/16/the-ukrainians-have-struck-another-russian-airfield-in-crimea/?sh=4791ca3c2dfa It is a new aspect of the war, so I would have thought a heading here might be justified. I haven't check other related pages yet. Any thoughts? Thelisteninghand (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Five Crimea attacks altogether: Black Sea Fleet HQ, Sevastopol, July 31; Saky airbase, August 9; Hvardiiske airbase, August 16; Maiske (adjacent to Azovske) ammunition dump, August 16; Dzhankoi electrical substation, August 16. —Michael Z. 21:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Mzajac, I’ve heard the attack at Hvardiivske may be internet rumors - have you seen a reliable source about it? (Just trying to keep up with current information, not question the relevance of attacks in Crimea).—Ermenrich (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Speculation is a drone hit an ammo dump at the airbase.[124][125][126] Nothing like the scale of the Saky attack. —Michael Z. 22:17, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

There's plenty of RSS on the attacks in Crimea, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/08/17/ukraine-defense-minister-special-forces-new-strategy/ the question really is how to include them, given a degree of coyness from UAF about how they are being achieved. In my opinion it is an entirely new 'front' if you can call it that. It is certainly an expansion of operations by Ukraine. The effect on tourism should be noted. The losses reported at Saky were significant for Russia. New heading "Attacks in Crimea"? Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

August 18: supposedly an ammo depot hit in Belbek with little info, antiaircraft fire over the bridge at Kerch, and depot explosions in Belgorod oblast leading to the evacuation of two towns. August 19: drone reported shot down at Sevastopol.

This campaign may include the use of special forces, partisans, missiles, and/or drones. It is a continuation of the HIMARS campaign against Russian echelon and the (misnamed) 2022 Western Russia attacks. —Michael Z. 21:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks - I've made a start, please have a look. There's a separate article for Saki, but not for others - I've made brief summary of three events under 'second phase' and stopped short of calling it a third phase. I've added the timeline article to 'See also'. Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

President Zelenskyy has mentioned several times that the Crimean peninsular will be eventually be liberated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 05:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Please update the map, it looks like undated

. 86.123.7.179 (talk) 19:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Not clear which of the maps you are referencing. The Infobox map looks up to date. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

This page is biased

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This page supports ukrainr too much and is biased 113.254.66.32 (talk) 11:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Care to explain how? Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven When Catherine II annexes a country, it is a conquest but when Russian president does the same, it is an invasion. This article uses every political jargon and trick possible to convince the reader that Putin is a tyrannt. 95% of the sources used are Western sources and therefore do not present other views. When William Shirer was writing a book on Nazi history 15 years after WW2, he was cautioned that it was too early for academic research, and now idle commoners come together and claim to have written a neutral account of this war, while solely relying on Western newspaper articles. Where are the war diaries, letters, government reports, archival documents, monographs, books, journal articles, encyclopedias? They are not written yet, however people here are hasty enough to create an article! Madame Necker (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I was not aware Catherine the Great was a country, nor the president of Russia. So in fact we are talking about the same country.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

It is an invasion, unquestionably. Putin is a tyrant. We're open to using non-western sources, but they have to be reliable. Kremlin propaganda is not. We're not going to wait 15 years to write an article, that would invalidate us. — Czello 17:17, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@Czello You point is incorrect because it is Western sources who decide which sources are reliable. Madame Necker (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually it is us, over at wp:rsn. Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven It is us deciding which sources are reliable while still making our decisions based on Western sources. Madame Necker (talk) 17:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Out of interest, what sources would you include that we deem unreliable? — Czello 17:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

RT and Counterpunch perhaps? A napkin that Sergey Lavrov has written on? Andre🚐 17:33, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Really? You are aware there are plenty of western sources we reject? We also accept a number of middle eastern and Australian (look at a map) as RS. As well as eastern European ones. So not we do not base our assements on only "Western sources". Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@Czello Sources that represent non-Western views and sources that either do not support or against Western countries' political agenda. @Andrevan I think that RT and Counterpunch are equally unreliable as The New York Times. @Slatersteven If so, can you explain why 95% percent of the sources cited in this article are Western sources? Madame Necker (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

The New York Times is reliable. RT and Counterpunch are not. Andre🚐 17:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

They are the sources most of us have direct access to. Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

In fact (as far as I know) none of the IP's or SPA's that have come here (including the OP of this thread) have provided any counter sources to contest anything we say. Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@Andrevan Your point is incorrect because you are deciding which sources are reliable based on other Western sources. @Slatersteven Yes, I know that is one of the reasons you use Western sources, however, that cannot be an excuse to rely solely on them as seen in this article. Even if I showed you counter sources, you will claim that it was heavily criticized by The New York Times or some other similar Western source and declare it unreliable. Madame Necker (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, Madame Necker, if that is your real name, it appears we are at an impasse. This is the English Wikipedia. Maybe you will have better luck on ru.wikipedia? Andre🚐 17:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@Andrevan Please avoid making assumptions about which languages another person speaks based on their personal views. I don't speak Russian and I don't want you to decide which language of Wikipedia I edit. Madame Necker (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

And this is the talk page about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and you've stated that you believe this article is biased and that it unfairly characterizes Putin as a tyrannt [sic], and that you don't want us to use Western sources, but you haven't told us what source you want us to use. Andre🚐 17:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I would point out that is what you are doing, making assumptions (in fact your attacks on me are just that assumptions). and we do not use solely western sources, in the first 60 we have Russian. Ukrainian. and middle eastern sources. Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose, everything about this thread Andre🚐 17:17, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

This needs closing before it gets out of hand. Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven Whatever, I think this discussion is a waste of time anyways. I was accused of telling things I have never said and my views were misrepresented. Good bye. Madame Necker (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New Ukrainian report of their military casualties

Almost 9,000 Ukrainian military killed in war with Russia -armed forces chief | Reuters -- kazerniel (talk | contribs) 14:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Are you requesting an update in the article or something else? Trying to decipher what your request is in this talk page. Jurisdicta (talk) 00:12, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Just found a newer data point on the officially reported Ukrainian casualty number. The previous figure was from June, and somehow a higher number 🤷‍♂️ -- kazerniel (talk | contribs) 03:52, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 August 2022

I want to add the Belarusian opposition on Ukraine’s side, because that is the main purpose for the organization, to oppose Belarus at all times, especially with Belarus’ support to Russia with the invasion.

I want to add the Belarusian opposition on Ukraine’s side, because that is the main purpose for the organization, to oppose Belarus at all times, especially with Belarus’ support to Russia with the invasion. Javyriv (talk) 15:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian troop counts

The Wikipedia article currently has a number of 196,600 armed forces personnel and 102,000 paramilitaries for Ukraine. As early as May 21, Ukrainian President Zelensky was claiming there were as many as 700,000 due to mobilizations. [127] Should this number be updated? Apologies if this was already discussed and was not included due to prior discussions. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Wounded vs "irretrievable"

First, I'll preface by saying given the nature of the conflict and politicized claims, the claims made in the casualties section are naturally messy, but at least it is organized and attributed well. I was looking through the sources and noticed an inconsistency with the "193,000+ killed and wounded" claim by the "Donetsk People's Republic". The source says "irretrievable", and clarifies that it is killed and wounded to such a degree that they "could not rejoin the troops". "As the spokesman for the DPR people’s militia specified, irretrievable losses included killed military personnel and crippled service members who could not rejoin the troops." Wounded on its own is not necessarily permanent. A soldier could be wounded from a broken bone, be counted as wounded, and return to service a few weeks later after recovering. This is contrary to the "irretrievable" terminology which specifies wounded to the point of no longer being able to serve. Should the language in this claim be revised on the Wiki article to better represent what is meant by wounded in this context? Saucysalsa30 (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 August 2022

Update Donbas map in the Second Phase section to say as of August 23 Physeters^✉ 08:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: Thanks again for your continued updates to this resource Physeters. Just a quick clarification: looks like the last date that appears on the map shows Aug 21. I went ahead and changed the caption to reflect that date. Is there some other place I missed that should show 23 August? --N8_wilson 🔔 12:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@N8wilson I didn't even realize that description needed updating, but you're referring to the wrong file. I am talking about the map in the Second phase – Donbas front; Fall of Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk section. The current full text description of the image is "Military control around Donbas as of 31 May 2022". I updated the file on August 23. so the description should reflect this. Physeters^✉ 18:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done Ah ha! I thought I remember seeing edit requests from you before which were clear, concise, and correct so I figured I had just overlooked something. Thanks for the update Physeters. Think I got it right this time. Again - we appreciate your help with these visual resources! --N8_wilson 🔔 19:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@N8wilson You got it right this time, and you are very welcome. I wrote the request rather late at night, so I apologize if it was unclear. Physeters^✉ 19:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

All good Physeters! You mentioned "Donbas" in the original ER and I was working quickly and just missed it. You're still batting 1000 in my book. --N8_wilson 🔔 19:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@N8wilson Thanks! :) Physeters^✉ 19:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Better caption needed for EUR/Ruble exchange rate

I suspect the graph EUR/Ruble exchange rate is showing the number of rubles required to buy one euro. But readers are left with doubt, so it would be helpful to have more explicit description of the graph. I would make the edit myself but I am not completely sure of what it is meant to show. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@Humphrey Tribble: Yeah I agree it was confusing. Expanded the caption a bit to hopefully make it clearer after checking online that it's definitely that way around (i.e., the graph shows how many Rubles you would get for one Euro). –LordPickleII (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Campaignbox

I disagree with proposed deletion of Russian and Ukraine war because need keep it for research purposes that I always do. 49.224.220.170 (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Not clear what you mean; the Invasion article here is not being discussed for deletion. ErnestKrause (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

‹ The template Campaignbox 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is being considered for deletion. ›

shown below the campaignbox 153.111.229.202 (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

IP is right, there is a discussion about it, but it's happening here (though it seems IP has already found it). –LordPickleII (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

"Supported by..." is missing

Ukraine gets military support by a number of nations, but that is still missing in this article.

Is there any explanation for this, since articles about other wars clearly state it? Daimler92 (talk) 11:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, see all the talk page threads about this. Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

See the second question in the FAQ: A discussion took place to decide whether countries supplying arms should be listed in the infobox, and the outcome was 'No Consensus'. Please do not add individual countries without discussing here first. While consensus can change, please review the closed discussion, and try to bring forward novel arguments. Kleinpecan (talk) 12:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

So can we now add NK to the list of nations supporting Russia https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-62804825? Slatersteven (talk) 09:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Well, the good guys have to stick together, right? ;) –LordPickleII (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

"Estonia has removed a remaining Soviet era monument from a square in Tallinn" in response to the invasion is incorrect, it was a T-34 tank and it was in Narva

The source that the person who wrote it provided even says that it was the Narva tank monument that was removed, not Tallinn! The WW2 monument in Tallinn was moved in 2007, not now. Please fix this error. BananasAreViolet (talk) 13:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@BananasAreViolet: Done. Thanks for spotting that! I left "monument" since the tank was a replica and mounted like a monument, so I think that's not wrong (the city was). –LordPickleII (talk) 18:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Pretty sure all those T-34 monuments had real tanks on them. —Michael Z. 19:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Just from a quick look around, most news articles have mentioned the Narva monument was a replica of a T-34 (here and here, for example). Couldn't find anything more definitive though. Desan5 (talk) 23:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

From the wording it’s clear that sentence in those two was paraphrased from the same original source. One could find the ERR source and confirm whether it’s a translation error or something else, if one thought it was worth the effort.

Anyway, it’s wrong, it’s immaterial to the subject, and it shouldn’t be repeated in article text. No one manufactured replica T-34 tanks during post-war reconstruction when there were tens of thousands of surplus tanks throughout Central and Eastern Europe. —Michael Z. 13:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

How is this important? I think this addition should be in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine reactions article, not here. There are a lot of more important details that, in my opinion, have higher priority. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 13:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I would agree. Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Me too, actually. That's a prime example of content that should be moved. –LordPickleII (talk) 13:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Someome pls add this

-As of early september. Russia intends to purchase artillery and MLRS ammunition from North Korea
It should go under foreign support section, the section is very heavy on the support Ukraine receives and very lacking in the supporters of Russia. --Kennet.mattfolk (talk) 12:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

While I used this above, lets us not forget this is unconfirmed. There is a similar story about Drones for Iran, but lets wait for confirmation. Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

This wikiedia article is filled with 'unconfirmed' data and information, such as citations of both sides kill counts etc. ;) Kennet.mattfolk (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

References

"Russian commander in chief Valeriy Zaluzhnyi"

Has he defected from the Ukrainian military? 208.127.136.43 (talk) 09:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Why do you ask, have you seen reports of this? Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Its in 2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Potential_Russian_use_of_tactical_nuclear_weapons. It needs to be corrected. IntrepidContributor (talk) 10:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Peace efforts

Someone is reverting and re-adding the Peace section to this article which is already covered in two other Wikipedia articles. It is a fully Redundant section. It already has its own article at Main article: 2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations. Also it is covered in the new 2022 Reactions article created last week. Is there support for keeping three copies of this section on Wikipedia, or should it be deleted from this 2022 Invasion article? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes it should not be here, it needs to be mentioned in the article about the war, and maybe the timeline. Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, someone removed without reason the Peace efforts section. It is a significant topic, which is very relevant to the article, so it should be mentioned here, there is no reason to delete it. It already has its own article, therefore, the link should be mentioned here, it is a significant topic. For these, there should be a paragraph with a link (it is not anywhere in the article). Jirka.h23 (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

What is the reason? Are you saying that this topic is redundant? I definitely cannot agree with that, it is an important topic, which can affect the entire invasion and definitely related to this article - and not for another article about the war, as these negotiations began just from the beginning of this invasion. As I still do not see a reason for deleting the text from the stable version, I request its restoration. Jirka.h23 (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Jirka.h23: I believe what Slatersteven meant was that if there is disagreement about it, we need to discuss it first before re-adding it (otherwise it can quickly become an WP:EDITWAR). We can do it right here, and I'll start by saying that I agree that the section should be in the article. It is very reasonable for a casual reader (for whom we are writing this encyclopedia) to ask about a possible peace. And yes, we have a standalone article, but it's not comfortable for a reader to have to type and search for it, when we have dozens and dozens more of wikilinks to far less interesting things in the article. A (short!) section on the peace efforts should be here. It is actually fairly commonplace to have such a short excerpts in a longer article, and link to the main article there. We even have a template just for that, Template:Main. That's not "redundant", that's good practice. So I support the re-addition. --LordPeterII (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

First of all, Slatersteven and ErnestKrause I apologize if I rushed this a bit and if I was unpleasant (I didn't liked that revert, and that after the first revert I got a warning about edit war on my talk page). But Slatersteven is right, if there is disagreement, it should be discussed first. Anyway, I went through the history and found out that this paragraph was here until 11 August, when user ErnestKrause deleted it (who reverted my edit), so if there was a mention of it about half a year (almost from the beginning of this article), it should be him, who should defend the change of this article. I just basically reverted it to the stable version. Anyway, I agree with LordPeterII, that the section on the peace efforts with link to the main article should be here and that it's not 'redundant', it is one of the important things in relation to the invasion and therefore to the subject of this article. I suggest reverting to the previous state. Jirka.h23 (talk) 05:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Which for me is another reason not to mention it, they went nowhere. Slatersteven (talk) 09:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Support for Slatersteven on this. The Peace subsection being discussed here was never "removed" from Wikipedia, but it was split into a new Wikipedia article here on 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine reactions. A page split is different than removing an article on Wikipedia, and the full text of the Peace subsection can be read in its entirety on the new Reactions article which I've just linked above. In addition to that, there is also the Peace article on Wikipedia which discusses the details of the Invasion peace attempts for those interested in this history. These are currently linked in the Invasion article for readers who need to read the details. That means that there are already two versions of the Peace subsection on Wikipedia, and re-adding a third one in this article seems redundant. Three copies of essentially the same material in three Wikipedia articles is redundant and not consistent with Wikipedia editing policy. I'm supporting the comments made by Slatersteven on this. ErnestKrause (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

It should be brief mentioned/summarised and a link to the main WP should of course be added. I've had a brief look at the edit in question and it looks summarised and brief enough if you ask me. Basedosaurus (talk) 12:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

The peace efforts have gone nowhere so far and will likely go nowhere in the future, but the media provides a lot of reports and commentary on these efforts, which is all that matters for inclusion. IntrepidContributor (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

The Foreign Affairs' latest article on the topic definitely has something to add. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I think that users ErnestKrause and Slatersteven have not presented any serious explanations why this important information, which mainly affects the topic of this article, should be removed from this article. This paragraph was here until 11 August, and since consensus was not found, moreover 3:2 were in favor to preserve the text, it should be returned to the stable version that were here for about half a year (almost from the beginning of this article). Jirka.h23 (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree, it should be re-added, as I have said above. No convincing argument against its inclusion has been given; we have such short-summarising-sections-with-a-link-to-the-main-page in literally hundreds of Wikipedia articles. @ErnestKrause and Slatersteven: If you can't stand the section at all, I invite you to start an RfC on it; but I'm not going to begin another one about such a trivial thing. Please go ahead and re-add that part, Jirka.h23. –LordPickleII (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I've added another link to the Peace article from the Reactions section. In addition to the previously made link to the new 2022 Reactions article, the Reaction article section on Peace also links the Peace talks discussion as presented in that article. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:52, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok LordPickleII, I returned it. Jirka.h23 (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

There is no consensus for restoring your edit and forcing it into the article. Your edit is reverted until you establish consensus. Both Slatersteven and myself have reverted your edit by Wikipedia policy for BRD. Establish consensus on Talk page prior to further edits in the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

You are wrong, there is no consensus to remove it from the stable version. It is you who should find a consensus. Anyway, now it is 3:2 to keep the paragraph. So do not delete that sourced text, it is very related to the article. Not following Wikipedia policy (not found consensus for your change from the stable version, deleting sourced text) may lead to your blocking, take it as a warning. Jirka.h23 (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause: If you do not believe consensus is reached, kindly start a WP:RfC. I strongly suspect it would fail, because neither of you has given any policy-based reasoning for excluding the info. What do you think Template:Main exists for? It's to deal with cases exactly like these. Sorry if I was too quick, but it doesn't make sense to me that you would use "no consensus" as a reason to exclude the content indefinitely, when you have neither argumentative nor numerical support in the discussion. To give some more info on my view: I am arguing based on WP:SS, a guideline that clearly is in favour of "content duplication" like the one in question here. Also, don't forget that we are writing an encyclopedia for a reader: You might be perfectly right if this was an archive, and you'd not want duplicate information, as anyone could take their time and research, or ask you as the archivist. But Wikipedia is used by many different people, everyday, who have no idea how an ideal structure would look like, and who are likely not thinking "Hey, this invasion sounds pretty bad, I wonder why they don't make peace? I'll now scroll down to the Reactions section, open the correct one of the six linked articles there, and then scroll down until I find the corresponding section, then click the article linked there, and voilá, I've already found it!" Don't expect a 10 or 70 year old random internet user to be able to do that. We need the to write for our WP:AUDIENCE, that is, put the readers first. Think about it, and maybe you can understand why we want to restore that section. –LordPickleII (talk) 20:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

LordPickleII, user ErnestKrause is not a very experienced editor, he started editing (very actively) last year, maybe he doesn't know what is WP:RfC. I don't know what to do in such cases, I still believe that we can come to an understanding here.Jirka.h23 (talk) 06:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Jirka.h23: I have respect for ErnestKrause because they have contributed a lot to this article. Maybe they haven't edited that long, but their edits are high-quality mostly; anyway I was a bit quick to suggest a RfC. Btw, I've just checked and see you have achieved a Featured Article even, @ErnestKrause, nice!

I had participated in some discussions lately that grinded to a halt for no reason, so sorry if I was a little snarky there. Your contributions are appreciated, and I hope you can see both I and Jirka.h23 don't want to make the article worse, we really believe that the short "Peace efforts" section would benefit the article greatly. I hope you and Slatersteven can reconsider; I wouldn't even mind an even shorter section, as long as there is an easy way for readers to be informed that "peace talks happened, yielded no result, for more details please click here". –LordPickleII (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I didn't mean it disrespectful, rather as a reflection (or possibility) on why he is not responding to the RfC call.Jirka.h23 (talk) 11:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it is a redundant section in this article. It can be included as a new section in summary form. IntrepidContributor (talk) 11:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

There is already the link I added in response to Based above in the Reactions section of this article which mentions the peace process and links the article which already includes the full copy of the Peace section being discussed here on Talk, which states: "Reactions to the invasion have varied considerably across a broad spectrum of concerns including media responses, peace efforts and the examination of the legal implications of the invasion." I'm agreeing with Slatersteven that re-duplicating that section here in this article is unnecessary. Also, the topic of Peace is normally discussed as an answer to War, such as the Wikipedia article for the Russo-Ukraine War, and not in response to an "invasion" in and of itself. Is there a reason why the editors here, Jirka and LordPeter, have not even tried to place the Peace section in the Russo-Ukraine War article where this discussion appears to have a better placement. ErnestKrause (talk) 12:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I am agreeing with the editors that the subject merits its own section. I believe that a section on the peace efforts, including the discarded Minsk agreements, should be included in Russo-Ukraine War and the War in Donbas too. Any new peace process will mostly be in response to the recent invasion, which is a part of a longer conflict but constitutes a significant escalation and flagrant violation of the Mink agreements. IntrepidContributor (talk) 13:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 11:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause: This article here is presently "ongoing" in the news. I am reading it to inform myself about the ongoing crisis, and, although that is only anecdotal, all of my irl friends and acquaintances do only read this article. Yes, from a professional, academic point of view you might be right; but if this was a library, with finished, printed books, then the Invasion wouldn't be your to-go article, and you would start with the war overview. I would not mind having several more "Peace efforts" sections in other articles if you'd like that, but I am specifically voting to have one here, based on my arguments above. Can you at least acknowledge them? I just see no guideline- or policy-based rational for your decision to exclude them, and several more editors have spoken in favour of re-adding them. This must not become an edit war; but this must also not become an instance were two editors can block something for abstract reasons. Repeating that you agree with Slatersteven does not make your point any more convincing: It's the opinion of you two, and I can respect that. But consensus can overrule an opinion, and you must accept that possibility. If you do not wish to bring new arguments, I am going to start an RfC. –LordPickleII (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

The re-duplication of identical material on multiple articles at Wikipedia is discouraged by Wikipedia AfD policy about articles which cover essentially the same material. Also, if you are stating that you wish to re-publish the exact same material for Peace on the pages for Russo-Ukraine War, War in Donbas, 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine reactions, 2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations, and now this article for the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine then that will be seen as appearing like POV-pushing. My suggestion is still that you try to add this section of the main article for the war which is at Russo-Ukraine War, which you still have not tried to do. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause: Well, how is this POV-pushing? This isn't about my personal views (if you are interested in these:*start POV* I would love peace, but I can only see that coming once Russia is pushed back. Peace efforts until then are futile, Ukraine needs weapons. *end POV*), it's purely about policy and consensus. That you bring up an AfD policy now is at least a fresh development – could you link to it please? In any case, I think an WP:RfC is really warranted now, as the only way to get this to a conclusion without bad blood. I shall start one. –LordPickleII (talk) 18:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

ErnestKrause, I do not consider mention of it on other pages to be so important, mainly because they are directly related to this article and this year's invasion, on sites like the Russo-Ukraine War and others it can also be mentioned, but it should be found mainly here. ErnestKrause and Slatersteven do you think there is any point in convincing you and that you could change your mind? Now it is 4:2 to leave the paragraph, but I would like to resolve this with you as well. Regards Jirka.h23 (talk) 11:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I can add no more to what I have already said, this is not about the war, its, about a campaign. We do not (for example) discuss peace talks in the article about the battle of the bulge or Verdun. Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

You didn't say this before, what do you mean "not about the war", it is all about the war, more specifically about this invasion, the peace negotiations started after this invasion, so it relates exactly to this article, I see no reason to delete these important events. So in this case, if only two users are pushing the article change, we could be forced to use the RfC. Or one more question, I'm going to repeat myself, but you still haven't answered it here, if this paragraph was here until 11 August, when user ErnestKrause deleted it, and there was a mention of it about half a year (almost from the beginning of this article), it should be him, who should defend the change of this article, meanwhile, according to the rules, the article should change to a stable state, am I right? Jirka.h23 (talk) 12:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

My OP "Yes it should not be here, it needs to be mentioned in the article about the war", my stance was always this is not an article about the wider war, so any material that is more about the wider war should be in that article. All I just did was to elaborate more on why. I have had my say, I can add no more other than to reiterate the same arguments worded in different ways. There is no point in continuously pining me for my opinion, you have it. But you are correct, if this was long-standing content, (how long was it here?) then yes, the onus should be on those wishing to remove it to get consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

"my stance was always this is not an article about the wider war, so any material that is more about the wider war should be in that article." If I understand it correctly, you don't mind this mention in the broader article, but here, which discusses this year's invasion, it does. In that case, that makes no sense to me, the peace talks have a direct connection to this invasion, in the wider article also many other connections can be discussed. Anyway, if that's the case, we'll take your opinion into consideration. But thanks for confirming my point, and so I ask again ErnestKrause to stop meanwhile removing this paragraph.Jirka.h23 (talk) 12:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Support of Slatersteven, who is making perfectly good sense. Also, Wikipedia is not a forum for polling or voting. Establishing consensus is not a tally of votes. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Good that you agree with him, so now you can try to find a consensus, or create an RfC to remove the paragraph. But I ask you again not to delete the paragraph straight away.Jirka.h23 (talk) 14:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

This article is about the post-2022 phase of the Russo-Ukrainian war which is a part of the wider war. It looks like it will overshadow the previous 8 years of the conflict which means that there is quite a lot of overlap. Ideally we should agree on some kind of a framework but I think we are not there yet. In the meantime the reader (who might have come via a wikilink from the Main Page) is likely to be interested in knowing about the peace negotiations and therefore this article should have a short summary and a link to the main article on the negotiations. Alaexis_¿question? 10:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

The general approach in the international press has been that there have been three phases in the Russo-Ukraine War since the annexation of Crimea. The first was the process of the anexation of Crimea itself, which was followed by an Interim Period of conflict between Russia and Ukraine mostly in the Donbas region, which was followed by the two phases of the current 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Discussion here on the Talk page should be consistent with the general approach taken in the international press about the Russo-Ukraine War as a whole. ErnestKrause (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I do not disagree with this but I don't see how it refutes (or supports, for that matter) my argument that a short summary here would be helpful. Alaexis_¿question? 18:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you that there should be at least a brief paragraph. Two editors have tried to remove it, but have not yet found a consensus. You are already the fifth person who is in favor of its preservation. We have agreed to leave the stable version for now.Jirka.h23 (talk) 13:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

There is no consensus at present on the Talk page and your edit is reverted according to Wikipedia policy for BRD. Two editors have already notified you on your Talk page that you appear to be edit warring against Wikipedia policy. Could I ask that you stop edit warring. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you understand the written word? There is no consensus for removal the paragraph. As agreed, the page returns to the stable version before your editing (also with the second editor who firstly reverted). Find consensus for removal first, otherwise you can be blocked for not following the Wikipedia policy. Jirka.h23 (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause: The general approach in the international press has been that there have been three phases in the Russo-Ukraine War since the annexation of Crimea. [...] – meaning? I'm sorry, I just really can't follow your reasoning. If you point to the press reaction, then the peace efforts were definitely covered, and almost exclusively as a result of the current invasion. I agree that longer term, we may need some restructuring. But at present, all news are talking about the Invasion, nothing else, because it is ongoing and the major development in what had otherwise been a relatively "restrained" war. –LordPickleII (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted the renewed addition of this section as it does not appear to me that clear consensus has been reached. If the talk page is deadlocked, someone should call an wp:RfC.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Ermenrich yes, consensus was not reached for your edit (removal of the sourced content) and five people are against. Therefore the page returns to stable version, find first consensus for removal of the paragraph. Thanks.Jirka.h23 (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

That is not the stable version. The article hasn't had a section on this for a while. The WP:ONUS for adding a section rests on you.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes it is. I have returned it on 27 August, this paragraph was here until 11 August, when you deleted it, so it was just 16 days, and there was a mention of it about half a year (almost from the beginning of this article). As said Slatersteven, the onus should be on those wishing to remove it to get consensus, and I agree on that.Jirka.h23 (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

You appear to be edit warring against multiple editors who have asked you to stop edit warring until Talk page discussion for BRD is completed. Your edit is reverted. Can I ask that you stop your serial reverts to this article which multiple editors have asked you to stop doing on your Talk page. Both Slatersteven and Ermenrich have asked that you stop edit warring on your Talk page. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Please do not lie. It is only you who is forcing your edit against stable version (with the second we agrred that you shold first find consesus for removal of sourced content). I think that the page should be locked against your disruptive editing.Jirka.h23 (talk) 14:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I was wrong if you both start with "E" :-) So there are two of you, it doesn't change the fact that he should first find a consensus to remove the long-standing paragraph. Jirka.h23 (talk) 14:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Your are presently edit warring and reverting against multiple editors on the article main space. Could I ask that you stop edit warring against multiple editors who have also contacted you on your Talk page. Could you revert your edit and return to the Talk page here for discussion following Wikipedia policy for BRD? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:BRD is an essay rather than a policy and can be misused. I don't see policy-based arguments against including this section. Alaexis_¿question? 20:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

It should be here. Having a main article does not mean it can't be mentioned here. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I think we should have an RfC. Something along the lines "Q1: Should this article describe the peace negotiations that took place in 2022?", "Q2: If yes, should there be a dedicated session for it?", "Q3, if yes, should we adopt version X and then improve it incrementally?" Alaexis_¿question? 20:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

We have 6:3 for adding this section, which is a consensus. I don't think we need a RfC. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 11:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

consensus has finally reached, 6:3 for keeping this section. The only issue now is how it should look. For whose interested, please share your opinion at the section at the bottom. Thank you all! Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk)

@Super ninja2: Consensus is not a vote tally, it is based on majority and arguments. I think we will have a RfC, it's cleaner at this point. I agree it should also include a second question on how such a section should look, as suggested by Alaexis. I'll write one up when I find time (or motivation). But discussion can ofc resume in the meantime, so we have a selection of options for the second question. –LordPickleII (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Alaexis, Super ninja2, ErnestKrause, IntrepidContributor, Basedosaurus, Slatersteven, Jirka.h23, and Ermenrich: Pinging you as previous contributors to the discussion (sorry if I've missed someone). I have started a RfC below, please feel free to voice your opinion there: Go to the RfC. –LordPickleII (talk) 11:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@RaiderAspect: Meant to ping you as well about the RfC. –LordPickleII (talk)

Typo in 'Effects on Russian forces'

In the second to last paragraph under the section 'Effects on Russian forces', in the fourth to last sentence, there is a typo: 'They must past a physical test'. Stephanos100 (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Stephanos100: Done, thx. –LordPeterII (talk) 15:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 September 2022

Change the link at the bottom of the sidebar (title "Casualties and losses") from "#Casualties_and_humanitarian_impact" to "#Casualties_and_refugees" as the heading was changed in a previous edit. Bemoty (talk) 17:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: This heading change was reverted. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 18:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Strength

Are you sure that's the correct number on the Russian side? Dawsongfg (talk) 17:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I have seen numbers indicating Russia has committed as many as 300,000 troops to Ukraine, and that was about a month ago, these current strength estimates are only based off of pre invasion forces stationed on the Ukrainian border, so it should definitely be updated. History Man1812 (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

You've seen that many? I've seen the ISW say around 1 million. Dawsongfg (talk) 23:42, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Can someone make the map more clear when zooming?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I can barely see the names on the map and want to see specifically where is being won by either side 2600:6C64:617F:62C4:F512:2867:ED10:87CD (talk) 09:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cite errors

In the References section, citations 279 and 435 have a big red "Cite error" on them. Ribidag (talk) 11:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed - thanks for highlighting these, Ribidag. Jr8825 • Talk 12:31, 11 September 2022 (UTC)