Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine

DPR and LPR

Moved from Template talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox § DPR and LPR

 – ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I suggest removing the so-called Donetsk and Luhansk people's republics as separate entities, instead mentioning them in a footnote about Russia of the following content: "The Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic were unrecognized entities in eastern Ukraine created by Russia in 2014 on the eve of the War in Donbas, which, amid the full-scale invasion, were formally annexed by Russia, alongside partially-occupied Ukrainian oblasts of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia." CapLiber (talk) 13:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

On the one hand they were obviously just an extension of the Russian army, and we've excluded South Ossetia from being mentioned in the infobox on similar grounds. On the other, LPR/DPR formations were treated as being different in some ways by the Russians (e.g., giving them ancient rifles to fight with etc.). I guess I lean towards removing them but it's probably worth having an RFC on this. FOARP (talk) 14:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Those are more often described together then separate. On these grounds, agree with the proposal. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, you practically never see LPR referenced without also seeing DPR referenced. FOARP (talk) 14:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

So what will the decision look like? CapLiber (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

With respect, your assertion that you practically never see LPR referenced without also seeing DPR referenced probably holds true only when it comes to very high-level overviews of the war, and particularly those not written in the regional languages. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 06:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

That's what the infobox is. High level overview. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

So we should ignore the existence of two effectively independent and separate entities because it is easy to group them together in overly generalized writing? SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 03:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

No. We should mention them together like "DPR and LPR", because this is how they are mentioned in very high-level overviews of the war. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Until the annexation months into the invasion in 2022, they were independent entities (legally), as were their militaries; that they are no longer independent right now doesn't matter at all, as they were when the invasion began. So yes, they should be included. That said, this discussion shouldn't be on this talk page at all, but rather at Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine, where it will be more widely seen. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

they were independent entities (legally)
They weren't.

having declared their independence from Ukraine footnote text should be removed. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

And why should it be removed? The rebel leaders did declare independence, just not to any diplomatic recognition; the two republics were completely unrecognized until 2022, but they were still entities that existed (as Ukraine certainly didn't control the territory held by the republics). Legally here means that Russia did not claim that the two entities were a "part of Russia" until 2022, and they still maintained a degree of actual independence until then. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

The rebel leaders did declare independence
Note the difference
The Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic were Russian puppet states, having declared their independence ... ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Puppet states declaring their independence is a contradiction in terms. FOARP (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

That's what I'm telling. having declared their independence is not how high-overview (this is what this article should take example from) sources describe them. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

• They existed as separate entities at the start of the war. Previous discussions were that they remain in the infobox subsequent to annexation. There have been robust discussions regarding this so there is a fairly strong consensus for the status quo version. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with removal, because LPR and DPR were never recognised (internationally, anyway). If they aren't removed, then possible solutions could be: a) to put their names in quotes, b) add "so-called" in front of their names, c) call them either "Donbas separatists" or "Russian-backed separatists in the Donbas", d) a combination of the above. In any case, a change is required because as it currently stands it seems that they are indepdendent, recognised entities, when their "independence" was very, very shortlived before they were annexed by Russia. I don't think there is any talk of LPR and DPR being or ever becoming independent entities. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 07:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC) 07:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it is OK as it is, nuance is for the body, not the info box. Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Nuance would be still mentioning them as separate entities. I suggest uniting them into single "Pro-Russian militias in Ukraine" with footnote listing Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson oblasts and telling the story of their occupation and subsequent annexation by Russia. Military administrations set up by Russia in parts of Kharkiv and Mykolaiv oblasts could me mentioned there as well. CapLiber (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree that the “nuanced” option is mentioning them at all, since it requires footnotes that boil down to saying they were simply puppet-states. That said it would also be good to see whether reliable sources treat them at all as distinct from Russia. FOARP (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I think "Russian-backed separatists" is more correct, unless you have a WP:RS claiming they are "pro-Russian" rather than being supported by Russia. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 23:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

"Russian militias in Ukraine" would be the most suitable name since we're talking more about armed groups rather than about political factions. CapLiber (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:RS overwhelmingly refer to them as "Russian-backed separatists".

- https://www.crisisgroup.org/content/conflict-ukraines-donbas-visual-explainer

- https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/4/ukraine-crisis-who-are-the-russia-backed-separatists

- https://abcnews.go.com/International/ukraine-separatist-regions-crux-russian-invasion/story?id=83084803

- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/17/what-is-the-background-to-the-separatists-attack-in-east-ukraine

- https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/22/what-are-donetsk-and-luhansk-ukraines-separatist-statelets

- https://www.ispionline.it/en/publication/ukraine-war-the-future-of-russian-backed-separatist-territories-189536

- https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-21/russia-plan-to-annex-ukraine-separatist-regions-referendum/101460210

- https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russia-ukraine-invasion-fears-separatists-military-mobilization-putin-rcna16937

- https://www.politico.eu/article/separatists-in-ukraine-luhansk-region-to-hold-referendum-on-joining-russia/

- https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine-russia-donetsk-luhansk-1.6588501

- https://abcnews.go.com/International/tensions-rise-ukraine-russian-backed-separatist-shelling-hits/story?id=82962555

There are many, many more sources calling them the same. Therefore the consensus among WP:RS seems to be that they are "Russian-backed separatists". TurboSuperA+ (talk) 00:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Both the DPR and LPR really were just extensions of Russian forces, which ceased to exist months into the war. Adding them as footnotes makes sense here EarthDude (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree --haha169 (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I support removing them from the infobox because they were never truly independent. Even including Kadyrov’s Chechnya would make more sense—though I'm not actually proposing we do so. --Cuvaj (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

The only question remaining is, which flag should we consider using for unified "Pro-Russian separatists" section? CapLiber (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

"Pro-Russian" is a layman figure of speech, as I have explained in another comment the consensus among WP:RS for their name is "Russian-backed separatists". If you want to call them "pro-Russian separatists" then you have to find a large number of WP:RS that call them that. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

These should not be in the infobox. All pretence of independence was dropped with Russia's supposed annexations. —Legoless (talk) 11:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but those annexations were many months into the invasion; the infobox does not only reflect the situation right now, but the entire conflict since February 2022. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Exactly (I agree). The invasion article is a part of the greater Russo-Ukraine War. By such arguments, they would also need to be removed from the infobox there. Presenting them in the infobox as dot-points under Russia represents their relationship with Russia. Yes, they are often referred to together but in doing so, they are also being identified as separate political identities (not to be confused with their international recognition). Sources also refer to them separately when the context is talking about something pertaining to one but not the other. Trying to change the representation in the infobox such as putting them on one line is trying to represent a degree of nuance for which the infobox is totally unsuited. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, they should be removed from the Russo-Ukrainian War infobox as well. They were never independent, and their militias have been part of the Russian armed forces since the very beginning in 2014. By your arguments, the Wagner Group or Kadyrov’s Chechnya would also need to be added to the infobox here (I'm not actually proposing we add them!) Cuvaj (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I am not arguing for or against their inclusion in the infobox, I am saying that they should be referred to as "Russian-backed separatists" in the article. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I want to clarify that I was not insisting on the wording "Pro-Russian separatists", my question is which flag should we use for representing them. My suggestion is to use File:War flag of Novorussia.svg, since it was widely used among separatist militias in Ukraine during the War in Donbas, both in Donetsk and Luhansk, yet I can't find overwhelming evidence that it has been in use past 2015. CapLiber (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Add NATO and its member countries as belligerents

Dozens of military experts from such countries have boots on the ground. Why is North Korea added as belligerent under the argument that there are 'experts' on ground and wikipedia has been reluctant to describe all the aid Ukraine is receiving when there is confirmation of large groups of nationals from NATO countries to be operating in Ukraine (take the swedish group that was blown out around mid-year). 2806:107E:D:468C:BC74:7199:BF2C:1E3E (talk) 14:25, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Being discussed above. Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Combat 'boots on the ground'? NO. Advisors, yes. Not the same thing. 2603:6080:21F0:67F0:61B6:3857:A818:52EC (talk) 11:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

There are North Korean soldiers fighting in Ukraine, there are no NATO member countries fighting in Ukraine. Send military advisors and military aid isn't the same thing as being a belligerent. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@Terrainman: Even if there would be "NATO member countries fighting in Ukraine" it doesn't automatically mean that's involvement of NATO. Eurohunter (talk) 09:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Although that wasn't my point and is sort of off-topic, it is true that no NATO member country has soldiers fighting in Ukraine, but North Korea does. I would have to read the inclusion of NK as a beligerent discussion for more insight beyond this as to why NK was added as a belligerent, but boots on the ground seemed to be a major point. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 10:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Is there an international law definition of belligerency that would be applicable here? NK sends a small number of token soldiers who die as fodder whereas the US basically provides Ukraine's entire military arsenal + teaches them how to operate it. The latter is clearly far more impactful to the war yet the US gets a get-out-jail-card because of some legalese interpretation of what "belligerent" means. Also quite interestingly, Belarus is listed in the infobox despite not providing any soldiers. Odd to list Belarus but not the US/NATO. JDiala (talk) 08:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Please read some (of the many) discussions before on how we arrived at this decision (in short - soldiers fighting-belligerent, attack sorties from your soil - supporter). Several of those are archived or even on other threads on the current page. Arnoutf (talk) 10:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

The fact that discussions were had and a decision was reached does not mean I have to agree with it. The explanations given for why Belarus is more of a "supporter" to Russia than the US is to Ukraine are not convincing and consist of loads of OR from both sides as noted by the closer to this discussion. And, for the record, it seems that the last formal RfCs on including NATO and other Western arms-supplying parties to the infobox were in February 2022 (this and this), mere days after the start of the war, and one ended in no consensus with the closer explicitly suggesting further discussion. I think it might be worthy of re-litigation since the role the West has played in this war has only become more apparent three years later. JDiala (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

From both my searching and recollection the most recent RfC discussion touching on this was closed in November 2023 where the closer noted: Q: Do we need to add any other countries to the infobox? A: With thanks to RadioactiveBoulevardier for his stalwart, impassioned and rather well-argued case for this, other editors don't seem very persuaded, and there's no consensus to add anyone else to the article. We should also note that the term "supported by" has been deprecated (see template doc) but retaining Belarus here was a result of RfC linked in accordance with the RfC by which "supported by" was deprecated. Unless something has significantly changed and unless there is a reasonable indication that an RfC would succeed where it has not previously, opening a further RfC could be seen as disruptive. This discussion so far is not indicating a will to change. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

not convincing to YOU doesn't mean that consensus was not reached .... 2603:6080:2100:47CB:BC04:46E0:2998:13AA (talk) 05:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

True, you also have to convince everyone else. Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Then find a suitable name and add NATO too, or otherwise this only shows our hypocrisy. "Founders and logistics providers" maybe?

Pretty sure you would have gladly added NATO if the situation on the terrain were different. But how when Russia is dominating, right? Markomario (talk) 10:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Not sure what's with the lack of WP:AGF for the editor you're responding to, as they said nothing about the situation on the "terrain". I wouldn't call getting territory occupied by the country you're invading as we're seeing in Kursk at the moment "dominating" though.

As a non-extended confirmed editor you should keep in mind you're commenting in a contentious topic, WP:RUSUKR, where "Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Should disruption occur on "Talk:" pages, administrators may take enforcement actions". Assuming bad faith and talking about your own opinions about "domination" is not constructive.

Once we're seeing WP:RS telling us how Ukrainian soldiers are burning "NATO" faces to hide their involvement maybe you'll have a point. TylerBurden (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Hiding it is bad. Take this for example: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65245065 2001:B07:A3C:95AB:11C7:C052:F4F1:829E (talk) 09:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Wow, what is this, a childish joke or a serious web page where information are supported to be valid and correct? Without NATO Ukraine wouldn't exist anymore, but you refusing to add them as belligerents. Even though NATO trains troops, send money, send weapons, sends even officers to help Ukraine on the ground and provides endless logistics, you didn't add them? Providing logistics is nothing but participation in the war and you know this too. Who is coordinating launching atacms, Ukraine itself maybe? This war will end, but Wikipedia's reputation won't get back. All this only goes on Russian hand and they seem right when calling the West hypocritical. Markomario (talk) 09:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

When RS say they are actually involved in combat we can add them, that is what a belligerent is. Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Is there any factual evidence of NK involvement?

Other than sources from Seoul or Western countries media, is there clear evidence of NK troops in the conflict? I think there's the risk of falling in the classic propaganda exchange between the Koreas when it comes to fake news (examples are countless). And also in a time where Ukr is seeking military aid from Seoul.

Saw a video showing a couple of asian soldiers in the front but this wouldnt be telling taking that Russia houses various ethnicities.

Why did wilipedia jumped to add NK as belligerent based on a few articles?

Why dismiss Russian media as propaganda and take the Seoul & NATO sources as proof? 2806:107E:D:AA9A:537F:2734:A35C:C669 (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are based on what reliable sources say. We have reliable sources that say that North Korea is involved. If you have some reliable sources contradicting that view, please provide them here. There is nothing to discuss if sources are not provided. --McSly (talk) 02:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• "Other than sources from Seoul or Western countries media..." - You can't demand evidence and then dismiss nearly all of the evidence that actually exists on the spurious ground that it is reported by reliable sources based in North America, Europe, Japan, and South Korea. The sourcing supporting North Korea's involvement in the war was talked to death in the RFC on the matter, and includes media reports, intelligence agency output, and academic analysis. Since then a great deal of other information has come out including captured documents, video footage, and drone footage.

"Why dismiss Russian media as propaganda..." - Good question. The presence of North Korean troops was first reported by ASTRA Media, a Russian outlet. Reports of North Korean participation have also been put out by Kremlin-aligned Russian MilBloggers. Interestingly, I am not aware of any Russian media reports that North Koreans are *not* involved in the conflict - at present the Kremlin is not even denying the presence of North Koreans.

So we have credible reports of North Korean involvement from reliable sources in a number of different countries, carrying on for a period of months. We also have reports of North Korean involvement from media outlets in Russia. We also have the Kremlin not even denying their involvement. I have to ask whether you have any specific reports that cast doubt on the presence of North Koreans? FOARP (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Is there a policy of set of guidelines for determining what a co-belligerent is? LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

See WP:Verifiability. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

In not sure that helps I guess I was more asking what defines belligerency entails, I see from above discussions; weapons supplying isnt by consensus.

American Revolutionary War - Wikipedia

Lists Hessian and other German mercenaries as combatants. This might be an elegant way to present the information that sidesteps the need for a determination.

Assuming, of course, people agree that the sources supporting NK's being in Ukraine and verifiable I guess LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

As far as wikipedia is concerned its if RS say they are a belligerent. In practice trigger pulling by regular armed forces is the standard most of the world works to.145.40.145.144 (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@LeChatiliers Pupper - Whether or not North Korea is a combatant in this war is not a question for WP policy because that would require us to do original research on the topic. For our purposes it is sufficient that reliable sources state that they are a combatant in this war. Many, many sources were discussed as showing this in the RFC, but here's one just to illustrate this. FOARP (talk) 14:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Please introduce this into the article. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Im not suggesting OR and it doesnt require OR;

North Korean soldiers 'legitimate targets' for Ukrainian military, US official says

"They entered a war, and they are, as such, combatants and are legitimate targets for the Ukrainian military.  We have seen North Korean soldiers who have been killed in action on the battlefield inside Russia."

Zelenskyy to West: Let us hit North Korean troops in Russia – POLITICO

Ukraine’s partners should permit Kyiv to strike North Korean troops inside Russia, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on Saturday, as more than 10,000 combatants prepare to enter frontline combat.

South Korea’s Deepening Dilemma Over Ukraine – The Diplomat

The Times view on Russia’s use of foreign forces: Korea Move

Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, November 18, 2024 | Institute for the Study of War

No OR needed LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 19:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@LeChatiliers Pupper - to explain further, I am arguing against the idea that Wikipedia should have its own standard for what is/isn't an combatant. We don't, we rely on reliable sources to make that call for us. Creating our own standard would require OR. FOARP (talk) 13:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

And once again I am not asserting a standard merely providing an alternative remedy so that the page can convey information in a non contentious way LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 15:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

A, Russia is one country, not the media of many separate countries. B, No other country has laws relating to the reporting of this war (in fact in Russia you cannot (legally) even call it a war). C, its not only western sources [[1]]. Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

"B, No other country has laws relating to the reporting of this war (in fact in Russia you cannot (legally) even call it a war)"

Not entirely true:

"Two of Ukraine’s operational commands, in the country’s east and south, released new rules in March governing how media can operate in areas under their control."

"Under martial law, the Ukrainian government imposes certain restrictions on the work of journalists covering the war."

"Ukraine’s new media law has triggered controversy, dividing lawmakers and media professionals. Entering into force on March 31, the bill reforms Ukraine’s media landscape, specifically expanding the powers of the National Council for Television and Radio (NCTR) regulator to allow it to block outlets without a court ruling."

"Major networks pooled their resources into a shared daily programming roster known as the “United News” telemarathon, an arrangement that was soon codified into law and that numerous media-watchers initially saw as a positive development."

"Months after attacks on investigative journalists provoked a public outcry and condemnation, media still face different forms of pressure from authorities, according to Ukrainian editors and press freedom watchdogs interviewed by the Kyiv Independent.The most significant recent cases include censorship attempts and political interference at a state news agency, allegations of journalists being drafted for the war as retribution, and the de facto withdrawal of a Ukrainian public broadcaster from the controversial state-imposed and controlled television news programs called telemarathon."

Therefore yes, martial law in Ukraine limits both access and which stories Ukrainian journalists and news organisations are allowed to publish. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Technically those are not nationwide laws. Slatersteven (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

More to the point, it's totally irrelevant to the present discussion - North Korea is described as a combatant in this war because that's how reliable sources consistently describe them. Asking that Russian media's viewpoint be included misses the point that Russian media cannot report freely on the subject but anyway has carried reports supporting the idea that North Korea is a participant. FOARP (talk) 08:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Martial law is. But I used the qualifier "entirely" on purpose. Ukrainian news claims shouldn't be taken as fact, but independent WP:RS should be sought out. There is enough WP:RS outside of Ukraine to justify DPRK's inclusion in the infobox, so we are in agreement there. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 11:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Martial law is what? What claims of fact do we have sourced solely to Ukrainian news sources? Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

"Martial law is what?"

A law that applies in the whole country.

"What claims of fact do we have sourced solely to Ukrainian news sources?"

The start date of DPRK's involvement/belligerency. The article states that the DPRK has been a combatant since October, while the Pentagon and other sources relying on US officials have DPRK involvement starting in December. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Ahh I see, yes Ukriane has SOME restrictions (that seem to relate to operational information) I agree, they do not (however) have laws saying what you can say, only what you can report. Russia has laws on what you can say. And we do not base this solely on what Ukrainian sources say. Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Ukraine just released a video where they interrogate a wounded DPRK soldier. According to people they are speaking a DPRK dialect and the accent is correct. He was captured in Kursk, so it seems that DPRK troops are fighting Ukraine in Kursk. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

References

question

Non-relevant discussion about a different topic.

"The International Criminal Court (ICC) opened an investigation into crimes against humanity, war crimes, abduction of Ukrainian children, and genocide against Ukrainians. The ICC issued arrest warrants for Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova and for four Russian military officials." why don't issued arrest warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu? Khokhar1977 (talk) 06:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. FOARP (talk) 08:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Israel is not involved in this war. Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I would 'hat' this as it is a forum-violation and also crazy. 2603:6080:2100:5674:9C82:D642:E678:EC5F (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I am collapsing this discussion now. Peaceray (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 January 2025

Where is the United States putting millions of sanctions on Russia before the invasion 2605:8D80:401:C7DF:8D9C:7D56:155D:43A4 (talk) 06:30, 12 January 2025 (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. SK2242 (talk) 09:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Russian invasion of Ukraine#Russian offensives and Ukrainian incursion (April 2023 – present)

@Slatersteven: The timeline text is incorrect, the relevant section being one above, under the heading Battle of Avdiivka. Nothing in the section covers anything before April 2024, while the preceding sections do. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 17:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

2024

Since when has December 2023 been in the middle of 2024? Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Please see my above comment. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 17:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)