Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Redundancy in BBC Casualty Figures Sentence

Under the "Casualty" section there is the sentence "BBC News has reported that Ukrainian reports of Russian casualty figures included the injured."

I believe this is redundant because it's commonly understood that casualty figures include both the dead and the injured. Specifying that the figures "included the injured" provides no informational value. IStalingrad (talk) 08:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

UNsure that is true. Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

It is. Casualties refers to deaths and injuries. Here's the OED definition for example: a person killed or injured in a war or accident. I've removed the statement because it is wholly redundant. As an aside, the sources are from the early months of the war (March-April 2022), they're really out-dated with regards casualty and fatality figures anyway. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Yet the BBC saw the need to point this out, thus implying it was not how they were being presented. However the point about these being outdated is better. Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it is worth considering the context of the BBC articles. The reason the author is underlining the fact that the term casualty includes injuries is that this article is specifically about determining the number of Russian fatalities. It's not that Ukraine is presenting the casualty figure as total deaths, just that the author is trying to estimate total deaths from available figures, and that included Ukraine's casualty estimates as an upper bound of possible deaths. The figures available to the author were: 6,000 claimed by Russia, 25,000 confirmed dead by the BBC, 40-60,000 dead according to the British government, and 200,000 total casualties according to Ukraine. It made sense for the author to clarify directly to the reader that the last figure includes injured given that context, but it was decontextualized here creating the redundancy since we weren't communicating those articles' purpose (to estimate loss of life). Mr rnddude (talk) 14:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

should north korea be listed beside belarus in the 'supported by' section

north korea has said it will put troops on the battlefield to help out in support roles NotQualified (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

They already sent weapons, ammo and supposedly tanks, but that kind of support does not qualiy to be included on this list. NK troops in my opinion should. YBSOne (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/06/27/ukraine-russia-war-latest-news9/ NotQualified (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I think we have to wait and see if reports of them arriving at the frontlines emerge, but then they would become beligerents. YBSOne (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

In short NO (at this time). Weapons suppliers have not been listed as supporter (many European and American countries have supported Ukraine this way), nor have been trainers. If you look back at this talk (and its archives) there has been extensive discussion whether to list Belarus at all - and the fact that it allowed Russia to organise attacks from its country was decisive there (this is obviously not the case for N Korea). Of course if we see regular N Korean troops engaged in the frontlines this may change, but that seems unlikely so far. Arnoutf (talk) 21:15, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

It will also depend on the nature of that troops deployment as the "urban rebuilders" may be just a smoke screen for now. YBSOne (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

See talk page archive, for every reason not to. Nothing has changed since the last time this was raised. When troops see combat this can be changed. Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

No. NK is much less engaged on the Russian side than the US and Europe are on the Ukrainian side. BTW, I'd remove Belarus, too, because no Belarusian forces ever took part in combat against Ukraine. We're an impartial encyclopaedia, not a propaganda outlet. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

please do not confuse two issues. Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

They are mentioned as support for the use of their territory to launch an attack from. YBSOne (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

What you are referencing took place during the first ~40 days of a now ~2.5 year-long war. This epheremal use of Belarusian territory by Russian forces does not justify the infobox implying that Belarus has continuously provided this form of "support" from 2022 onward; we should aim to avoid this perception. I reiterate my call for a compromise based on the inclusion of a parenthetical qualifier:

Russia

• Donetsk PR
• Luhansk PR

Supported by:

Belarus (2022)

SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 10:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Different issues, Belarus is not North Korea, this is about NK not Belarus. Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

This is a reply to YBSOne's comment about Belarus. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 11:03, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

No, its a reply to this " This epheremal use of Belarusian territory by Russian forces does not justify the infobox implying that Belarus has continuously provided this form of "support" from 2022 onward; we should aim to avoid this perception. I reiterate my call for a compromise based on the inclusion of a parenthetical qualifier:", this is not about Belarus, so please stop trying to make it about it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

There is a clear note "Russian forces were permitted to stage part of the invasion from Belarusian territory. Belarusian territory has also been used to launch missiles into Ukraine. See also: Belarusian involvement in the Russian invasion of Ukraine", no need to explain it further or tag it in different way. YBSOne (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Do we have evidence that Belarus has greenlit the use of its territory to launch missiles into Ukraine? As far as I know, they were isolated incidents only, not routine combat, and Russian army was only permitted to assemble in Belarus but never to fire at Ukraine from Belarusian soil. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Belarus has been discussed may time sand the consensus is to include it. here ism a link to the RFC [[1]], nothing has changed since then. Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

7 Aug 2024 Kursk incursion article?

I assume that by now we have 20kb of text on today's Kursk incursion, despite the near lack of WP:RS, in a new article. What is the article's name? Or is there only a subsection so far? Boud (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC) (edit Boud (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC))

August 2024 Kursk Oblast incursion. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Seems like I was right about 20kb, though it was really only a wild guess. Boud (talk) 02:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

March 2024 western Russia incursion and Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (1 August 2024 – present)#6 August seem to be the closest that I could find. Boud (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

One source: AJE - not enough for a new article. Boud (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

That is the issue, its kind of a Russian claim. Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Mearsheimer critique

Mearsheimer views on Russian war are widely criticized - you could read it in John Mearsheimer if it would not be removed [2] . Thus Mearsheimer assessments here should be followed with assessments of his assessments. Which would make all of it too much for this article. Better to not to have Mearsheimer at all.

This is regarding latest edits [3] . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy with including criticisms of Mearsheimer. That would be balanced. What I don't want is the total exclusion of Mearsheimer altogether, which was the previous consensus position for the article. The man is one of the most well-known, oft-discussed political scientists in the modern era. To dismiss him altogether simply because he doesn't tout the "Russia-bad" narrative editors here seem to endorse is a blatant violation of neutrality.

"Which would make all of it too much for this article" let's be honest, this is just a rationalization to avoid including anything which could give the appearance of criticism of Ukraine/NATO. It wouldn't be "too much" for the article, you could fit in his position and counters to it within one or two sentences. The POV pushing in this topic area is remarkable. JDiala (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The sentence referencing Mearsheimer doesn't even require criticism. It's non-controversial. Chino-Catane (talk) 06:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

It is simultaneously the case that Mearsheimer is a significantly notable enough commentator that his analysis should be included; and that Mearsheimer's analysis on Ukraine has been widely criticized as being absolutely bunk. So no, it would not be better to not have him at all, unless we cannot do so without giving him undue weight or shielding from criticism; in which case it would actually be better. It's much the same as we should be doing for every other formerly respected academic who subsequently dived face-first into the "crank" pool (e.g. Theodore Postol on Syria) ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Either way fits the rules. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Several of your sources are incredibly low-quality. One is some random from the Ayn Rand Institute (lol). One is a journalist without professional scholarly background (Katie Stallard). One is Carl Liles, some random unknown master's student from the University of Tartu (also lol). The others are more respected --- but of course scholarly disagreements between respected scholars are not unusual. While Mearsheimer does have provocative views on many topics, there is no evidence indicating he's regarded as a "crank." JDiala (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment, but if what you're pushing for is for Mearsheimer's views to be included, then they have to come with appropriately sufficient context for how widely criticized he's been in the context of Ukraine, which may be more than just fitting in his position and counters to it within one or two sentences. To not do so would be giving his position undue weight and be just as blatant of a violation of neutrality as the one you were complaining about above. If we can't do that, then they shouldn't be there at all. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

If you think it's a due weight issue, a full survey of the field might be in order. I personally don't have the time to carry it out, but there are others active on this TP who have the wherewithal. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

For a more reliable source I would recommend a well-researched and fairly well sourced video that thoroughly debunks Mearsheimer and others' claims in regards to the invasion, though it is not all that polite.

here A Miscellaneous Scholar (talk) 05:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Better sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Irrespective of controversies over his larger framework, Mearsheimer's specific thesis on the Ukraine invasion (that it was the West's fault because Putin was trying to negotiate in good faith, and it could have been avoided with a pledge to keep Ukraine out of NATO) is shared by very few other scholars.

Actually, I think the page currently leans too far in the Realist direction by exclusively discussing military and diplomatic history in the "background" and "prelude" sections. Liberal researchers like Timothy Snyder argue that the invasion resulted from ideological and political evolutions within Russia itself, not just relations between Russia and other powers. GordonGlottal (talk) 22:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

So why not mention this in 1-2 sentences? Chino-Catane (talk) 06:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• I think small section "Motives for invasion" is out of place and undue on this page. This is not a part of "Background". These are questionable speculations by a couple of cherry-picked authors on why exactly Putin decided to attack Ukraine. This is an interesting question, but it is already covered at length in several sections of another page, Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. There were several justifications by Putin and others: Denying Ukrainian statehood, an emergence of "right forces", genocide by Ukrainians accusations and of course the expansion of NATO. One of the cherry-picked authors (Mearsheimer) focuses on the last reason, "the root cause of the invasion to a U.S.-led effort to develop Ukraine into a liberal democracy and integrate it into the EU and NATO", which is basically a well known motif of Putinist propaganda. Yes, it needs to be described somewhere, but it was described already on another page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

In other words, this author is telling [4] that the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Russia was fully justified, and that the justification was one provided by Putin. Author does not hide that his view is contrary to the mainstream views on this subject. Moreover, he is saying obvious nonsense, such as Putin was not bent on the occupation of Ukraine. How come when Russia has officially annexed all these territories (and Crimea) and included them to Russian Federation? This is such an obvious WP:FRINGE or propaganda. So, I am saying this page is not a proper place for including WP:FRINGE and debunking it. Only page Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine is. My very best wishes (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not WP:FRINGE. The viewpoint that NATO expansion bears some degree of responsibility for the war is a minority view, but not totally outside the mainstream discourse. JDiala (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Speaking on the essence of this (and as described in many sources), Ukraine had absolutely zero chance to be accepted to NATO before the invasion, and Putin knew it. And even now, it has very low chance to be accepted to NATO. My very best wishes (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

"Putin knew it": A living political figure's private thoughts and what they "knew" are generally not regarded as productive avenues of academic research. Chino-Catane (talk) 07:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Russo-Ukrainian War started in 2014. A new state during a war and with an unresolved territorial dispute could not be accepted to NATO. Everyone knew it, not just Putin. In fact, by starting the low-intensity conflict in 2014, Putin effectively prevented Ukraine from accession to NATO. Putin is also well aware that NATO will not attack Russia. That's why he withdraw nearly all Russian forces from the border with Finland and sent them to Ukraine. My very best wishes (talk) 15:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

"out of place and undue on this page": I don't see how it is "out of place and undue" to include a short section presenting motives for invasion in an article titled "Russian invasion of Ukraine". It seems that you have a problem with a particular individual. What is your qualm with the sentence, "Neorealist scholar John Mearsheimer assigned the root cause of the invasion to a U.S.-led effort to develop Ukraine into a liberal democracy and integrate it into the EU and NATO."? Chino-Catane (talk) 07:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not opposed to including some content on the subject of "Why Putin invaded Ukraine", but it should be focused on mainstream views, for example as summarized by the Institute for the Study of War, i.e. [5]. If this will be just a brief summary, then Mearsheimer simply does not belong there per WP:FRINGE.

According to ISW:

Russian President Vladimir Putin didn’t invade Ukraine in 2022 because he feared NATO. He invaded because he believed that NATO was weak, that his efforts to regain control of Ukraine by other means had failed, and that installing a pro-Russian government in Kyiv would be safe and easy. His aim was not to defend Russia against some non-existent threat but rather to expand Russia’s power, eradicate Ukraine’s statehood, and destroy NATO, goals he still pursues.

This is mainstream view on this subject.My very best wishes (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I tried to include it (and was reverted), but it is indeed a question how exactly this should be framed on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

How is the sentence, "Neorealist scholar John Mearsheimer assigned the root cause of the invasion to a U.S.-led effort to develop Ukraine into a liberal democracy and integrate it into the EU and NATO.", even remotely controversial, especially when it is immediately followed by the presentation of a perspective that is probably praised by most of the editors of this article? There does not need to be any critical assessment whatsoever of that first sentence. Your suggestion that the presentation of a single individual's very reasonable view requires an "assessment of the assessment" is utterly ridiculous. Chino-Catane (talk) 06:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

If nothing else, even using the label “realist” or “neorealist” without proper context and explanation is kind of POV, since it implies those that disagree with him are “unrealistic” (in practice of course the exactly the opposite turned out to be true) Volunteer Marek 07:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is ridiculous. These are schools of thought in international relations. A link to the page on realism or neorealism is adequate context for the correct meaning of these words. JDiala (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's ridiculous. It's not clear to me whether he's a "realist" or "neorealist", or what he's more often referred to in sources as an "offensive realist"; so just applying the label without context, even with a wikilink, doesn't really tell me anything about *why* Mearsheimer is associated with those schools of thought, or why the label is relevant to this article (which is not actually about Mearsheimer anyway). ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree with providing more descriptive description or omitting those narrow academic terms. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I will remove this and we can discuss the wording here. Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm looking at the structure and wording of the edit. I think if we want a section about the motivation behind the invasion, we can't start by immediately mentioning Mearsheimer's view, as he is a controversial figure. This would be WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. We would need at least some sort of introduction describing the landscape of such discussions. As mentioned by other editors, a lot of this is discussed in the article Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which talks about all of the justifications used (often contradictory) by Russia. BeŻet (talk) 09:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Map

Hi

We should have an alternate map with Ukraine+Kursk Oblast. Panam2014 (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

This is not the place for map discussion; there's already a discussion about such an issue here. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 15:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Infobox: Russian invasion of Ukraine

I noticed that the map legend currently says "Formerly occupied by Russia," but it uses the same color to indicate areas where Ukraine has advanced into internationally recognized Russian territory. To reflect this accurately, I suggest updating the legend to: "Formerly occupied by Russia (includes areas now occupied by Ukraine in Russia)" or using a different color for areas now occupied by Ukraine in Russia.

Thank you! M.K.Dan (talk) 00:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Done (changed to "Formerly occupied by Russia or Ukrainian-occupied Russian territory") for now until better colors are used in the article's map. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 00:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Typo

There's a typo under International aspects -> foreign involvement -> Ukraine support. The section reads:

NATO members such as Germany reversed policied against providing offensive military aid to support Ukraine

I guess it's supposed to be 'policies' instead. Atanásio (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks, Mr rnddude (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

PP

Will we need PP? Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I already requested it. Jdcomix (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

So, yes we did. Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Human Rights Abuses?

Sorry if this this is consider by Wikipedia editors to be overly-direct and to the point, but is not the section on human rights outrages shamelessly one-sided, unbalanced and anti-Russian? For have not the Ukrainians bombed civilians and used civilian buildings as fire bases?

2.27.2.80 (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

shamelessly what? Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out - I will update. 2.27.2.80 (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Sources? Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You just need to read the UN charter and Geneva Convention. So far in the war, Ukraine has acted within the scope of allowed attacks, and yes. Given the obstacles war brings and, especially cowardly Russian tactics and civilian neglection, including of its own, it is not ot always possible to avoid civilians, that may just pass by a military airfield or a command post. Also there is difference whether it targeted or an intentional homicideor not. Yet, it is all being investigated anyways by the presence of the ICC, which actually is still not ratified. Though, today Zelenskyy did submit ratification documents to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.

Also there is a more deliberate answer here:

"When civilians die unintentionally as a result of a military attack targeting a legitimate military objective, such as a command post, it is generally referred to as collateral damage.

Collateral damage occurs when non-combatants or civilian infrastructure are unintentionally harmed during military operations directed at legitimate military targets. While collateral damage is not illegal under international law, the principles of distinction, proportionality, and necessity must be followed to minimize harm to civilians." AlasdarVan (talk) 05:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 11 August 2024

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 to the proposed titles at this time, per the discussion below. While several comments focused specifically on the suggested move of this particular article, the discussion as a whole shows consensus against making all of the moves proposed here. Dekimasuよ! 05:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

---

• Russian invasion of Ukraine → Timeline of the Russo-Ukrainian War (2022–present)
• Aerial warfare in the Russian invasion of Ukraine → Aerial warfare in the Russo-Ukrainian War
• Attacks on civilians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine → Attacks on civilians in the Russo-Ukrainian War
• Naval warfare in the Russian invasion of Ukraine → Naval warfare in the Russo-Ukrainian War
• Nuclear risk during the Russian invasion of Ukraine → Nuclear risk during the Russo-Ukrainian War
• Foreign involvement in the Russian invasion of Ukraine → Foreign involvement in the Russo-Ukrainian War
• List of deaths during the Russian invasion of Ukraine → List of deaths during the Russo-Ukrainian War
• Prisoners of war in the Russian invasion of Ukraine → Prisoners of war in the Russo-Ukrainian War
• War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine → War crimes in the Russo-Ukrainian War
• Humanitarian impacts of the Russian invasion of Ukraine → Humanitarian impacts of the Russo-Ukrainian War
• Peace negotiations in the Russian invasion of Ukraine → Peace negotiations in the Russo-Ukrainian War

– Comparing the way Wikipedia currently covers the war compared to reliable sources such as Encyclopedia Britannica, War on the Rocks, and Harvard, the reporting on the war by Wikipedia is quite different. Sources generally agree that the Russo-Ukrainian War started in 2014 but its main phase/escalation has been ongoing since 2022. Reliable sources generally do not use "Russian invasion of Ukraine" as the primary term for the war in its post-2022 phase: "Russo-Ukrainian War", or variants of that like "Ukraine-Russia war" (Sky News), "Ukraine war" (BBC News), are overwhelmingly the main term used. Encyclopedia Britannia has "Russian invasion of Ukraine" as a subsection of the article referring to the period from initial invasion up to around the Battle of Kyiv but uses different sections for events since then; importantly, very few reliable sources use the phrase "Russian invasion of Ukraine" for any recent events so it is simply misleading to use that title to for the catch-all sub-article about all of the events of the Russo-Ukrainian War since 2022.

For this reason, I think it's necessary to move this article (Russian invasion of Ukraine) to be clear that its scope is to serve as a sub-article of Russo-Ukrainian War to describe the events since 2022 in greater detail- and following a move, there would also be a good argument for restructuring this article, moving some content to the main Russo-Ukrainian War article and other articles.

The necessity of a move has become especially clear with the recent Ukrainian invasion of Russia which is clearly a part of the war but not part of the "Russian invasion of Ukraine", but there are also other events in the war which don't fall under the "Russian invasion of Ukraine" umbrella (e.g. the counteroffensive in Kherson, the Kerch Bridge bombing, etc), so overall as this article has grown over time and events have occurred, the present title has become steadily less accurate even aside from its lack of use by reliable sources. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 18:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. Per WP:COMMONNAME Adriazeri (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Exceptional evidence would be needed to show that the WP:COMMONNAME of the Russian invasion of Ukraine is not "Russian invasion of Ukraine". Also, let's just consider we did move to "Timeline of the Russo-Ukrainian War (2022–present)". Then what would happen to all the pages in Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Would we label them, for instance, "Timeline of the Timeline of the Russo-Ukrainian War (2022-present) (24 February – 7 April 2022)"? That would simply not work. Ultimately, this RM should not have dealt with so many topics all together. For example, the Aerial warfare in the Russian invasion of Ukraine should not renamed to the proposed title, simply because it only deals with aerial warfare during the invasion, so there is no reason to make the scope unclear. As for the "Ukrainian invasion of Russia", this is, in fact, part of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I will also note that the invasion is treated by RS's as an event, not simply as part of a timeline (as the proposed title would imply). It is also clear that the scope of this article is far beyond that of a timeline. Gödel2200 (talk) 20:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Comment No evidence is provided by this user for the claim that the WP:COMMONNAME for the war since 2022 is "Russian invasion of Ukraine", whereas I provided WP:RS showing that that term "Russian invasion of Ukraine" was largely only used in early 2022 and is not used for the war in its current phase. Do you have any sources to back up your claim? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 21:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

There are multiple problems with using the sources provided in the initial response. Certainly, the first says "Ukraine-Russia war", and the second says "Ukraine war". But why would that mean that these outlets are referring to the invasion as such? They can label their coverage as the whole war, but that absolutely does not mean they are saying the "Russian invasion of Ukraine" is one and the same as the "Ukraine-Russia war", for instance. It is indisputable that RS's consider the invasion to be an event deserving separation from prior events. If you wanted to bring up the topic of whether, for example, we should be omitting some information from this article because it is not part of the invasion, that is a different discussion. Gödel2200 (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

This article is a broad overview of the Russo-Ukrainian War during its main phase between 2022 and the present; it is not primarily about the initial invasion in the first few months. The sub-articles which I propose moving also cover the entire war between 2022 and now, not just the initial invasion. Reliable sources which refer to the "Russian invasion of Ukraine" use that term for only the first few months in early 2022- so to remove information from outside that period would be to remove the vast majority of this article, which is obviously not desirable.

There are other options for titles this article, e.g. Russo-Ukrainian War (2022–present) or Overview of the Russo-Ukrainian War (2022–present), but the fact is that this article is about a period of the war covering two and a half years whereas RS usage of the term "Russian invasion of Ukraine" outside of the few months of Russian advances in 2022 is not widespread, so the current title is misleading and doesn't follow sources. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 22:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, we could be having the discussion of whether or not to create new articles, and split this article. For instance, creating an article titled "Russo-Ukrainian War (2022-present)", and restricting the information contained in the article for the invasion (I will note that I am opposed to this). But that would be an entirely different discussion from the one we are having now. There was an invasion, whether you think the current phase of fighting should be called an invasion or not. The fact that some sources are now referring to the fighting ongoing right now without using "invasion" does not mean the invasion which started two and a half years ago should no longer be called an invasion. Gödel2200 (talk) 22:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the initial invasion two and a half of years ago shouldn't be called an invasion, but that this article is not primarily about the initial invasion. If this article were moved to another title, in theory I wouldn't oppose a split to create a new article at Russian invasion of Ukraine about the invasion in early 2022.

This article is currently essentially a summary/sub-article of Russo-Ukrainian War describing the progress of the entire war since 2022- it is just incorrectly titled. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 23:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the initial invasion two and a half of years ago shouldn't be called an invasion, but that this article is not primarily about the initial invasion. Well, yes, the article certainly is not primarily about the initial invasion. But we should remember that the invasion never ended, it is still ongoing. As far as I can tell, sources are not saying: "The invasion lasted up until this point, after which it is no longer an invasion." This is why it doesn't make sense to make a separate article for the initial invasion, and title the rest of it something else. Gödel2200 (talk) 01:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but sources don't tend to use the term "invasion" beyond the initial months even if the invasion never ended, so if we are to reflect the usage of reliable sources for the article title, using the current title to cover the entire period from 2022 until now is inaccurate. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 09:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The main problem with using sources like this is because both the invasion and the Russo-Ukrainian war are ongoing. The fact that some sources use "Russia-Ukraine war" doesn't mean they are saying the invasion ended; they could just be referring to the war in its larger context. If we were to label the fighting ongoing right now as something other than part of the invasion, we would need a consensus of sources explicitly saying that the fighting right now should not be called part of the invasion. Gödel2200 (talk) 13:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

We have an overwhelming consensus of sources that are clear that the fighting that has been ongoing for the last two years is part of the Russo-Ukrainian War (or a variant thereof). We very much do not have a consensus of sources using "Russian invasion of Ukraine" as the primary name covering the entire war during the period from 2022 until now. Therefore, if we are to follow sources, the title of this article should clearly be some form/derivative of "Russo-Ukrainian War".

It's also worth noting that not all reliable sources even use the term "Russo-Ukrainian War" for the period since 2014- some of them only use it for the post-2022 period (e.g. Al Jazeera). Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 18:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Per the well made points made by Gödel2200. --TylerBurden (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, This article is not a timeline but still needs a specific phase name to describe it. The most common name besides Russo-Ukrainian War is currently in use. I also have to agree with Gödel2200, the Ukrainian invasion of Russia is currently not significant enough in the grand scheme of things to require large rescoping. Simply, that point is pretentious. ✶Quxyz✶ 21:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose this isnt the Russo-Ukrainian war, this is the Russian Invasion of Ukraine Lukt64 (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - No, this is not just a timeline of the war. Moreover, per Gödel2200, we would then have to rename many other articles downstream (unnecessarily), which could get messy fast. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 22:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: while the titling of "Russian invasion of Ukraine" may seem to you to imply that this article, from a grammatical point of view, only covers the initial invasion, that is of course not the case as the WP:COMMONNAME often refers to the "invasion" being the period of the Russo-Ukrainian War from Feb. 2022 onward, (just look at any news outlet's coverage of the subject) including any operations outside Ukraine, despite the scope the name may imply. The title, at least in my view, does not deter us from covering any Ukrainian incursions or non-Ukrainian spillover matters, as for one I already added content about the August incursion in this article without anyone taking issue, and Ukrainian strikes on Russian territory and other "non-invasion" matters are covered by articles in this topic; sufficient sourcing was not provided to prove that events after the battle of Kyiv (the "initial" invasion) or engagements outside Ukraine are not covered under the topic of the "Russian invasion of Ukraine". Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment The claim the WP:COMMONNAME often refers to the "invasion" being the period of the Russo-Ukrainian War from Feb. 2022 onward needs citation. As far as I can tell, reliable sources do not use the term "Russian invasion of Ukraine" for the war as a whole but only for the initial invasion in the first few months (as outlined above). Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 23:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, the scope of all these articles is the 2022+ invasion, not the 2014+ war. Rename without rescoping makes no sense to me. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose The scope of an article is defined by the lead section of the article in conjunction with the title. The invasion (2022+) is part of the Russo-Ukraine War (2014+). The scope of these articles is 2022+ not 2014+ and the Russian invasion of Ukraine article is more than a timeline. The proposal breaks more than it fixes and I don't see there is anything that needs to be fixed. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. The main article is not a time line. And a timeline article already exists. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 04:28, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment I think a lot of these "not a timeline" comments miss the entire point of the RM, which is that "Russian invasion of Ukraine" is not the common term for the war between 2022 and now. The current title doesn't even include the word "war"; this is very obviously a war. If you don't agree with the proposal to have this article be an overview timeline, this doesn't mean the current titles of all of the articles in question are at all accurate. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 10:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, this is not a timeline. Moreoever, the sources do not follow the clear distinction given. The Britannica page Russia-Ukraine War dates the start of the war to 2014 and to 2022 in different places. CMD (talk) 04:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment It might be snowing here? Cinderella157 (talk) 07:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose they are still invading, they are still invaders. YBSOne (talk) 11:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose As there was an invasion, now rewrites is another issue, but we do need an article about the initial invasion. Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support What is it called by sources? A quick check on a leading media outlet gives "Russia-Ukraine war updates". I won't bother with further checks because I know what the result will be. An equally quick check here shows that some editors appear to be taking sides in the war, which is what the current title is doing. Wars generally have names that are neutral even though one side is the bad guy - Falklands War, First World War, Vietnam War, The War of Jenkins' Ear. There are of course two sides to any war anyway, so neutrality is even more important. Invasions are not the same as wars, they are generally quicker and more specific and often part of a war, if they don't achieve their aim quickly. !940 was a German invasion of France, not the 1940 Frano-German war but had it gone on longer it would have been called a war. This war stopped being an invasion by March 2022. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 13:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  I don't necessarily disagree; on the other hand, quite a few media push the phrase full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which is actually the Ukrainian official narrative (they present the 2014 Crimea annexation as a limited-scale invasion of Ukraine). So, until we have a consensus how to name this armed conflict, incl. on whether to use that Ukrainian phrase at all, it will be difficult to separate the war from the invasions. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: I think changing the title would oversimplify a complex event. It's more than just a timeline. Waqar💬 15:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose A timeline seems to be already present here: (Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine). I think its important to have a comprehensive piece covering the ongoing invasion itself, that is separate from it and the Russo-Ukrainian War article, which describes the greater conflict since 2014. "Russian invasion" is also a very frequently used and common term in for example German media. But also used alongside Russia-Ukraine War etc. internationally. The invasion hasn't ceased. So, technically it isn't wrong. I get your point but in my opinion, for the first two above mentioned reasons its not necessary to change the title. Maybe the articles require improvement as suggested by others, but that's a different topic.TheMightyGeneral (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose – I understand that the present structure of these articles is confusing, but I do not think that the proposer's solution will be an improvement. Previous experience dealing with this cluster of articles suggests that a reorganisation will be required once the conflict itself settles down or moves into some kind of new phase. At this stage, however, without the benefit of any established historiography, I do not think we are able to make any good decision. Therefore, I oppose this proposal. RGloucester — ☎ 01:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose This isn't a correct characterization of the common name. Most sources describe the escalation following February 2022 as an invasion. JDiala (talk) 07:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Namely, the main article doesn't work as a timeline. Scu ba (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Opposed - For the same reasons made by Gödel2200. Like seriously, what a terrible proposal. EmilePersaud (talk) 02:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Note - why "timeline", without timeline i would support it Braganza (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment @Braganza I proposed "Timeline" because I couldn't think of any better alternative to the current title, but that wasn't the main intent behind the RM at all. The main proposal is avoiding using "invasion" for titles of articles covering a period beyond the initial invasion in spring 2022.

I find it strange that most editors are only discussing that one "timeline" word whilst ignoring all other aspects of this RM. I'm quite happy to withdraw proposing "timeline" for inclusion in this article's title and focus on the rest of the issues with using "invasion" in the titles of articles covering the entire war over a period far beyond the spring 2022 invasion. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 21:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose One of the most bizarre suggested moves I have seen, as "Timeline" does not at all describe this article. Ultimograph5 (talk) 21:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment - I think it is about time to SNOW close this. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 22:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I thought that a while ago. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose just no. Great Mercian (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose there is already a timeline, see WP:SNOW.

JohnAdams1800 (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose This article isn't a timeline (Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and its subarticles are however), and the other proposed titles are too broad for the articles' scope.

Glades12 (talk) 07:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support Since Ukraine has now invaded Russia the title is surely out of date. This will still be true if Ukraine withdraws from Russia before Russia withdraws from Ukraine. Robert Brockway (talk) 08:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per other users, this page would not work as a timeline. This is definitely WP:SNOW territory, can we get a close? -HappyWith (talk) 11:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per the many reasons given by other users. – Treetoes023 (talk) 02:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I think this is a good proposal, however, as RGloucester notes, we need to rearrange all of our articles on this topic. I think this proposal would make more sense at a future date, and we would have to be careful about it, as the 2022 invasion is a whole new phase of the war, breaking the Minsk accords, which the invasion broke. IntrepidContributor (talk) 05:13, 19 August 2024 (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 used too many times

The yellow, red and blue map of territorial control is used on way too many articles about the war. For example, the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive article has one of these maps despite Ukraine not having recaptured that territory during the counteroffensive. Are there not any better available thumbnails? The Russian Winter Offensive in Ukraine (2022–2023) article also has that same map as the thumbnail despite the offensive only being localized in northern Donetsk Oblast.Maxsmart50 (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Should we add Ukraine’s incursion to the map?

I know that we have another article about that, but the incursion is still part of Ukraine’s efforts to fight back against the Russian invasion, so I feel like we should update the map to feature the incursion.

Source: https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-kursk-fighting-80671ef80c36b94dc1114506770cdd56 LordOfWalruses (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

No, as this is not about any invasion of Russia. Slatersteven (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Well it is about the invasion of Ukraine (as this is a Ukrainian attack meant to strike back at and stretch out Russia’s forces invading Ukraine). LordOfWalruses (talk) 21:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I came here for this very reason--to see what they were going to do about that map. I think Ukraine's response is well within scope, and they should add a 4th color. I propose green, for no other reason than it looking good with the other colors. 2604:2D80:CC12:0:E8CE:E6E4:D343:FC06 (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree on all points; all I would add is that the shade of green should be the same general shade as the other colors on the map. LordOfWalruses (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Although they didn't use green, they did add the incursion in light blue and I find this satisfactory. It achieves the goal of showing the incursion, its size, and location in context with reclaimed and occupied territory. The border is sufficient to distinguish Ukraine-occupied Russia from reclaimed territory. 173.22.131.171 (talk) 06:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it's too soon. Let's wait a bit to see how it unfolds. Plus, as mentioned in the thread above, there's an article about the incursion in Kursk already. Rolando 1208 (talk) 21:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. LordOfWalruses (talk) 21:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Belarus

I think it's time to remove Belarus from the infobox, here [6] is my reasoning. Rolando 1208 (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. There's no doubt Belarus significantly supported Russia in the initial invasion, but that was two and a half years ago and to say that Russia is still substantially supported by Belarus now is misleading. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

that was two and a half years ago and to say that Russia is still substantially supported by Belarus now is misleading
I thought that but found out that fresh academic sources still mention Belarus as belligerent so our article should follow sources. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

NOT again, have we just to come out of one of these discussions? Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Have we though? The last RfC was 9 months ago!! I think it's time to reconsider it. Rolando 1208 (talk) 12:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

OK, lets have another RFC. But word the question carefully, as not everyone who took part in WW2 was there form beginning to end, but are still listed as belligerents. Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know how RfCs work. I'm just leaving this is in here so that a more experienced editor can start one. Rolando 1208 (talk) 12:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Is an RfC really necessary? Does the explanatory footnote specifying that Belarusian support was really only during the initial invasion not suffice? Removing the mention altogether wouldn't be much better as Russia was substantially supported by Belarus early on, and thus deserves a mention, just not as a full "always has supported". Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I mean it's mentioned in the rest of the article isn't it? But to have it in the infobox seems like too much. Rolando 1208 (talk) 12:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is mentioned in the rest of the article, otherwise it wouldn't be in the infobox; why is having it in the infobox "too much" as long as the footnote clarifying support being largely exclusive to the initial invasion remains? Though it is definitely misleading to have the mention if the reader doesn't read the footnote, there is no "initial Russian invasion of Ukraine" article where Belarus would instead be an obvious inclusion, so any support which was given in the initial invasion should be given more weight in my view. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 13:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I think a good solution to this problem was given in the preceeding discussion. We can simply add (2022) around where we mention Belarus' support, as that was when they allowed Russia to invade through their territory. Gödel2200 (talk) 14:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

To illustrate, direct military support only logistical maybe not now, Terratorial support not now, support in committing war crimes maybe, political support yes, economic support yes. THere may be other areas they still offer support as well. Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Economic support how? Belarus has a much smaller economy. It's actually the other way around, Russia gave money to Belarus to support their economy. I'm not sure what you mean by political support? Belarus hasn't been involved in the war for more than two years. And Belarusian people don't seem to support this war either. Most importantly the army hasn't joined the Russians during this whole time. Basically the involvement only happened in 2022, after that, Belarus has been a neutral party in this war. Meanwhile you have other countries who currently sell weapons to Russia and they're not even mentioned in the infobox. Rolando 1208 (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

OLd, but this is what I mean [[7]] have to arms sales and coperation ended? Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Less old [[8]], neither of these are usable, but they do not give the impression there is still ongoing cooperation, in the military, economic and polcrial fields. Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you have one for 2024? Even the "less old one" doesn't seem very conclusive. Belarus' involvement is very clear in 2022 but after that the most we get is speculation (and possibly even original research). I'd say we remove it from the infobox, if Belarus gets involved again, we can put it back in there. @Kashmiri and @SaintPaulOfTarsus, what do you think about my proposal? Rolando 1208 (talk) 18:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh and @Ybsone too. Rolando 1208 (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Belarus made it into history, they should stay, for history's sake. "Russia attacked from territory of Belarus" is a historical fact and as such should not be removed, nor should the supporting side. YBSOne (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

But the infobox implies Belarus is still involved. Don't you think that's silly? Rolando 1208 (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

As long as over 10 Russian divisions are in Belarus - a de facto occupation - Russia will use the territory as a jumping off point if need be (again). 2603:6080:21F0:AB60:4D0E:9735:CDD4:BB18 (talk) 22:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

No I don't. Just as the map shows past conflict areas, so can infobox, clearly noted, show past (and/or present) supporters. YBSOne (talk) 22:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Territory is irrelevant. The fact that the US has used military bases in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan to launch attacks on Afghanistan did not make these two countries belligerents. The UK firing ballistic missiles at Syria from its Akrotiri base did not make Cyprus a belligerent. What matters whether a country's government and military take part in hostilities; not whether alien forces are able to operate there. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• History articles are an overall picture, not a snapshot of a particular point in time. Consider how things should appear if the event occurred 100 years ago and was not an ongoing current event. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah I get that, however I think it's silly to single out Belarus but then the other countries who are currently supporting Russia aren't even mentioned. It seems to go against NPOV. Rolando 1208 (talk) 00:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Undue Infobox to be usable should be short and sweet. Belarus support for Russia is not one of the most noteworthy aspects of the war. (t · c) buidhe 04:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't particularly agree with the inclusion but there is an affirmative consensus by RfC several times. We should only go down that path again if something has changed such that there is a reasonable prospect that the consensus would be overturned - otherwise, just starting up a new RfC might reasonably be considered disruptive given the history of the issue. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Wasn't the last RfC nine months ago? The more time passes, the less relevant Belarus' actions in 2022 become. If not, we should be consistent and include all parties, NATO, North Korea, Iran, etc. Why single out Belarus? Rolando 1208 (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

As said at the time, because no one else allowed attacks from its soil, which has not changed. Slatersteven (talk) 19:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

[[9]], yes Belarus is (in effect) an indirect theater of war. Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you think that the United States should be listed as a supporter of Israel on the Israel Hamas war page? The standards on this website for the enemies and foes of the united states are completely different, and this uneven application of the rules creates a systematic pro-US bias. 90.102.72.109 (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Chechnya as a belligerent

Chechen republic ichkeria (at least as a government in exile) has had forces fighting for Ukraine in the war, should they be added as a belligerent? They also have a ministry of defence if I am not mistaken The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I seem to recall there had been some of the garrison troops in Kursk, but avoided real combat. I think we need some good RS to say they are now active combatants. Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Not just in Kursk, but within Ukraine itself. Forces loyal to the Chechen republic of ichkeria (not the subjugated [[Chechnya|Chechen Republic]]) have been fighting alongside Ukraine in important battles like of Kyiv, Kharkiv, and bakhmut. Though as a state it has been defeated 24 years ago, the armed forces continue to operate in-exile and use the weakening of Russia in the war to possibly reestablish their state

https://thechechenpress.com/video/16908-naznachenie-komandira-obon-vs-chri-v-ukraine.html

https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-chechens-common-enemy-russia/32136592.html The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 12:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

So they are mercenaries? Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn’t say mercenaries. The best way I could describe is that the armed forces of the country are fighting alongside Ukraine, but their country itself is occupied and has been for 2 decades The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 13:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Valid point. Chechen Republic of Ichkeria and chechen opposition is important to the war and fighting against putinism and its own independence. Link to their involvement in the war, both since 2022, and 2014.

Read more: On 18 October 2022, Ukraine's parliament recognized the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria as a temporarily occupied state. AlasdarVan (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. The Chechen Republic of Ichkeria holds no territory, is recognized by no country except for Ukraine, and there's no more than several hundred volunteers fighting under its name. It's not significant enough for the infobox, but can be mentioned in the body. — Goszei (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

weak yes - We already have de facto states as beligerents, and we would be doing a disservice to our readers to make an exception here. If Luhansk PR and Donetsk PR are included as belligerents despite being de jure part of ukraine, I think this should be included as well, for the purpose of encyclopedic consistency. If those two are removed, then (should this be included), this should be removed along with them. DarmaniLink (talk) 06:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Time for others to chip in. Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

• Is this a "key" fact without nuance that should be placed in the infobox? Cinderella157 (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  CHRI does fight for Ukraine, and if I am not mistaken it was also recognised as an “occupied territory” by Russia. Either in the infobox or in the foreign support section The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

  This does not address the question asked. However, others are addressing the question - ie it does not rise to be a key or significant fact that should be incorporated into the infobox (eg Goszei) and I would tend to agree. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

• No, this is not an independent country. My very best wishes (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

  Why do we mention the Luhansk PR and Donetsk PR in this context then? AlasdarVan (talk) 03:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

  Good point! One could argue they should be included because of the International recognition of the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic. There was nothing like that with Chechen Republic. But I agree with you: I think they should be excluded because they were either a part of Russia (de facto) or Ukraine (de juro). My very best wishes (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

  They were region in revolt against Ukraine, thus they are part of the reason for this war. Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - Neither is it an important party nor does it exist as a state in any sense since the annexation Braganza (talk) 20:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - These guys are basically glorified mercenaries of a non-existent state 2603:6080:21F0:AB60:1C7F:4B85:10E8:8EFB (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Ichkeria hasn't existed for over two decades. Super Ψ Dro 10:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Edit Request - Wrong location of a Paragraph

Hello, fellow Wikipedians

I have noticed that the fourth paragraph in the section Prisoners of war talks about barrier troops and has little to do with the text before and after. It seems to have been missed when the previously existing section Prisoners of war and war crimes was split apart. I would suggest to move the entire paragraph over to the next section, War crimes and attacks on civilians. Unfortunately, I don't know how or where it would fit.

There is also something I wanted to hear opinions on: Whether if even constitutes a war crime, and if there's a better section it would fit in. Using coercion and/or force on your own military to make them fight in a battle or the war is, at the end, "just" another (and very unethical) military tactic and up for that country to decide. If anything, I would say it's closer to being a crime against humanity, similarly to how (I assume) mass executions of 'disloyal' soldiers and citizens would count as one. Of course, all of that is assuming it's not explicitly listed in the rules of war. Thanks for the time! ShadowOfThePit (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

on the last part, that reads like wp:or, and as far as I know there have been no such accusations leveled against other armies that have used conscription in war time (for example). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs) 13:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 September 2024

I request to change the line "The invasion, the largest conflict in Europe since World War II,[13][14][15] has caused hundreds of thousands of military casualties and tens of thousands of Ukrainian civilian casualties." To "The invasion, the largest conflict in Europe since the Balkan Wars, has caused hundreds of thousands of military casualties and tens of thousands of Ukrainian civilian casualties." Mikituu (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Singular conflict should not be compared to "Balkan Wars" a multiple conflicts. Hence it is compared to a single conflict, WWII. YBSOne (talk) 14:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I would propose an alternative wording, "the largest military intervention in Europe since World War II". This would distinguish it from the civil wars that comprised the Yugoslav Wars (not the Balkan Wars that took place in 1912 and 1913). Peaceray (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

We don't need to qualify the statement that the war in Ukraine is the largest armed conflict in Europe since WW2. About 130,000–140,000 people were killed over a 10-year period in the former Yugoslavia, compared to 250,000+ in 2 years in Ukraine. There has also been at least double the number of people displaced, and a participant here being a permanent member of the UN Security Council with nuclear weapons certainly adds to its magnitude and historic nature. In addition to the sources used for the claim right now, I found the Council on Foreign Relations and RAND Corporation describing this war with the same phrase. — Goszei (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. TylerBurden (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Where is supported by list under Ukraine in info box?

Where is supported by list under Ukraine in info box? 202.47.36.141 (talk) 22:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

It's absent from the infobox on purpose. See FAQ item #4. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

WSJ did not claim 1 million dead in Sept 2024

This article claims WSJ reported 1 million dead in Sept 2024. They did nothing of the kind. As the cited WSJ article clearly states: 1 million dead or INJURED. Not exactly a small difference. This is the kind of thing that makes me wonder what the point of Wikipedia even is, or why it’s considered any more credible a source of information than a Reddit post. Should be corrected asap. Lukestark (talk) 01:39, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

"In September 2024, the Wall Street Journal reported that there were now one million Ukrainians and Russians who were killed or wounded" — note the lack of a full stop after "killed". Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. I’m hoping this was a correction based on my post here as I thought I re-read that sentence ten times with dropped jaw before posting here, but if not I don’t know what to say except to recede into the corner with tail between legs like a shamed puppy. Doesn’t help that I originally posted this accidentally on the talk page for “Russo-Ukrainian War” (apparently after an inadvertent thumb swipe to the article I was previously reading), so my batting average around here could be better. I’ll just go away now. Apologies. Lukestark (talk) 06:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 22 September 2024

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: closed. There is clear consensus to close this promptly and requestor has also indicated a desire to withdraw this. (non-admin closure) JDiala (talk) 07:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

---

Russian invasion of Ukraine → Full-scale Russo-Ukrainian War – The subject of this article is not just the invasion itself, but the entire war that followed the full-scale invasion. The common term for this conflict is the Russo-Ukrainian War. However, since there is already an article titled Russo-Ukrainian War, which covers the entire conflict starting from 2014, we need to include a disambiguator. A natural disambiguator is preferred, thus I propose Full-scale Russo-Ukrainian War. What are your thoughts? Sakakami (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Procedural close – There has been no change to the core arguments since this discussion was held a month ago. The proposed rename is not a title used by reliable sources let alone the WP:COMMONNAME for this article subject. It therefore has virtually no possibility of being adopted. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Well the common name is not "Russian invasion of Ukraine" (by this point) either, it is indeed "war in Ukraine" (which isn't an appropriate title) or "Russo-Ukrainian War". The previous RM was so unsuccessful mainly because of the suggestion to move this page to prefix with "timeline of", not entirely from the main point of the proposal. Maybe an alternative titling of "Russo-Ukrainian War (2022–present)" would work. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 20:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Given articles like War in Afghanistan (2001-2021), War in Iraq (2013-2017), and war in Donbas, I wouldn't consider "war in Ukraine (2022-present)" to be an entirely inappropriate title, but I definitely prefer your proposal and concur that "Russian invasion of Ukraine" is no longer WP:COMMONNAME for the events described in this page. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 20:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

A natural disambiguator is preferred over using years in parentheses. Additionally, 'Full-scale Russo-Ukrainian War' serves well as a non-judgmental, descriptive title. Sakakami (talk) 08:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

That isn't the WP:COMMONNAME for this conflict though (additionally, the label "full-scale" is about as unnatural as you can get). The common name is "War in Ukraine" both in colloquial and media usage (either that or "Ukraine war"), which Wikipedia has been trying to ignore for two years. This title runs afoul with Russo-Ukrainian War, which as an article is trying to carry a low-level, minor insurgency and a major war under the same umbrella. Thus the more sensible title for that article is Russo-Ukrainian conflict, which describes ten years of continuous conflict, but not of continuous war, akin to Afghan conflict. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

My belief has been for years that this article should be moved to Russo-Ukrainian War (or, better yet, War in Ukraine (2022–present)) and the article currently at that title should be moved to Russo-Ukrainian conflict (I believe that was proposed a while back). The so-called "Russian invasion of Ukraine", like in 2003 invasion of Iraq, should serve only to cover the first month or so of the war, while the rest, clearly a war, should be called as such. As for the preceding eight years, it mostly consisted of a low-intensity conflict for the first year and then a frozen conflict from Minsk to 2022. Calling that the Russo-Ukrainian War rather than the more appropriate Russo-Ukrainian conflict is fundamentally misleading. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 20:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Completely agree. Given PaulOfTarsus' examples of similar titlings (war in Foo) I would support a move to War in Ukraine (2022–present) (which initially sounded too colloquial to me) and further a move of Russo-Ukrainian War to "Ukraine conflict (2014–present)" or "Russo-Ukrainian conflict" which appear to be more sensible and common names (see ngram) than "war", provided we are only going to use "War in Ukraine" for 2022 onwards. "War in Ukraine" has nonetheless been used by media since 2014, but to differentiate between the article readers will want to go to realistically (this one, which has far more coverage of events after Feb. 2022) and the broad, main article the titling of the latter should imply the scale of the conflict. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree The conflict from 2014-2022 and the conflict from 2022-present are two related but separate conflicts. This article should move to take the "war" article. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 06:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Procedural close We should not keep having to deal with this issue, there is an article about the general war, that is a non argument. Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Procedural close as per Slatersteven, Flemmish Nietzsche and others. GreatLeader1945 ^TALK 18:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. The proposed name is nowhere near a COMMONNAME. When full-scale is used it is in lower case, i.e. as an adjective and not as part of the war's name. This makes the proposed name OR. I support the procedural close proposed by all others. It was important to me also to state what is wrong with the name. gidonb (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, While consensus of a common name seems to be a bit all over the place, I have seen sources referring to this as the Russian invasion [of Ukraine]. Full-scale Russo-Ukrainian War never occurred and seems to be quite muddy as to what it is referencing (as someone who is not super well versed on Ukrainian history, I might confuse this with Crimea or even as a term to conjoin the Crimean and this invasions). ✶Quxyz✶ 01:39, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose and close. WP:SNOW, WP:COMMONNAME Andre🚐 01:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose close per WP:SNOW. †TyphoonAmpil† (💬 - 📝 - 🌀 - Tools) 02:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose and close the RM is based on the fallacious premise that an invasion only lasts for some nominal period and then it becomes something else. The 2003 invasion of Iraq ended because Iraq had been (fully) occupied - ie the military objective had been attained. There is no analogy between what has happened here and what happened there. There is no good reason why the title should change. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose and speedy close - WP:SNOW and WP:COMMONNAME. Hansen Sebastian (Talk) 08:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• Thank you all for your valuable input and thoughtful contributions to this discussion. After carefully considering the points raised by everyone, I have decided to withdraw my request to move the article. Sakakami (talk) 08:37, 24 September 2024 (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.

RfC: Mention Russian demand on NATO expansion in lead?

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.

This RFC resulted in a consensus in favour of the proposed addition. Those in favour of the proposal showed that reliable sources consider the demands a significant part of the prelude to the war, and as a significant reason for the war. Those opposed to the proposal mostly argued that the demands were not serious, or that NATO expansion as a cause to the war is Russian propaganda, but provided few sources to support their claims. A great majority of the participants did not find these arguments convincing or relevant, and favoured inclusion. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

---

Should the lead mention Russia's pre-invasion demand for a ban on future expansion of NATO to Ukraine? A proposed wording: "In late 2021, Russia massed troops near Ukraine's borders and issued demands including a ban on future expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to Ukraine." — Goszei (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Prior discussion of this topic on this talk page can be accessed here, here, and here. — Goszei (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes. The current version of the lead mentions two of the reasons which Putin has advanced for Russia's decision to invade Ukraine: (1) a Russian irredentism based on denying Ukraine's right to exist as a state, and (2) overthrowing its alleged neo-Nazi government (which we correctly identify as a falsehood). Equally important and relevant as these are Russia's pre-invasion security demands, issued on 17 December 2021 in the form of an ultimatum to the West, and whose most pertinent item was a ban on future expansion of NATO to Ukraine. Mentioning this point does not imply that it is the genuine reason behind the invasion, to the exclusion of the other reasons, but presents it as one among several, as the reliable sources do.

In reflection of the reliable sources which it cites, the current article body mentions NATO more than 30 times, mostly in the Background and Prelude sections. Here are representative sources which identify NATO expansion as one of the causes of the war, both within and beyond this article:

• News "explainers" from major outlets, which all describe in detail the history of the collapse of the USSR, ensuing NATO expansion, and how this process caused increasing tensions between Russia and Ukraine over decades; all of these sources also describe the December 2021 security demands when discussing the causes of the war. For examples, see NYT, CNN, BBC, Al-Jazeera, Vox, Bloomberg, US News, and NPR. Most of these mention the "irredentism" and "denazification" points on either equal or lesser footing to the NATO expansion point.
• U.S. think tanks including the Council on Foreign Relations: "Why did Russia launch a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022? [...] Some Western analysts see Russia’s 2022 invasion as the culmination of the Kremlin’s growing resentment toward NATO’s post–Cold War expansion into the former Soviet sphere of influence. [...] Other experts have said that perhaps the most important motivating factor for Putin was his fear that Ukraine would continue to develop into a modern, Western-style democracy that would inevitably undermine his autocratic regime in Russia and dash his hopes of rebuilding a Russia-led sphere of influence in Eastern Europe." See also this article, which is specifically on the NATO point.
• International relations scholars including both John Mearsheimer, a leading figure in the realist school, and Joseph S. Nye, a leader of the liberal school. Mearsheimer puts more emphasis on NATO expansion (see [10]), while Nye puts less but still examines it at length (see [11]: "the intermediate cause was a refusal to see Ukraine as a legitimate state [...] The prospect of NATO enlargement was a lesser intermediate cause").

I support the proposed wording. — Goszei (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Goszei – You might be better served by presenting your proposed wording with the RfC question. It gives concreteness to the change that you are hoping to effect. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Done. — Goszei (talk) 14:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Doesn't matter if you disagree with it or think it's a pretext. The reality is that it is an aspect discussed heavily in reliable sources (as demonstrated by Goszei above), perhaps more than any other individual causative factor, and thus warrants inclusion in the lead. I will add another source in as a datapoint, a book I am currently reading, The Story of Russia by famed historian Orlando Figes released in 2022 following the invasion. The following is on p. 292-293.

"At the Bucharest conference in 2008, NATO had declared that, along with Georgia, Ukraine would become a member of the alliance once it met the necessary requirements (among them better measures to combat political corruption and ensure the rule of law). The declaration was opposed by several NATO leaders, especially the German chancellor Angela Merkel, who warned that it would be seen as a dangerous provocation by Russia. But George Bush forced the measure through. In his final months in the White House, he was desperate to leave a legacy of promoting US interests and democracy in the former Soviet Union. He was supported by the east European member states, which were most alarmed by Russia’s growing aggression. They saw Ukraine’s NATO membership as ‘an important historic opportunity to cage the bear’, in the words of Lech Wałęsa, the former Polish president.

NATO’s involvement in Ukraine set alarm bells ringing in Moscow. After the invasion of the Crimea, the alliance gave $3 billion in military aid to the Ukrainian government, helped it to modernise its weaponry and trained its troops in joint exercises in Ukraine. The war had strengthened Ukraine’s national unity. But it also gave rise to a violent hatred of Russia reflected in the cult of Stepan Bandera, the Ukrainian nationalist leader who had fought on the Nazi side against the Soviet army in 1944–5. Bandera streets and squares were newly named. Statues of the partisan leader were erected in cities such as Lviv and Ternopil. The Bandera cult was a gift for Moscow’s propaganda about the threat of ‘Nazis’ in Ukraine.

Putin saw the role of NATO in Ukraine as a direct military threat. In an hour-long address to the Russian people on 21 February 2022, he claimed that Ukraine would ‘serve as an advanced bridgehead’ for NATO’s forces to attack Russia unless Moscow intervened. Under the guise of its training missions, NATO, he declared, was building bases in Ukrainian cities like Kharkiv, near the Russian border, from which its nuclear missiles could reach Moscow in a few minutes. ‘It is like a knife to our throat,’ he said. From a Western point of view this seemed mad and paranoid. NATO, after all, was a defensive alliance and had no reason to attack Russia. But as Putin saw it, it was the conclusion to be drawn from his reading of the history of Russia and Ukraine." JDiala (talk) 00:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah, yes the NATO (a defensive alliance) is such a threat that we have to invade Ukraine so now we (Russia) can border with 9 NATO countries instead of 5. "Putin saw" is clearly his pretext not a "causative factor". YBSOne (talk) 08:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Why didn't Putin invade Finland for their accession in NATO? No "advanced bridgehead"? No "alarm bells"? NO "dangerous provocation"? Weird right? Almost as if Kremlin didn't work on destabilisation and propaganda against Finland. YBSOne (talk) 09:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

In a new book, the historian Orlando Figes argues that the war on Ukraine is only the latest instance of a nation twisting the past to justify its future. YBSOne (talk) 09:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

You need to read more than just the by-line. The reviewer criticizes Figes for blaming NATO’s expansion for creating “the very problem it was meant to counteract” because in Feifer's view it goes against his own case for the importance of invented enemies to Russia’s self-image. It's clear from that review that 1) Figes does place emphasis on NATO's role in the conflict and 2) that Feifer disagrees with that analysis. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. My point is that just because a historian reports what is Russia/Putin saying does not mean it is a causative factor. When we know that Putin just wants to recover/recreate his belowed Soviet Union and any sovereign states like Ukraine not sharing his idealistic vision need to be punished for their independence and forced into submission. Also on the outside they need to create fake image of being the ones in the right, "fighting nazism", "rescuing russian-speaking civilians" Allegations of NATO provocation and aggression etc. YBSOne (talk) 12:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

"Putin didn't invade Ukraine in 2022 because he feared NATO. He invaded because he believed that NATO was weak, that his efforts to regain control of Ukraine by other means had failed, and that installing a pro-Russian government in Kyiv would be safe and easy. His aim was not to defend Russia against some non-existent threat but rather to expand Russia's power, eradicate Ukraine's statehood, and destroy NATO, goals he still pursues".105" YBSOne (talk) 12:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

It is interesting that now quoting a source that quotes a beligerent (Russia, Putin) is a reliable source, but when a source quoted an Ukrainian official it was not reliable. Interesting. YBSOne (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

So think tanks which form part of the "reliable sources" as you put it Goszei have provided above are reliable when providing reasoning for Russia invading Ukraine, but not when questioning Russia's great power status.

Hopefully whoever closes this RfC will take such editor inconsistencies into account when evalutating the input of said editor. TylerBurden (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

This is a bizarre personal argument, especially in an RfC . Address the content, not what I may or may not have said in an unrelated discussion. To address what you wrote, note that Goszei provided a number of sources including standard newspapers, which no one disputes are reliable, in addition to scholars like Mearsheimer and Nye. The CfR source was just among many. On the issue of think tanks, the most important thing for me is consistency. If we're going to accept think tanks are reliable for anti-Russia material, then to be consistent it makes sense to accept them for anti-NATO material. JDiala (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

You speak about consistency? You've proven to be anything but, which is exactly why I added this analysis so that the closer knows how you present sources differently based on motive. TylerBurden (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

No, but in case of inclusion it needs to be stated that it was just a pretext to feed the zombified masses ie disinformation, and real reasons were different ie Russian imperialism. YBSOne (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

No, its a blank cheque, what is it we intend to say? Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I had asked Goszei to place their proposed wording with the question. They want to introduce a sentence to the lede approximating: In late 2021, Russia massed troops near Ukraine's borders and issued demands including a ban on future expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to Ukraine. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I answer the question as it is still asked. Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I have moved the proposed wording to the RfC text. The mention should certainly be no longer than a sentence clause. — Goszei (talk) 14:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

"vote" now struck. Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this is part of the war's background. See the well-developed article World War II, where there's a dedicated section on the developments up to several years prior to the war's outbreak, including German demands. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Our WWII articles do not give dues to Nazi Germany's pro-war propaganda, as is being proposed here with Russia's pro-invasion propaganda. Unless most RS view Putin's demands on Ukraine's NATO bid as legitimate, we shouldn't treat them differently from Hitler's violations of the Versailles and Locarno treaties. IntrepidContributor (talk) 05:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes. A significant number of high-quality sources, as detailed by Goszei and JDiala, suggest that Russian fears over NATO's eastward expansion may have contributed to the origin and (with the 2022 invasion) to the escalation of the conflict with Ukraine.. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

lol. The "conflict" as you call it led to the fact that Russia recieved +750 miles border with Nato Devlet Geray (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, if supported by reliable sources. No matter whether Russia meant their demands or not, including them is notable and encyclopedic. If reliable sources say that the demands were disinformation, of course that should be added, but I don't see that as a reason to remove the demands entirely. JSwift49 00:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes To me, it is irrelevant whether Russia actually considered this to be a cause of the invasion or not. If we mention that Russia massed forces in late 2021, we should also mention the demands Russia made accompanying that buildup. Gödel2200 (talk) 02:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

No because this claim by Putin was pure propaganda and disinformation. It had nothing to do with the actual reasons he decided to attack Ukraine. As the Institute for the Study of War frames it [12]:

Russian President Vladimir Putin didn’t invade Ukraine in 2022 because he feared NATO. He invaded because he believed that NATO was weak, that his efforts to regain control of Ukraine by other means had failed, and that installing a pro-Russian government in Kyiv would be safe and easy. His aim was not to defend Russia against some non-existent threat but rather to expand Russia’s power, eradicate Ukraine’s statehood, and destroy NATO, goals he still pursues.

My very best wishes (talk) 23:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Which statement are you claiming is disinformation? That [i]n late 2021, Russia massed troops near Ukraine's border ... or that it ... issued demands including a ban on future expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to Ukraine? Mr rnddude (talk) 00:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Russia ... issued demands including a ban on future expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to Ukraine.. The demand for a ban on the future expansion of NATO was disinformation/propaganda by Russia/Putin because it was framed as a reason to attack Ukraine. It was not a reason at all (see quote from the ISW above). Now, we uncritically repeat the same in the lead without saying it was disinformation/propaganda, thus giving it some legitimacy, which misinforms a reader. This is not a good summary of content on the page, but rather placing an irrelevant propaganda claim to the lead. Yes, such claim was made by Putin, but it does not belong in the lead, especially in such context. My very best wishes (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

That's ISW's opinion only. The hard fact is that such a demand has been put forward and has been widely publicised in the sources as well as responded to by governments. We're an encyclopaedia, mind you. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Putin publicly demanded a ban on the future expansion of NATO. He did it long before the invasion. It was merely a demand, not an ultimatum, because Russian government publicly asserted they have no intention to attack Ukraine. But why on the Earth this should be included to the lead? That would make sense if it were an actual reason for the invasion. But it was not - according to many RS, including ISW, which probably one of the best sources for such claim. My very best wishes (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Quotes from the ISW source you have cited: "Putin then issued an ultimatum to the US and NATO in December 2021 that aimed to force the West into surrendering Ukraine’s sovereignty on its behalf and abandoning partnerships on NATO’s eastern flank. [...] Putin's 2021 ultimatum to NATO and the West was an actual ultimatum, not the basis for a negotiation." — Goszei (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it uses such wording, in the most general meaning of the word, i.e. demands with threats, rather than a specific demand with a specified timeline for specified consequences. More exactly, as this source says, Putin published an essay saying that Ukraine has no right to exist unless it will be a puppet state of Russia, etc. Yes, true, that is what Putin said and what he meant. But it was all about subordinating Ukraine to Russia, not about membership of Ukraine in NATO (which would never happen as Putin was well aware about). Why include NATO to the lead? My very best wishes (talk) 19:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

We should mention NATO in the lead because it has been conclusively demonstrated that the subject dominates discussion of the war's causes in reliable sources (newspapers, think tanks). We can argue back-and-forth and present sources which disagree on the degree to which it was pretext or propaganda, but the truth is that reliable sources do not simply dismiss the topic out-of-hand. Reliable sources, including the ISW article, instead fully engage with and examine the topic from a historical and scholarly perspective, which is all that is required to mention it here. — Goszei (talk) 18:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. Where exactly this wording should be included in the lead? Without saying it, this is basically not a valid RfC. At the first glance, it is out of context everywhere. My very best wishes (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I see: it probably suppose to replace the phrase In late 2021, Russia massed troops near Ukraine's borders but denied any plan to attack. That sounds good and true. Indeed, they denied any plan to attack. But it means there was no any ultimatum by Putin as the proposed change about his demands misleadingly implies. My very best wishes (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Yes but qualify it as a claim by the Russian side, balancing it with our reliable sources indicating that the real intentions were primarily Russia's revanchism and imperialist ambitions. IntrepidContributor (talk) 05:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  If so, then it should be "no" because the suggested text does not include any such clarifications and therefore partly misleading. My very best wishes (talk) 16:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

  I am qualifying the nuance to help the closer. IntrepidContributor (talk) 11:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• I disagree with the wording "expansion of NATO to Ukraine". That's the wording used in Russian propaganda. It implies that NATO is engaged in expansionism into countries against their will, when actually Ukraine willingly applied to join. Better wording would be "a ban on Ukraine ever joining NATO" or "barring Ukraine from ever joining NATO", with a link to Russian opposition to Ukrainian NATO membership. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 10:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed, if we have this we must make it clear this was a demand that Ukraine not be allowed to if it asked join NATO. Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, but it should be also noted that his demands included some unrealistic requests such as removal of NATO troops and bases from certain NATO members. BeŻet (talk) 10:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

  If so, then it should be "no" because the suggested text does not include it. Yes, of course it included a lot of unrealistic claims, and no one on the Russian side expected that other countries will satisfy such demands. That was pure propaganda. My very best wishes (talk) 16:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

• Yes - Regardless of the opinions of journalists on the veracity or intent of the demand, it occurred, and the invasion then followed. It's notable enough to be in the lead as a precursor to the invasion. I read both arguments and the arguments against inclusion appear to me to be more political in nature (i.e. the real intent was to annex all of Ukraine, the demand was used as a pretext, it's a lie and shouldnt be included). So long as the demand is atrributed to Russia and documented as a statement rather than fact, this argument holds no weight to me. DarmaniLink (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  maybe we should also write that "Ukraine exploded an old empty UAZ" and that's why Russia as an act of self-defence attacked Ukraine attributing it to Russia? It's just funny, but not for the encyclopedia Devlet Geray (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  If you want to stick that into the body of the article, I wouldn't revert you. I would be against putting that in the lead though, because the NATO demand has far more notable coverage, DarmaniLink (talk) 03:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Question: Why the lead, according to OP's proposal, should mention only Putin's NATO demand, without its assessment by secondary RSs, and without other, maybe more notable, reasons for the invasion? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

IMO this would fall under WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and would risk throwing the lead off balance to add too much context to an overview of the article. To the best of my knowledge, that is the most notable demand that was made. Those should absolutely be (and I believe they are adequately) articulated in their appropriate sections in the article. Adding secondary analysis of a statement or saying something like "Although Professors of political science John Smith and Jane Doe dispute the veracity of the demand and state that the demand was to create pretext for invasion" may be useful as an addition, but I would be careful with how much is added given it's for the lead. DarmaniLink (talk) 11:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, that is the most notable demand that was made.
It may be, or it may be not. Sources need to be analysed and a summary should be made to reach such a conclusion.

Now, why is the desire to include demands, but not the reasons for the invasion, into the lead? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Ask the proposer.

We do not know, nor can we be certain of the true reasons.

All we have is what russia said (which is possibly false) and speculation (which are effectively opinions, and you know what they say).

I think the proposed change is a net positive. DarmaniLink (talk) 03:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Strong NO. No, this is just a propaganda trick, not a real demand. And you are substituting concepts. Russia has put forward a deliberately impossible demand for NATO to return to the 1997 borders, and not at all about further non-expansion. Including those funny "demands" neither encyclopedic, nor notable - Wikipedia is not the place for any-country propaganda. Devlet Geray (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• Yes-The proposed content is factually correct and critical in understanding the Russian position. Of course mention should be made of it in the lead. Display name 99 (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong no to "expansion". Russia expands by invading other countries. NATO enlarges by letting in countries voluntarily applying for membership. "NATO expansion" is a Russian propaganda syntagma. Super Ψ Dro 10:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Super Dromaeosaurus: This point was previously raised by Asarlaí and Slatersteven as well. Would you all support the addition if it was instead "...issued demands including a ban on Ukraine ever joining the NATO military alliance"? — Goszei (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  I am (frankly) ambivalent. Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  The counter view is that is the "voluntary" is not so "voluntary" when there is e.g., CIA involvement (colour revolution). JDiala (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

So-called "CIA involvement" is WP:FRINGE, see Orange_Revolution#Outside_Ukraine In Russian nationalist circles the Orange Revolution has been linked with fascism because, albeit marginally, Ukrainian nationalist extreme right-wing groups and Ukrainian Americans (including Viktor Yushchenko's wife, Kateryna Yushchenko, who was born in the United States) were involved in the demonstrations; Russian nationalist groups see both as branches of the same tree of fascism.[85] The involvement of Ukrainian Americans lead them to believe the Orange Revolution was steered by the CIA.[85] You are spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories jumping to far-reaching conclusions based on rumors. Ukraine was not under USA nor CIA occupation and their voluntary willingness to be part of NATO/EU was and still is voluntary. YBSOne (talk) 12:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Russia has security concerns with regard to NATO expansion but I don't think they are directly tied to its military escalation, so they can be mentioned in a way that does not imply NATO is officially expanding to include Ukraine. The specific demand probably should not be. CurryCity (talk) 17:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• No- Suggested wording comes too close to parroting Russian propaganda, given the complexity of the NATO situation and the discussion surronding it, it is something that is far better covered in the article body. Just shoehorning Russian demands into the lead without further expansion is not a good nor WP:DUE solution. TylerBurden (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
• Yes per above points by various others. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:47, 17 September 2024 (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.

Add A Fact: "Adoption surge in Ukraine post-invasion"

I found a fact that might belong in this article. See the quote below

The number of Ukrainian citizens seeking to adopt children has increased dramatically since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

The fact comes from the following source:

https://www.voanews.com/a/adoption-applications-in-ukraine-soar-since-russian-invasion-/7802068.html

This post was generated using the Add A Fact browser extension.

Rc2barrington (talk) 02:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Why aren't Ukraine's supporters listed?

Ukraine has so many nations which support it directly in the war trough arm deliveryes. Why are those not listed? For example Germany the US the UK and so on. These arm and also munition deliveryies are vital for the AFU i think these should definitly be listed. Waranalyst (talk) 11:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

They are listed - see the Ukraine support section. If you mean being listed in the infobox, there have been many discussions on that, but they were not in support of including them in the infobox. Gödel2200 (talk) 11:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

see FAQ. Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Listing all of Ukraine's supporters on the infobox will make it unnecessarily long and difficult to navigate -- 00101984hjw (talk) 03:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Collapsible show/hide button? Adonnus (talk) 10:07, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

We already have two entire pages for that as well foreign aid to Ukraine and a link to those pages on Russo-Ukrainian War. I think anything else would be repetitive. -- 00101984hjw (talk) 13:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

700,000 Russian personnel

I'm pretty sure this number should be updated to a more recent estimate anyway, but the source for the 700,000 Russian personnel in the strength category says that there is "almost 700,000 Russian personnel". While I do think that this is a minor problem that doesn't matter much, I would personally add "~" or "almost" before "700,000 active personnel in the area" since it doesn't say that that amount of personnel has actually been reached as far as i've read. Minewit (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Strength over a protracted war varies with time. We should be treating this the same way that we treat casualties. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Civilian casualties

As of 31 August 2024, the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine (HRMMU) had verified that conflict-related violence had killed 11,743 civilians and injured 24,614 in Ukraine since 24 February 2022. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.47.121.25 (talk) 07:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 October 2024

Recent information about deployment of a few thousands Korean People's Army soldiers shall be added AxeDeodorant123 (talk) 08:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Being discussed. Check the talk page before requesting an edit. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The word "expansion" and the recent RfC

The recent RfC on NATO expansion in the lead proved a success for the yes side. Thus, discussion of NATO is now in the lead, but interestingly the specific word "expansion" is not used. This is odd. The RfC opener, Goszei made express use of the word "expansion" both in the title of the RfC and the RfC phrasing, which I remind everyone was specifically the following: " Should the lead mention Russia's pre-invasion demand for a ban on future expansion of NATO to Ukraine?". Most of his sources (Mearsheimer, CfR, various reputable news outlets) make use of the specific word "expansion." The RfC closer, Maddy_from_Celeste, also made express use of the word "expansion" in their closing.

I attempted to include the word but I was reverted. The rationale given for the reversion is that this amounts to a stylistic disagreement not affecting the substance of what is said. There are two responses to this. First, this is false. Don't take my word for it. Some of the no voters, like Super Dromaeosaurus specifically and strongly objected to the word "expansion", indicating the substantive importance of the word. The word "expansion", after all, connotes aggression. It is important to understand the context here; the mere "ban on membership" wording (as it currently is) misses the point that this Russian concern pertains to a decades-long physical, geographically expanding encroachment by a belligerent alliance. A mere "ban on membership", on the other hand, which is the current phrasing, connotes Russia as making a frivolous demand, almost as if it is a mean parent not letting their daughter join a sorority. To summarize, the RfC discussion, the sources provided, voters on the other side, and common sense makes it clear that the word "expansion" is significant. It's not a stylistic issue. But even if I steelman this and assume for sake of argument that it is not significant, why would a stylistic variation not in concert with the vocabulary used extensively in the RfC be preferred to the variation that is? Why should the unsuccessful no voters have a veto on the style used?

Pinging TylerBurden, Cinderella157 (those reverting my edits) and Maddy_from_Celeste, Goszei (RfC closer and opener). JDiala (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

So much attention being given to this by the editors. Those interested welcome improve and expand and sharpen the corresponding December 2021 Russian ultimatum to NATO and the section in this article. There are news sources being used currently, and there are plenty of academic sources already. With that done, those interested will have solid ground to argue their point.
Do you need help with the sources?
nato ukraine russia ultimatum - Google Scholar
nato ukraine russia ultimatum - Google Search ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

In particular, overview paragraphs from these might be useful to determine the weight of what should be included into the lead.
Ukraine's Unnamed War - Google Books The treaty was an ultimatum of maximalist demands including the complete withdrawal of NATO military personnel and infrastructure in former Soviet Bloc states and a return to the situation that prevailed in 1997 before NATO expanded eastward (Meduza 2021). As became clearer in subsequent statements by Russian officials, what was desired, first and foremost, was a binding legal guarantee that Ukraine would never become a member of NATO and that the NATO presence in Ukraine (training soldiers, providing weapons) would end. While the demands expressed in the draft treaty were unexpectedly extreme, Russian demands regarding the resolution of the Donbas war fell essentially within the bounds of the Minsk pro cess talking points from the past six years. But now Russia was overtly threatening war if the West did not respond. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

It is important to understand the context here; the mere "ban on membership" wording (as it currently is) misses the point that this Russian concern pertains to a decades-long physical, geographically expanding encroachment by a belligerent alliance. sounds awfully similar to Kremlin talking points. If we are to be careful regarding the article's wording and its relation to the conflict's context, I suggest we try not to sound similar to Russian propaganda which presents the voluntary accession of Eastern European countries into NATO as a malicious expansion imposed onto them by NATO towards the backyard Russia is entitled to have.

If necessary, I'd propose we use "enlargement". It means the same as "expansion" without any negative connotation. It is also used in the title of Enlargement of NATO. Though I don't really see any problem with the current wording. That it connotes Russia as making a frivolous demand, almost as if it is a mean parent not letting their daughter join a sorority means that it is an accurate representation of reality. Russia should have no say in whatever thing another country wants to do, but that's exactly what it is intending. Super Ψ Dro 22:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I can see that the RfC's closer focused in their closing comment on the addition of the mention of this information, rather than on the specific wording we should use. The opener of the RfC also expressed openness to changing the wording to exclude the word "expansion", leading me to think they did not specifically seek this wording [13] (by the way, the ping didn't work, otherwise I'd have replied that I supported Goszei's proposal). I don't see much evidence that the RfC led to a definite decision on the specific wording we should use.

By the way, I also want to highlight one comment from OP: The counter view is that is the "voluntary" [accession into NATO] is not so "voluntary" when there is e.g., CIA involvement (colour revolution). This "counter view" is completely excluded from any Wikipedia article on the conflict, at least without its due attribution to Russian propaganda. I'd expect neutral editors in this topic area to refrain from seeking the inclusion of similarly-sounding points in the project. Because they don't belong here. Super Ψ Dro 22:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Some history

1. Proposed wording by Goszei per RfC: In late 2021, Russia massed troops near Ukraine's borders and issued demands including a ban on future expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to Ukraine. [the substantive wording]
2. Late in the RfC, Goszei makes this edit proposing an alternative wording: ...issued demands including a ban on Ukraine ever joining the NATO military alliance. Note, there is no significant discussion regarding this alternative. [the alternative wording]
3. Maddy from Celeste closes the RfC and adds the substantive wording to the article (here). ... including a ban on future expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to Ukraine.
4. Goszei changes this to the alternative wording (here). ... including a ban on Ukraine ever joining the NATO military alliance.
5. JDiala amends the alternative wording (here with the edit summary: The RfC clearly posits the usage of the word "expansion.") ... including a ban on the future expansion of NATO to Ukraine. Note, this is the substantive wording except that NATO is used without the name in full.
6. Cinderella reverts (here with the edit summary: Things change. The present wording is better but retains the spirit and intent of the RfC. Note, my reversion was not because of inclusion of the word expansion but the overall construction of the sentence. ... including a ban on Ukraine ever joining the NATO military alliance.
7. JDiala edits (here with the edit summary: Your opinion doesn’t negate an RfC result. The RfC clearly used the word expansion, both in title in body. It affects the spirit as “expansion” connotes aggression, which is precisely the Russian concern. Mere “ban on membership” lacks this connotation so it’s a subtle pro-Ukr bias.) ... including a ban on the future expansion of NATO to Ukraine.
8. Cinderella157 amends the wording (here - adding the word include). ... including a ban on the future expansion of NATO to include Ukraine. Note, this is a minor copy-edit.
9. TylerBurden reverts to the alternative wording (here with the edit summary: Rv bad faith assumption edit warring, there is nothing wrong with this text and it's inline with the relevant article body, I can just as easily say insisting on usage of ″NATO expansion″ is subtle pro-Russia pov since it's a favorite term of Russia supporters, no consensus was achieved for that specific wording). ... including a ban on Ukraine ever joining the NATO military alliance.
10. JDiala reverts this (here with the edit summary: Consensus was reached for that. It was the RfC. Whether or not you think it's biased is irrelevant, that was the RfC). ... including a ban on the future expansion of NATO to include Ukraine. Note, this is the most recent version by Cinderella157 that added the word include.
11. TylerBurden reverts again (here with the edit summary: No it wasn't, stop edit warring in a contentious topic). ... including a ban on Ukraine ever joining the NATO military alliance. Note, this is a direct undo of the version above.

Cinderella157 (talk) 02:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't override sourcing. The lead paragraph is supposed to reflect the body. The body uses a Reuters sources, and that source in turn does not use the term "expansion" in its own voice, and just a single time citing NATO diplomats. That's not sufficient to diverge from the body. Cortador (talk) 14:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The RfC was closed in support of the substantive wording of the RfC. Clearly, there is some contention over the use of the term expansion but the consensus was to include that term. Whether NATO should be used in full is not a point of contention (certainly not at this point) nor is the addition of the word include, which is reasonably justifiable grammatically (IMHO). Consequently, there are essentially two main versions on the table:

1. ... including a ban on the future expansion of NATO to include Ukraine. - effectively the substantive wording from the RfC
2. ... including a ban on Ukraine ever joining the NATO military alliance. - the alternative wording from the RfC

There is a strong consensus for the actual substantive wording from the RfC. There is no consensus at the moment to instate the alternative wording. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

So let's look at where this lead content comes from.

"In December 2021, Russia issued an ultimatum to the West, which included demands that NATO end all activity in its Eastern European member states and ban Ukraine or any former Soviet state from ever joining the alliance"

This is the actual wording used in the body which the lead is meant to reflect, per WP:LEAD, the term "expansion" does not exist in the section.

Now in the Reuters article being cited for this content the actual wording is: "The demands contain elements - such as an effective Russian veto on future NATO membership for Ukraine - that the West has already ruled out."

In other words, both suggestions are basically WP:SYNTH.

A solution could be to simply follow the source we are citing as we are meant to and write that the demand included an effective Russian veto on future membership for Ukraine. TylerBurden (talk) 04:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Not only SYNTH but more worringly pushing WP:POV and WP:SOAPBOX, despite being obvious and proven russian propaganda and mere pretext, as I have already pointed out. YBSOne (talk) 07:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• For this search of news articles prior to 31 March 2022, eight out of nine articles on the first page refer to the expansion of NATO using some variation of the word expand. the tenth article was from December 2017. While the actual article cited may not use the word expansion, there are many articles related to this which do use this and which could also be cited. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  Apparently, my invitation to use academic sources instead of news went unheard. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:43, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  In fairness, the Cambridge UP source you quoted also uses the word expand. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not against that, but against news sources. Also note the accent which Arel and Driscoll are pointing out: maximalist demands ... unexpectedly extreme. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  I would prefer an unbiased survey of academic sources too (as opposed to cherry-picking sources that support one argument). However, an argument has been made on the basis of the current sourcing in the body of the article - which is a news source. There is clearly no substance to that argument. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I implemented the alternate wording after the RfC closed because I figured that it was closer to consensus, as some editors raised an objection to the word "expansion". I don't think the two versions are substantially very different, and that the current version is a little more semantically clear and less wordy. — Goszei (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Foreign support should be updated and clarified

The foreign support section only mentions Belarus and China, but the two biggest supporters of Russia aren't mentioned at all, Iran and North Korea. Also, the map that shows nations sending aid to Ukraine should be changed to add Russia's supporters as well, which would also more clearly illustrate the global situation and balance of power. I can do this if you don't mind (thinking just a lighter shade of red for Russia's allies). Adonnus (talk) 10:09, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

They are mentioned. Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

The image in this article conflicts substantially with image in the list article despite them supposedly showing the same information. Both images are also ultimately sourced to a Wikipedia article: List of military aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Не хватает справа : Германия, Франция, США, Литва, Чехия, Канада, Нидерланды, Англия, Австралия, Турция , Латвия , Исландия, Румыния ,Хорватия ,Норвегия , Польша ,Эстония , Греция, Италия 176.59.72.139 (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the anti-totalitarian coalition YBSOne (talk) 12:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 October 2024 (2)

North Korea be included as a belligerent in the conflict. 2001:56B:FFE5:381D:6DAB:BB16:8CCC:387E (talk) 13:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

already being discussed above. Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 October 2024

The Russian Ukraine war did NOT start in 2014. This a false 173.54.54.247 (talk) 12:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

RS say otherwise. Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

They did, when they invaded and annexed Crimea, per reliable sources. — Czello ^(music) 13:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: lmao, lmfao even. not only is the request nonsensical, but it doesn't follow the "Change X to Y" format for requests. Scuba 14:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

October 2024: New battles

New battles are taking place, without any articles being made for them.

Articles I would recommend creating are:

- Battle of Hirnyk/Kurakhiva

- Battle of Selydove

Both are currently taking place in Donetsk, however have no mention despite these engagements having gone on for several days. NMEGG (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

We need RS to discuss them. Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Under the current structure Hirnyk/Kurakhivka, until an article on the battle for Kurakhove is made, falls under Eastern Ukraine campaign, while Selydove is covered in Pokrovsk offensive. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

We need sources to flesh it out, but I agree both battles are highly likely to be independently notable. Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Grammar error

I came across a small error in the #Support for Russia section. It says this "In October 2024, Ukraine and South Korea claimed that North Koreans engineers had been deployed to the battlefield to help with the launch of these missiles, and had suffered some casualties."

Could someone fix it so it reads "North Korean engineers" or a similar phrase? Lazesusdasiru (talk) 02:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done as requested. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Lazesusdasiru (talk) 03:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Add North Korea to Support Section

North Korea has sent ~3,000 soldiers out of a promised 10,000 to be deployed by December to Russia where they are being trained and re-equipped in Russian Far Eastern and Siberian military bases (Ussuriysk was mentioned a lot). Also, North Korea has sent roughly 8 million artillery shells to Russia to support their invasion, and has supplied short range ballistic missiles and rockets to Russia too. Why then, is North Korea not shown in the section with Russia's closest supporters? Belarus is there, so why not North Korea? Yes I have read the discussion that took place to decide whether countries supplying arms should be listed in the infobox, and that would have applied to this situation were it not for the numerous news reports and factual evidence showing that North Korea is not only continuing to supply arms to Russia, they are now sending manpower support in the form of several thousand soldiers OF the North Korean army TO Russia where they will participate in the war very soon. Please consider adding North Korea next to Belarus in this section and maybe adding a new section about the new North Korean support.

I understand, however, that this is a developing situation, and I also consider the fact that it is unclear whether North Korean soldiers will be incorporated into already existing Russian units. However, that would spark a whole other debate. This is intended to open up discourse. Thank you

Sources: https://edition.cnn.com/2024/01/05/europe/russia-north-korean-missiles-ukraine-asia-intl-hnk-ml/index.html#:~:text=Russia%20has%20fired%20North%20Korean-supplied%20short-range%20ballistic%20missiles,the%20Korean%20Peninsula%2C%20the%20White%20House%20said%20Thursday.

https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/east-asia/south-korea-north-korea-ukraine-russia-war-b2634063.html

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-russia-war-live-maps-north-korean-south-korea-putin-b2633894.html

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g5vwxgyx3o

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/23/us/politics/north-korea-russia-military-ukraine.html

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/what-we-know-about-north-korean-troops-joining-russias-war-ukraine-2024-10-21/

There is also satellite imagery and alleged footage on youtube and other video services of alleged North Korean troops. CrazyFruitBat911 (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

This is already being discussed under the section titled "north korea should be listed as an ally of russia" --haha169 (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

why go through so much effort and not even check if it's already being discussed. youre the fifth person to do this NotQualified (talk) 08:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

yeah sorry about that i didnt check because i had no time

i needed to get a piece of work done CrazyFruitBat911 (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Should we update the map of foreign support to include Russian allies too?

This has bugged me for a while. Ukraine's supporters are all highlighted on the map, but not Russia's supporters, when they've sent millions of artillery rounds, drones and now personnel too. Said map is this one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#/media/File:Countries_supplying_military_equipment_to_Ukraine_during_the_2022_Russian_invasion.svg

Seen in the "international aspects" category. Adonnus (talk) 10:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Seems valid, and I have been wondering that too. Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree, it not only creates a better picture of the conflict but can serve to possibly settle the dispute of North Korea V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Donetsk and Luhansk status in belligerents

I propose removing the increased indentation of PR's of Donetsk and Luhansk from the infobox and instead adding an efn to Russia in the same section explaining their illegitimate but small recognition as annexed republics of the Russian Federation. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 09:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Donetsk and Luhansk were break away states that maintained their own military forces involved in the conflict up until they acceded to Russia. They are listed as bulleted entities under Russia because even when they were defacto independent, they were dominated by Russia, but their forces still fought as soldiers of Donetsk / Lunhansk as opposed to being members of the Russian military.XavierGreen (talk) 13:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

To update belligerents

May I suggest adding Iran and North Korea as countries which are supporting Russia? Furthermore, can the majority of NATO countries (those verified who have sent military support) be added as supporting Ukraine? Benzekre (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

We are discussing North Korea above, and supplying arms does not make you a belligerent. Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Fair point .... but supplying arms would definitely make you a supporter. Iran and North have been supplying Russia, while most of NATO has been supplying Ukraine. Benzekre (talk) 17:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

And supported is generally deprecated, Belarus is a unique case. Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 October 2024

Showing North Korea as a belligerent country along with Russian camp

The involvement of North Korean forces have been confirmed by both sides as a participant in the war and deployed alongside the Russian force, it should be added as a belligerent group in the info box, or at least a supporting role in the war similar to the Belarus.Sheherherhers (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC) Sheherherhers (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

We are discussing North Korea above. Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Why isn't added North Korea as Co-Belligerent it has been confirmed by Nato also Ukraine section should have a "supported by" list of western countries that has given military aid to ukraine (i.e usa, uk, france, germany, poland etc) Amanahmad111000 (talk) 10:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

We are still discussing North Korea in a thread above. and read the FAQ. Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 November 2024

In the first paragraph, change "largest conflict since World War II" to "largest armed conflict since World War II", as the height of the Cold War would be larger than the invasion, but no direct fighting took place. ArtemisDay (talk) 14:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done: I have added "armed" as you proposed (but be mindful this edit is subject to reversion); however the pdf file has not been sourced. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 15:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect caption to map of Donbas

The map of Donbas in the "Fall of Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk" sub-subsection is described as "Military control around Donbas as of 24 March 2023", but the map shows the situation as of mid 2024. WikiEnjoyer123 (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

(Edit Request) Iran is indirectly involved in supporting Russia

Iran supplies Russia with weapons and missiles but Iran denied that, so could you put Iran into alleged supporters on infobox?

Sources: (CNBC), (Kyiv Independent), (Al Jazeera) 178.81.55.110 (talk) 06:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

No, see FAQ Q4. We do not list arms suppliers in the infobox. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

But north Korea also denied sending troops 178.81.55.110 (talk) 03:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

And Russia denied for a long time that this was even a war, authoritarian state lies don't hold much WP:WEIGHT. TylerBurden (talk) 20:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe, but lots of nations are supplying weapons, that does not mean they should be included. Slatersteven (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Russia is not an authoritarian state. GreatLeader1945 ^TALK 14:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

It is even according to Wikipedia's own article on it, Russia, but I suppose that is also all made-up fake news like everything else you don't like. TylerBurden (talk) 20:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

What North Korea states doesn't matter - what sources state does. Cortador (talk) 11:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

These are fake, made-up sources and you know that: Kursk is not even part of the Republic of Ukraine lol GreatLeader1945 ^TALK 14:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

with all the ANI warnings on your user page, why are you continuing to be non-prodcutive/disruptive? Either bring a Reliable Source for comment for the betterment of the article, or stop! 2603:6080:21F0:AB60:2850:5700:1526:2FCD (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

They are asking for a block at this point, if a sensible administrator could step in so that no one needs to waste time on them creating an WP:AN/I report that'd be great. TylerBurden (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

We are not discussing Russia. Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Rename?

I've been thinking if the current "Russian invasion of Ukraine" remains adequate to describe the article since Ukraine occupied a few Russian territory since 2024. Maybe something like Russia-Ukraine War (2022-Present) or Second phase of Russia-Ukraine War would be more adequate? MaGioZal (talk) 05:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

There's already an article called Russo-Ukraine War which describes the broader conflict between the countries since 2014. While it is true that part of the war takes place on Russian territory now, the majority of the fighting has been on Ukrainian territory. Also, the name doesn't have to be fully descriptive e.g. large parts of the Battle of France took place in the Low Countries, but sources settled on "Battle of France" nevertheless. Cortador (talk) 08:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)