Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Requested move 4 March 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Procedural close. Obviously, this isn't going to fly at this time. People should refrain from making repeated discussions on the same topic; and really some if not most of the arguments against the first move probably apply against this one as well. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

---

Russo-Ukrainian War → Russo-Ukrainian conflict – This conflict has been going on for eight years, with various different wars and invasions within that, including the War in Donbas, Annexation of Crimea by Russia, and now the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Therefore, it would be more appropriate to name the overview article over all of these "conflict" rather than "war", in line with articles such as the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, the Korean conflict, or the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Keepcalmandchill (please ping in responses) (talk) 03:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Keepcalmandchill an argument by analogy isn't a particularly strong one. WP:COMMONNAME relies on evidence of sources and not just that sources exist with a particular name but that it is more common than alternatives. What is your quantifiable objective evidence that the proposed name is more common than the present name in good quality independent reliable sources. Without evidence, there is no reasonable basis to propose this move. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Cinderella157 I don't see any evidence that "Russo-Ukrainian War" is a common name for the conflict. We shouldn't stick with a term just because that happened to be used first. I don't know how I can really quantify the use of either term, Google N-gram only includes very common words ('War in Donbas' returns zero results, for example). Keepcalmandchill (please ping in responses) (talk) 03:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• Strong oppose – Why are we doing this again, right after a previous RM was WP:SNOW closed? It is much too early to determine what the final titles of these articles will be. We're in the thick of the conflict at this very moment. All of these move requests are very taxing. But, I'll say the same thing I said in the discussion above: 'conflict' is just a WP:EUPHEMISM for 'war'. There is no justification for using it here, especially when RS call this event a 'war' (see for example Google Scholar, or the following books and journal articles: Non-State Actors in the Russo-Ukrainian War, The exploitation of cyber domain as part of warfare: Russo-Ukrainian war, Girls cutting their locks: A book of memories / the Russo-Ukrainian War, Lessons Learned from the Russo-Ukrainian War, and Virtual Warfare: Masculinity, Sexuality, and Propaganda in the Russo-Ukrainian War, In the Ninth Circle: Intellectuals as Traitors in the Russo-Ukrainian War, &c). Not to mention, the proposed title is much less WP:PRECISE. This article is not about conflict between Russia and Ukraine throughout history, but specifically about the war called the 'Russo-Ukrainian War' by RS. The proposed title thus fails WP:PRECISE. Finally, I would like to remind the editor that hundreds of Ukrainian soldiers died during so-called 'frozen conflict' stage between 2016 and 2021. The war did not just suddenly resurface now...it's been ongoing for eight years! RGloucester — ☎ 03:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
• Question Are there sources calling it Russo-Ukrainian anything; Every source I see calls it Russia-Ukraine War? Though how using WMD and firing missile at nuclear stations is a "conflict" I don't know. Nfitz (talk)

The focus should not be on current news coverage (which amounts to headlinese), but on the common name in scholarly, reliable sources. We're WP:NOTNEWS. See above. This isn't a new conflict, and WP:RECENTISM doesn't get us anywhere. Like I said above, we will need to wait to determine what the common name becomes in reliable sources when all this is finished, but at this point, it's just too early to say. Finally, there is a question of consistency with previous wars like the Russo-Georgian War, but as I said, I think that's an argument to be had for another day in the future. RGloucester — ☎ 03:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Clandestine Operations

Is the C.I.A. secretly training Ukrainians in the methods of guerilla warfare?

Who knows, we need RS claiming this. Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Supporting countries

Are those exaggeratedly long lists of supporting countries in the infobox really necessary? I think only countries providing combat and medical support should be listed. 7szz (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. Only countries that have directly supplied Ukraine should be listed on it imo. ― Tuna ^No_SurprisesPlease 22:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jr8825:@Israelgonz27:@7szz: Pinging you all so we can discuss having a list of supporting countries. I think that a list would be nice to have, but it shouldn't include countries that have simply condemned or supported one side or another, but rather actually supplied one of the main combatants (for example, the US sending Javelin missiles to Ukraine). ― Tuna ^No_SurprisesPlease 03:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

-The reason I choose to re-add all the listed nations was that the word "Support" was not specific enough therefore I felt like nations not necessarily contributing militarily or medically should have stayed because they were supporting in other forms such as sanctions or economic ties, however, I would not oppose the removal of most of the nation if the term "supported" was more descriptive or maybe breaking it into two sections. -Israelgonz27 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Israelgonz27 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• This is a duplicate of this above thread. Jr8825 • Talk 04:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

My bad, I'll move there. ― Tuna ^No_SurprisesPlease 04:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree, I move the support info box be removed entirely or only countries that are directly in physical support be added. JasonMoore (talk) 08:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

They donot want to have beef as of we all know the consequences Russia impose on whomever will try to interfere in their affairs RSA tried to put themselves in a talking but the Russian federal said whomever will try to interfere will be taught an history so on. Freddy Kabeya (talk) 12:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Can it be confirmed that at least 16,000 foreign nationals have travelled to and are currently in Ukraine to enlist in the Ukrainian army (as Spanish Civil War-style International Brigades)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 08:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

To avoid this article being overwhelmed by WP:RECENTISM, this article should be written to defer to articles that specifically deal with the most recent events. It is a matter for elsewhere at this time. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Alleged racism

Hi, consider adding the discrimination displayed by Ukrainians against Africans according to this news article by the New York Times. 176.54.82.86 (talk) 07:59, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

How exactly does that relate to Ukraine's war with Russia? ― Tuna ^No_SurprisesPlease 16:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

If it’s significant, it might belong in 2022 Ukrainian refugee crisis. If it’s just a single incident, is it encyclopedic at all? —Michael Z. 18:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

It’s not a single incident and it’s being conducted repeatedly across the Polish border. It can be added to this page because it is a direct result of the war itself, as well as being added on to the refugee crisis page. JasonMoore (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks like it is included in Ukrainian refugee crisis#Non-native Ukrainian population. —Michael Z. 21:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Article is too long - needs condensing and splitting

Per WP:TOOBIG, articles should "almost certainly" be split and condensed when over 100,000 characters. Per Xtools, this article is now at 142,917 characters, or more than 42% too large. I notice a significant loading delay and the amount of information is immense, reducing readability. Relevant subpages to which information can be moved already exist, such as Historical background of the Russo-Ukrainian War, Euromaidan, Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, War in Donbas, 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis, and International reactions to the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. I am going to make a significant effort to remove content from this page, and if it does not exist on those alternate pages, move it there instead. This article has some aspects of WP:PROSELINE as well, which need to be addressed. I would appreciate anyone who can help me out with this. Ganesha811 (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Please consider WP:HASTE before taking any drastic action. With events still ongoing, we are really not in a position to determine what will remain in the article when all of the events have concluded (if they conclude). RGloucester — ☎ 17:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Before I saw your message, I was WP:BOLD and removed about 100,000 bytes of material from this page. I understand the desire for prudence, but the parts of this article that are the worst are actually those that deal with events between 2014 and 2020. We are at least at somewhat of a remove from those days, and the need for WP:SUMMARY style is enormous. The article as of this morning is a huge mess, a collection of innumerable facts poorly organized, difficult to follow and with little coherence. As editors it's just as important to summarize and remove unneeded material as it is to add it, but over years, huge amounts of trivial or overly detailed information inevitably gets added to any high-profile article. If you want to revert my changes, I won't edit war, but I hope the article can be made significantly better through removal of material to relevant subpages (of which there are plenty, I don't think we need any new ones that I can see) and better summarization of what remains. Ganesha811 (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't mind removing of duplicate content, and I certainly don't mind copy-editing. This article has always been a mess and WP:COATRACK since 2014, and I'm glad that we can work to clean it up. The point is, this will be a complicated endeavour because it will require ensuring that 1) junk content from this article doesn't flood other, more organised articles and 2) duplicate content in this article isn't introduced into other, more organised articles 3) the general narrative of events at this article remains comprehensible. RGloucester — ☎ 17:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your advice and agree with your comments - almost all of the removed content already exists on one of the subpages, in one form or another, so I will not be adding much if any material to those pages right now. The cleaning and organizing of this article is my main focus. Ganesha811 (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The article is now about 90k characters, or around 90% of the 100kb threshold. I expect it will grow again, but that can be addressed later. The main issues now are readability, proseline, and effective summarization, which are of course trickier to work on and harder to fix. Ganesha811 (talk) 04:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

You spoke of a need for WP:SUMMARY but I don't see attempt to summarize only whole sale removals that hasn't been integrated anywhere.--Nilsol2 (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

The rational for Putin's "wrecking Ukraine"

A friend of mine from the USA, who studied in Kiev in the 1980s, send me this youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4 . I suggest adding the following section about The Cause(s) of the War: In 2015, John Mearsheimer stated, that if NATO tries to admit Ukraine, the only rational choice left to Putin would be to "wreck Ukraine". If Mearsheimer is correct, it means, that Putin is NOT trying to "conquer" Ukraine (i.e. to "rule over it"). Putin is trying to "wreck" Ukraine, so that the NATO would accept his demand not to expand the alliance eastward. It also means, that Putin is willing to stop the bloodshed and start negotiations immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Tau (talk • contribs) 17:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Except NATO has not tried to admit Ukraine, in fact, they have refused to admit it. Also, this is 7 years too late, and out of date. Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

>> to quote Mearsheimer: "I think all the trouble in this case really started in April, 2008, at the NATO Summit in Bucharest, where afterward NATO issued a statement that said Ukraine and Georgia would become part of NATO." https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/why-john-mearsheimer-blames-the-us-for-the-crisis-in-ukraine/amp . As far as " 7 years too late" goes- this is the best part. Mearsheimer predicted it SEVEN YEARS AGO. This makes me wonder, if Putin is bombing Ukraine, because he listened to Mearsheimer.

Mearsheimer’s strict realism is maybe not fringe, but it is outside of mainstream in international relations theory, or at least too focused on one aspect to the willful exclusion of others. I’m no expert, but here’s an expert explanation.Twitter thread.

And it is not bible prophecy. Drawing conclusions about Putin’s potential willingness about anything is WP:CHAT, and not helpful in editing this article. —Michael Z. 19:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

>> I would welcome alternative explanations, but I have not seen any. I'd think of Putin's mental illness, but he has never lost (well, may be once, when he made Medvedev a president) , and he is winning in Ukraine too.

please read wp:or and wp:blp, we cannot offer alternative explanations just ask for RS that actually say this was Putin's reason for this invasion (and not one given 7 years before, and thus nothing to do with this). Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

add Ukrainian name

Many Ukrainian commenters refer to the war as "the war of Russian aggression", which would be fair to add as a (also known as ... ) to help people reach this page from Twitter and other social media platforms through searching 12.138.28.5 (talk) 05:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian Wikipedia gives three names:

• Ukrainian: Російсько-українська війна, romanized: Rosiisko-ukrainska viina, lit. 'Russo–Ukrainian war'
• Ukrainian: Російська збройна агресія проти України, romanized: Rosiiska zbroina ahresiia proty Ukrainy, lit. 'Russian armed aggression against Ukraine'
• Ukrainian: Українська Вітчизняна війна, romanized: Ukrainska Vitchyzniana viina, lit. 'Ukrainian Patriotic war'

 —Michael Z. 20:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Many Ukrainian commentator refer to the war as “The War of Russian Liberation” which would be fair to Add. --MindAndMemory (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Untrue. Appears to be trolling. —Michael Z. 20:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Mzajac, per this edit, telling us: (Ukrainian: Російсько-українська війна, romanized: Rosiisko-ukrainska viina, lit. 'Russo–Ukrainian war'), is of no real encyclopedic value. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

MOS:LEADLANG suggests “If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name can be included in the lead sentence . . .” —Michael Z. 00:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Mzajac, MOS:LEADLANG states that it could be added but underpinning this is whether there is any value to our readers and whether it is encyclopedic to do so, remembering that MOS:LEADLANG is a general guideline covering many subjects. Telling us that Cologne is Köln in German is relevant because it is pretty different from the English common name and it is not just a matter of translation. Telling us that the Ukranian name for the Russo-Ukrainian War translates into English as Russo-Ukrainian War is pretty inconsequential. There is then the matter of maintaining a neutral point of view. We would also need to be saying what the Russians are calling this. Just because the guidance says that we could do this, doesn't mean that we should. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

That is a very good point. In the RF it is now illegal to call Putin’s February “special military operation” a war or invasion. Independent media have been shit down for it and a new censorship law threatens fifteen years imprisonment for “disinformation.” Tells us a lot. How do we incorporate that into the article? —Michael Z. 14:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Mzajac, I understand that the laws you are refering to are fairly recent. It is something I think we should leave for now to those article specifically dealing with the recent events. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:44, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. The information space is a huge aspect of the last two weeks of this war, including Ukrainian dominance and the Russian denial of the war to their own citizens. It’s touched on in two or three sections of this article, but certainly deserves a solid paragraph. —Michael Z. 01:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Name correction from "Malofayev" to "Malofeev"

In the "2015-2020 frozen conflict phase" section, the article has a red link to "Konstantin Malofayev": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantin_Malofayev

I believe this needs to be corrected to "Konstantin Malofeev": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantin_Malofeev

I'm not sure why some news sources use one name, and others use the other.

Due to the "Extended Protection", which IIRC, blocks edits from an IP, I'm not able to correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.0.181 (talk) 07:26, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• Done - thanks for the catch. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 March 2022

Adithyareddy e (talk) 09:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfZCJok21Yc-LaKibr3E0sw

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Change list of supporting nations/groups

The list of support for Ukraine has NATO & the EU. There's no need to list the US & UK separately, as both are part of NATO.

Either that, or every member nation from those groups should be listed.

And when it comes to actual support during this war, the US hasn't been a major avenue of support compared to other European nations. 2600:6C40:100:D85:8300:28BA:53F6:F69A (talk) 17:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Turkish military support

Turkey's Bayraktar TB2 is an effective weapon and already being used by Ukraine. I saw just announced military aids yet to arrive mentioned but already used tb2 and Turkey doesnt appear in arm suppliers to Ukraine section 88.229.63.186 (talk) 08:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Can it be confirmed as to whether the Bosphorous and Dardanelles have been closed to all Russian shipping? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 08:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

No doubt turkey is among the most powerful countries in EuroAsia. Turkey have complete capabilities to country attack of any country around the World. However, Turkey learned a lot from history and lost a lot due to misadventure in 1st world war. Now Turkey is smart and developed country. Turkey will never involve in any sort to direct or indirect intervention in Russo Ukrainian war. Russia and Turkey have good relations and western media try to create confusion everywhere.--MindAndMemory (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@88.229.63.186 "For 2022, Turkey is ranked 13 of 140 out of the countries considered for the annual GFP review. It holds a PwrIndx* score of 0.1961 (a score of 0.0000 is considered 'perfect')." https://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.php?country_id=turkey#:~:text=For%202022%2C%20Turkey%20is%20ranked,0.0000%20is%20considered%20'perfect'). Esteban Outeiral Dias (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Infobox: Casualties and losses

Should label which are Ukrainian and which Russian. I expect they're in the same order as in previous sections, but for clarity we should be explicit. — kwami (talk) 08:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Done myself. — kwami (talk) 21:50, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 March 2022 (2)

Please remove Belarus from the Russian side of belligerents in the first infobox, the second source denies this is true, and the first one is not strong evidence. See: Talk:Russo-Ukrainian_War#Belarus'_involvement Corn Kernel (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Edited by Kwamikagami https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russo-Ukrainian_War&oldid=1075638976 | Corn Kernel (talk) 07:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Straightening/evening out particular naming terminology inconsistecies across other military events

So, I guess many might've seen that meme where the west's attack on libiya back under Obama, or other conflicts such as in Syria, Iraq and others~ (not mentioned in particular meme~) are called "military intervention"s in wiki articles/titles while current situation is titled 'invasion'. Seems kinda unequal if not biased~, ah no better term should probably be "inconcistent". I think it's either I'm ignorant about correct terminology, and if so I guess i could also then say that many others too, so I'd appreciate being enlightened~/having the situation clarified and it be mentioned perhaps? So that others would be able to understand too, like for example have a box like those 'this article is incomplete' boxes and have a 'why it's termed "war"/"invasion"/"intervention" ' or whatever specifically, Or if it's indeed inconsistent, have this inconcistency fixed/made consistent across such articles?.. 176.12.239.26 (talk) 11:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

We go with what RS say, and whataboutism is never a good argument. The reason why is this is not the place to discuss the west's attack on Libya back under Obama, or other conflicts such as in Syria, Iraq and others. So it is not the place to discuss and differences between those conflicts. Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 March 2022 (2)

3rd paragraph of main section:

Change “ He also expressed Russian irredentist views, questioned Ukraine's right to exist, and stated Ukraine was wrongfully created by Soviet Russia. ”

To “ He also expressed Russian irredentist views, questioned Ukraine’s right to exist, and wrongfully stated Ukraine was created by Soviet Russia”

The first sentence implies Soviet Russia created Ukraine but then viewed this as wrong whereas the alteration makes clear that Ukraine was not created by the Soviet Union. 82.23.89.83 (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Just because Putin is wrong doesn't mean that's not what he said. ― Tuna ^No_SurprisesPlease 17:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine NATO cooperation

The background section claims Ukraine deployed the third largest contingent to Iraq in 2004. According to this page it may have been the 4th or 5th largest. Neither is this nor any of the following claims in the same sentence backed by the linked source #35 -- indeed, it does not mention NATO, ISAF, KFOR.

2A02:8109:DC0:BAA4:0:0:0:4D0 (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

include Russian AWOL in infobox?

In the infobox, we have "9,268 joined Russian forces after annexation" as a loss for Ukraine. But we also have Russian soldiers abandoning their positions or vehicles (e.g. when they run out of gas). Do we have a number for that to add to the Russian side? — kwami (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

The first step would be to find a WP:reliable source that provides a number. Any idea? --N8 23:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Belarus' involvement

Is Belarus' active (military) participation confirmed anywhere? The country was added to the right in the "Belligerents" table in the sidebar, but one of the two sources –the Politico article– has since been updated to highlight the US says there's still no confirmation of this. 152.171.56.187 (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Belarus should be removed ASAP or added as "supported by", or another source needs to be found. This is sloppy for such an active page, it's been 24 hours since this first comment and it's not fixed. Corn Kernel (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

The article has been updated, it was based on the statement of one Ukranian TO commander. The supposed Belarussian invasion was later denied by both Zelensky and Lukashenko. Since then, as the article is updated to say, US officials also do not believe any Belarussian incursions into Ukraine have occurred. It is very possible the TO commander could have gotten confused in the fog of war and the chaos of the fighting, as both nations use very similar military equipment. Goodposts (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Removed, as there are no objections. The source in the infobox for the claim of B's involvement explicitly states that there is no confirmation of B's involvement. — kwami (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be in the "supported by" wrt recent events per the invasion article with a "since" note put there. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Endgame

Taking into account as to what is currently happening inside Russia, what are the chances of Vladimir Putin and Alexander Lukashenko ending up like Nicolae Ceausescu and/or the Romanovs?

Please read wp:crystal and wp:forum. Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Commanders

I think it is not entirely true that Vladimir Putin is main or only commander of Russian armies. Also the war often takes way of Russo-Polish war, or at least started in 2020 like this. Also Putin never took part in Russo-Polish war but true he map overlooked and tried to make some sort of "end celebration of it", that did not succeed because of the Polish-Ukrianian-Russian conflict going under that coundn't really stop and also the strange grayish celebration colors that he desired on, however the conflict stopped to return things in to normal political until the Ukrainians started it all over again especially with having anger on Russo-Bulgarian medical ties that opened the war grounds layer in Ukraine itself, but also is having very bad impact on med computing here.--Medupdate (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I am unsure what you are trying to say. But whatever it is you need wp:rs to say it for us to make changes to our article. Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Russia

Russo-Ukrainian War[21][d] is an ongoing war primarily involving Russia, pro-Russian forces, and Belarus on one side, and Ukraine and its international supporters on the other. Conflict began in February 2014 following the Revolution of Dignity, and focused on the status of Crimea and parts of the Donbas, internationally recognised as part of Ukraine. The conflict includes the Russian annexation of Crimea (2014), the war in Donbas (2014–present), naval incidents, cyberwarfare, and political tensions. 160.238.74.91 (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Don't know what we are supposed to do with this? Cinderella157 (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Or to out it another wat, what are you asking? Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Can it be confirmed whether a Russian army general was assassinated by a sniper during a parade in Russia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 12:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any sources? Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukranians that make war (against) Bulgaria and Bulgarian-Russian people

I think it should be fairly stated that Ukrainians although having supporters in Bulgaria are leading a war here with making war crimes as killing people, taking over companies without any law stoppage and that Poland too is into this, and these too take over communications and computing in either friendly or unfriendly manner, with life or rape threats, and various other feeling protected by EP because EU would not recognize officially that Ukraine is leading a war against Bulgaria.

This, again, started with Rusdo-Polish and later Russo-Ukrainian conflicts that hit even on medical studies, that is the most embracing after all but even continues?

As Polish and Ukrainians tend to interfere wherever medical research is done in Bulgaria even if this is for a while (not state regulated, or thinly state subsidated) or in company (Telenor Bulgaria).

While previous times Ukraine was simply seeking and finding some support here, after some acknowledgement of what this is used for major support was refused but yet, a Ukrainian rep was elected and he without any remouses is leading war in Bulgaria naming it "war against Russia", this includes cars fights, street fights and treats, embeselment of state and private communications (making joke of the pro-medical company Telenor), attempts for humiliating medical researchers, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medupdate (talk • contribs) 15:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, I am gonna be super nice and not delete this as wp:soapboxing, and just tell you that to add anything about this you need wp:rs to say Ukraine is at war with Bulgaria. Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 March 2022

Change

  Occupied by Russia and pro-Russian forces

to

  Occupied by Russia and pro-Russian forces, but here the Russian territorial gains are sometimes shown much larger than on liveuamap.com and in the NZZ.

My Annotation: Please send me feedback. Sven71 (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Well large in some places, not as large in others. Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

My apologies, what is the requested change? To update the map or to update the caption? If the last, I don't understand the difference... P1221 (talk) 11:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: as per comment above. Please feel free to reopen the request if necessary. P1221 (talk) 09:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Shouldn't the title's hyphen be an en dash?

Since Russia and Ukraine are different entities, shouldn't it be an en dash instead of a hyphen (see MOS:HYPHEN, WP:DASH, and Russia–Ukraine relations)? It's also been a topic mentioned by User:BarrelProof above and User:Mzajac in the talk's archive. —Wei4Earth (talk, contribs) 15:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

No. See MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES. 'Russo-' is a combining form, and these take a hyphen, not a dash. RGloucester — ☎ 15:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I see, learned something new today. So "Russo-" can't be independent on its own. —Wei4Earth (talk, contribs) 15:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Unless it were to change to Russia–Ukrainian War right? waddie96 ★ (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Russia–Ukrainian War is not a possibility. Russian–Ukrainian War, on the other hand, would take a dash, yes. RGloucester — ☎ 16:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The dash is used to show a relationship between two nouns, and common in from–to constructions like London–Paris train). Not sure how to parse Russian-Ukrainian War, but if it’s a compound adjective then I think it would take a hyphen. Let’s not use it. —Michael Z. 17:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

No, please read MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES. If 'Russian–' were used, a dash is required. Not that I prefer or endorse that potential title, just saying, from an MoS perspective. RGloucester — ☎ 17:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I think we may need to review that part of the MOS. BilledMammal (talk) 00:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Please correct a lie in the first sentence.

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

---

The Russo-Ukrainian War[21][e] is an ongoing war primarily involving Russia and pro-Russian separatist forces on one side, and Ukraine and its international supporters on the other.

---

International supporters are not involved in the war. End of story. Stop these lies. They may like Ukraine but nobody is sending troops. Otherwise, add that North Korea is supporting Russia like The Russo-Ukrainian War[21][e] is an ongoing war primarily involving Russia and pro-Russian separatist forces, North Korea, Eritrea, China, Syria, and Belarus on one side, and Ukraine and its international supporters on the other.

Charliestalnaker (talk) 00:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 March 2022

Change links of reference 35 to:

https://nato.mfa.gov.ua/en/ukraine-and-nato/nato-ukraine-cooperation-peace-support-operations

and

https://web.archive.org/web/20210815082914/https://nato.mfa.gov.ua/en/ukraine-and-nato/nato-ukraine-cooperation-peace-support-operations 2.247.245.179 (talk) 12:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

In progress: An editor is implementing the requested edit. Caveat: for now, I'm adding this as additional reference as I'm not seeing a portions of the claim in either source. --N8 12:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done I'm seeing now that all the ref metadata except the URL seems to line up with that URL so implemented as requested. --N8 12:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Anonymous's involvement

Anonymous declared a war on russia and were able to perform a series of a successful cyber attacks.. they should be listed on the Ukrainian side in the article as they are directly involved in the war — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kreyren (talk • contribs) 03:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

This topic is mentioned in Anonymous (hacker group) and briefly in 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine as well. It's worth noting that even if they "declared war" it might be difficult to characterize them as a party to the conflict — i.e. as taking sides. In my limited understanding, the key obstacles to that claim are 1.) the group is a decentralized collective (per WP) which means they have no verifiable command structure (who speaks on their behalf?) and 2.) cyber-warfare probably limits their actions to those of a non-belligerent. Despite all that, claims put forth by wp:reliablesources that say otherwise are fair game for incorporation. --N8 14:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Opening sentence of lead

The opening sentence of the lead is a bit misleading:

The Russo-Ukrainian War is an ongoing war primarily involving Russia, pro-Russian forces, and Belarus on one side, and Ukraine and its international supporters on the other. [emphasis added]

It would imply that Belarus is a belligerent and not just a non-belligerent supporter. It tends to also suggests that the international supporters have a belligerent involvement since while we (WP editors) may know that we don't mean that they are belligerents, our readers don't necessarily know this - that the support is indirect. The sentence needs to be cleaned-up/clarified to remove the ambiguity/lack of clarity. Suggest:

The Russo-Ukrainian War is an ongoing war primarily involving Russia and pro-Russian forces on one side, and Ukraine on the other.

This is simple and accurate. If it is absolutely necessary to add more words than the proposal, then it might be something like: "Many countries have provided various levels of support to Ukraine short of becoming belligerents in the war while Belarus (also not a belligerent) has provided Russian forces territorial access for the 2022 invasion." Cinderella157 (talk) 01:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I've already removed Belarus from that sentence once as I agree there's ambiguity over whether Belarus is a full participant. I didn't notice when/why I was reverted. Jr8825 • Talk 12:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• I've now changed it to "supported by" – thoughts? Jr8825 • Talk 01:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Jr8825, I am still not comfortable with how the unqualified "supported by" is being used for both Belarus and the "international supporters". It does not distinguish that both are non-belligerents. I have added a note using the above text. However, I would be more comfortable with this version or as a second choice, this version. In the second choice, I think the added words break a more natural flow. Thoughts? Cinderella157 (talk) 02:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

addition of "international supporters" is flat out wrong. Take it out. They are not involved in the war, not a single soldier or squadron. Charliestalnaker (talk) 03:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: thanks for removing the supporters from the first sentence, I was also thinking of doing the same as I also wasn't content with my earlier compromise text. I've reworded the sentence further today. Jr8825 • Talk 13:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Jr8825, I think that the main sentence: ... is an ongoing war primarily involving Russia and pro-Russian separatist forces on one side, and Ukraine. is clearer (IMHO) than ... is an ongoing war between Russia, together with pro-Russian separatist forces, and Ukraine. However, we don't need to say "primarily" in the first version. Or perhaps: ... is an ongoing war between Russia (together with pro-Russian separatist forces) and Ukraine. Changes to the note are fine. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Please go ahead and make any changes you believe are necessary, I'm not too fussed about the precise wording now my main concern (listing non-belligerents in the opening sentence) has been addressed. Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 01:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Belligerents - support

Turkey should be added as they are supplying drones, etc (Bayraktar). Yes they are part of NATO but so are EU/UK/US/CA but they are listed separatelyAngele201002 (talk) 08:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Pls see infobox and how recent support is being dealt with in a separate article. There are article that specifically deal with the most recent events, rather than overwhelming this article (covering 8 years) with recentism. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but the drones were supplied in 2019 so it’s not something solely relevant to the 2022 invasion Angele201002 (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Add to body if anything. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Has Vladimir Putin threatened the countries which are supplying weapons to the Ukraine even if they are members of NATO? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 07:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Are there any statistics which show how many soldiers from NATO countries have gone AWOL to go to Ukraine in order to fight against the Russian invaders? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 07:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Deaths of Civilians

Should say the source is from 14 April 2014 to 30 September 2021. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LucasW (talk • contribs) 20:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Has the Ukrainian Government declared that the russian invaders are war criminals? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 07:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Was the American journalist who was recently killed (by being shot in the head) deliberately targeted by the russians precisely because he was an American journalist?

Has Vladimir Putin ordered the carrying out of Tsarist-style anti-Semitic pogroms in Russia in order to force President Zelenskyy to surrender in Ukraine?

Syrian involvement

[1] Syria, as well as Iran, is going to send the guards of the Islamic Revolution and Hezbollah. sends 16,000 mercenaries.ZeniusBY (talk) 09:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I read the article as may send. Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

We should add more military generals

Here is a list of some generals I believe we should add.

Russia Ukraine Valery Gerasimov Oleksii Reznikov

                    Valerii Zaluzhnyi
                    Oleksandr Syrskyi  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kraut Romanov (talk • contribs) 19:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC) 

Why? Slatersteven (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Because the “Commanders and leaders” subheading lists no commanders nor military leaders. —Michael Z. 19:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is a summary of the article. We would only add commanders if they receive more than a passing reference in the prose of the body of the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Ahh yes I see, we should have the head of the military and the overall ground commander , yes. Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

But which ones (at what time, given the article spans 8 years)? Or is it only the WP:RECENT ones? Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the body of the article should be telling us who the notable commanders are and, at present, the infobox reflects the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 March 2022

Zelenskyy to Zelensky 2607:FEA8:E3A1:2800:424:20AD:2D01:931 (talk) 13:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done See here. — Czello 13:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 March 2022 (2)

| commander1 =

• Volodymyr Zelenskyy<br

Change Zelenskyy to Zelensky

2607:FEA8:E3A1:2800:424:20AD:2D01:931 (talk) 13:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Zelenskyy's name is transliterated in several different ways. Zelenskyy is the transliteration on his passport, and his administration has used it since he assumed presidency in 2019 ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

France24's OSINT program provides a verified and valid sources for events in the war

Currently this article is behind on the information, thus proposing to utilize the sources from https://observers.france24.com/en/tv-shows/the-observers/20220309-ukraine-russia-osint-amateur-images-map-geolocation to keep up with the info.. Kreyren (talk) 00:29, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

It feels weird to call 2014 conflicts and the 2022 invasion the same war.

Firstly I'd like to say, I like a lot of the changes that have been happening to clean this article up lately.

Secondly, I'll address my point. Every source that points to a name in this war was published before 2022, excluding this new conflict, and it seems really disjointed to call the Crimean invasion, the following fighting in Donbas, and the current invasion part of the same war. In fact, if you think about it, there was technically a ceasefire for 8 years between Russia and Ukraine, it was a war mainly fought between Ukraine and Russian separatists who also resided in Ukraine.

To mirror this, in 1935 Hitler's regime invaded the Saarland and this started the expansion of Nazi Germany. This is usually not considered part of the main war because in between then and 1939, it was mainly a ceasefire with military planning and internal conflict occurring in Germany.

Another example here would be the Russo-Georgian War, a conflict mainly driven by ethnic cleansing which had been occurring since the 1990s, with, again, no fire exchanged between Georgia and Russia until 2008, and then no more. The article lists the war as lasting 12 days, not 17 years.

So... while there is a lack of sources right now labelling this war, I think it's safe to say that calling this 2022 offensive a part of the war that preceded currently has no support in terms of the sources that were linked in this article.

On the other hand, I think that this should be handled after the fighting dies down or the victor in this offensive is decided. New source articles will start to come out, some of them giving this conflict a name, and I think that this page is currently a good landing page for people wanting to learn about this current conflict. Icepunchies (talk) 07:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Given recent developments, I think the title and scope of this article is untenable, particularly as a large-scale war is now taking place, starting in 2022. In the nearish future I think a page move to a title such as "Russo-Ukrainian conflict (2014–2022)" would be appropriate. Jr8825 • Talk 12:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

This is all WP:OR. This article is at this title precisely because reliable sources referred to the events from 2014 as such, not for any other reason. You can consult previous discussions on this matter for the relevant RS. We cannot create an independent, original historiography here. What is happening now is a direct extension of what happened in 2014. Ukrainians have been fighting this war for eight years. Just because the world is suddenly paying attention now, doesn't negate what has happened up until now. It is possible that a new historiography may arise once events have settled down, but Wikipedia cannot jump the gun and create its own historiography as distinct from RS. We must wait, and therefore, I must oppose any change at this juncture. RGloucester — ☎ 17:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

And by the way, please read War in Donbas#Russian involvement before making comments like the war before the present invasion 'was mainly fought between Ukraine and Russian separatists'. It shows an appalling disregard for the academic consensus on this conflict. RGloucester — ☎ 17:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@RGloucester: You seem to have conflated my comments and those of the other editor. Jr8825 • Talk 07:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@RGloucester: I apologize if my ignorance on Russian involvement in the Donbass offended you.

Anyways, I'm going to dispute your claim of WP:OR. Press releases exist of the leaders of Ukraine, Russia, and the US, as well as others, I'm sure, that label the invasion portion of this conflict as a new war outright. Icepunchies (talk) 08:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian news releases? As of yesterday, I believe, it’s illegal to call this “special military operation” a war or invasion in the Russian Federation. News outlets were blocked for it, and a new law makes publishing such “disinformation” punishable by up to 15 years imprisonment.

Regarding the original comment: it is hard to believe that the 1939 Nazi–Soviet invasion of Poland was the same war as the 1945 occupation of Berlin, but there you go. That war also spawned names like Phony War and Great Patriotic War to represent some POVs of its phases. Factually, there was no “ceasefire for 8 years,” but a ceasefire agreement with many (dozens or scores?) failed ceasefires over 7-1/2 years, while more than half of the war deaths before last week’s open invasion occurred after it was signed. As others have mentioned, the “Russian separatists” are considered Russian proxy forces, and not independent, and the war has been considered an international conflict from day one, but I won’t bother getting into the long list of evidence. Anyway, since you mentioned sources, why no sources supporting the argument? —Michael Z. 21:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Because I edit on mobile 90% of the time and I'm not certain how to format such sources into a talk page without just copy pasting the links. But, yeah you're right, there is the problem of NPOV with naming this article. The Russian side isn't happy if you call it a war outright, and Ukraine isn't happy if you don't publicize that this is indeed a war.

There is a Telegram video with Zelensky describing that this is the "7th day of the war", released on March the 2nd, and a transcript of Biden on February the 24th recognizing that Russia had declared war on Ukraine. The US claim is relevant because they are a NATO member and arms supplier and NATO member. Putin is, yes, calling this an "invasion" but clearly establishubg a motive not seen in previous conflicts. I have yet to read more press releases by different authorities, but again, with the lack of scholarly articles out at this time, I don't think it wise to say we're creating a histiography by separating the two conflicts when it seems that there is evidence that governments are recognizing this as a new conflict.

I'm sorry if this argument is made weaker by my inability to provide the sources directly, but again, I don't know how on a talk page, so if you'd link me somewhere that shows this I'm happy to post the sources for you. They are not "news articles" but press releases/statements either stated by leaders on video or posted to official government websites.

And, again, Saarland is not considered part of WWII or the eastern front, but Poland is. Saarland, in modern day, is viewed as escalation by the Nazis. It was gained in a status referendum, much like Crimea in 2014. So to counter your point, if Poland is part of the war, why isn't Saarland? Icepunchies (talk) 06:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

if these people join the war then would the tides of this war be turned (I'd like to see a page and the likely victor based on current events) Random kid who likes science (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

kinda confused that anyone would dispute that what is going on in 2022 is in fact a war. Nobody disputes this but the Kremlin. While I don’t claim any special expertise there also seems to be a consensus that this no a new war but an escalation of an ongoing conflict. Elinruby (talk) 07:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)