Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Requested move 8 March 2022

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

---

Russo-Ukrainian War → Russia-Ukraine War – The previous title was proposed by a sockpuppet and approved with four votes in the summer of 2020 (see discussion), but the name "Russo-Ukrainian War" is not in use today. We should change the article title to Russia-Ukraine War, which is the WP:COMMONNAME, and which would be consistent with the names of similar articles.

Wikipedia article title policy generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria that guide article title discussions. Below is a list of independent, reliable English-language sources which show an overwhelming preference for "Russia-Ukraine War":

Furthermore, within the conflicts of List of wars: 2003–present that feature two parties to the conflict in their title, only 8 are in adjectival form, whereas 15 articles are in proper noun form. We should make the current title WP:CONSISTENT with the majority of other articles titles by preferring "Russia-Ukraine War" over "Russo-Ukrainian War". Pilaz (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Pilaz, those numbers are all bogus. Please read WP:SET. For example, I follow the second Al Jazeera link (supposedly "69,600"), page to the last page of results, and find I am at page 33 of 330 results. —Michael Z. 23:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Mzajac, They are a very rough estimate, but they certainly help when you're doing comparisons. I'll go through them each. But does it really matter if it's 69,000 hits instead of 331 hits, when it's compared against 0 hits? Google only displays up to 400 links in response to your search. The number you see on the first page is Google's best estimate of the pages it has indexed which fall under the parameters of the search. You can test it for yourself: pick a common English name with millions of results (like "Barack Obama", for example), and go to the last page. I only get 189 results for Barack Obama, almost as if people stopped writing articles about the US president halfway through his first year in office. Pilaz (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

69,600 is not a "rough estimate" of 330. It is bogus. If it doesn't matter, then why are you showing numbers that are knowingly misleading? Please remove this disinformation until you have something meaningful to post. Please at least conform to WP:SET. —Michael Z. 01:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. What matters is that it shows a clear trend of usage that is consistent among major news publications (for those making that argument), anything is more than virtually zero. Otherwise they are rough estimate just as with any other such tools. --Nilsol2 (talk) 02:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose – This is WP:RECENTISM. The focus should not be on current breaking news coverage (which amounts to headlinese), but on the common name for this conflict in scholarly, reliable sources. We're WP:NOTNEWS. This is an eight-year long conflict, and there are plenty of sources to back up referring to the conflict as it is now, including but not limited to: 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. There are also plenty of sources covering the war now that use this title now, which can easily be seen with a Google News search. It is quite possible that the common name in RS will change once things settle, but it is much too early to make that determination now, in the thick of the conflict. Finally, I strongly object on WP:CONSISTENT grounds. Take a look at all the other wars in Category:Wars involving Russia, such as the 2008 Russo-Georgian War. Why should we suddenly switch to a noun/noun form, when both forms convey the same information? All other wars involving Russia use the present form. Are we going to change all of those too, and on what grounds? All in all, there is no doubt that we must wait before making any change. Now is not the time, per WP:TITLECHANGES. RGloucester — ☎ 18:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

About WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS, this isn't actually true, though. It is an eight-year long conflict, and the overwhelming majority of sources, scholarly or otherwise, referred to the conflict not as it is now, including but not limited to: Google Scholar you used. --Nilsol2 (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

And if Wikipedia wants to go with that title, I am not opposed to it, though it will first have to resolve the WP:CONSISTENT problem. That's not what is being proposed here, however, so it is tangential. RGloucester — ☎ 05:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - tl;dr: Minimal improvement at best; unlikely to be stable

A stronger case could be made if the proposal clearly improved on the naming WP:CRITERIA but I don't see that here. The distinction is technical, not semantic and in my view doesn't violate WP:COMMONNAME any more than an alternate spelling would. Bing, DuckDuckGo, Google, and Yahoo all surface this article first among WP results even when searching for the quoted suggested title. An assessment of WP:RSs to determine common use should probably include the 470+ citations made in the article; it's unclear if the table above covers those. We should also consider that the topic referred to by online sources most WP:RECENTly as "Russia-Ukraine War" might more accurately reflect the content of 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine than this article which would significantly inflate measurements above with instances of the proposed title actually referencing something more narrow than this topic. Cited results in the 1,000s seem to capture pages where the text is used as a navigation aid in a menu specifically for coverage of the recent invasion, not the entire conflict from 2014 forward. Because of that key difference, an alternate title including "2014" for example might improve on the title's precision more than the current proposal. The 8/15 split on choice of grammar in the list of wars indicates a lack of consistency rather than a departure from established convention. (Aside: have those links been checked for piping?) In short, this isn't a compelling case among § Reasons for moving a page. (Also: Previous involvement of sockpuppets, while interesting, has no bearing on the merits of this proposal.) --N8 18:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

PS - Despite having a slightly different read on this matter I sincerely appreciate your dedication to developing this proposal. --N8 18:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful comment, N8wilson. I fully agree regarding the use of keywords/categories/tags called Russia-Ukraine War, and yet I also think it underlines how much momentum that choice of words has. WP:RECENTISM could be demonstrated if there was a proliferation of "Russo-Ukrainian War" wording prior to the current flair-up, but there isn't. It initially seemed to me that a near-total absence from reliable sources at WP:RSP would have been enough, but I'm happy to go through the 470+ sources to further confirm what seems to transpire from my source analysis. I'm probably also going to incorporate an analysis of academic sources on the matter and specialized magazines on this (Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, and thinktanks). Might take a bit. Pilaz (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. See WP:CONSISTENT. The adjectival–adjectival form retains the same clarity as the noun–noun form. Frevangelion (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose to Pilaz. The first sentence refers to "sockpuppet". This is not relevant and calling people names, just like calling someone the N-word. The idea is either sound or unsound. This article should be separated into 2022 Invasion of Ukraine as a separate article and keep others the same. Charliestalnaker (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

*Support per extremely well sourced and researched nomination. Although the large majority of sources do indeed support the nomination, there is a considerable minority of sources that support the existing main title header form. Ultimately, since this is the header of a Wikipedia article, the deciding factor is the nomination's final argument of WP:CONSISTENT. The nominated form is the one that predominates in Wikipedia headers and the inconsistent forms are the ones that should be moved to reflect consistency. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

About WP:CONSISTENT, this isn't actually true, though. See Category:Wars involving Russia. The proposer mentions List of wars: 2003–present, but I don't see any examples of 'Country noun–Country noun war' in that list. RGloucester — ☎ 22:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Category:Wars involving Russia is almost exclusively wars predating the 20th century, at a time when the adjective form was dominant (also helped by influence of the French language, which has always been a strong proponent of "Russo-X"). I used wars List of wars: 2003–present because names evolve. Pilaz (talk) 23:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I think there are two separate issues here that you are conflating. The first is whether we should use adjectival forms to refer to wars, and the second, whether we should use combining forms (like Russo-). Wars between two distinct parties, when their names are used in the war's name, have always been referred to using the adjectival forms. This applies as much to recent wars as to ancient ones, which you will see in that category. Your list does not provide a single example of 'Country noun–Country noun War', and Category:Wars by country confirms that the adjectival form seems to be the dominant standard on Wikipedia. Therefore, your WP:CONSISTENT arguement falls apart.

As for whether we should use combining forms like 'Russo-', 'Franco-', 'Anglo-', that's a separate question alltogether, but in as much as Category:Wars involving Russia is at it stands now, and given the fact that recent Russo-Georgian War seems to be referred to as such, confirmed by Google Ngrams, I cannot agree with your argument that these forms are used for wars 'almost exclusively predating the 20th century'. In any case, I still do not think that now is the time to make this decision, especially given that the potential variants (Russo-Ukrainian War, Russia–Ukraine War, and Russian–Ukrainian War) are all equally clear, and mean the exact same thing. Not to mention, there are also sources using 'Ukraine–Russia war' to refer to current events. Recentism truly is a horrible thing, especially when writing an encyclopaedia. We need to wait for an actual common name to be established before starting an endless cycle of move requests. RGloucester — ☎ 00:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Google Ngrams are full of shortfalls, and the way the graph points is far from conclusive; the fact that the two curves intersected might even be influenced by Wikipedia's change of article denomination - one cannot exclude the normative power of Wikipedia (unfortunately, nobody has taken care to list the RMs on that page). Most [X-Y war] articles in the category you listed do predate the 20th century, and yet language evolves, with some adjectival forms falling out of fashion in favor of more modern ones ("Russian" is nowadays more common than "Russo"), and as we're seeing in this conflict, in favor of the noun version. As for why we prefer the alphabetical "Russian-Ukrainian War" to "Ukrainian-Russian War", the culprit is this section of the Manual of Style. Pilaz (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Again, you don't seem to understand that there are two separate questions here. Can you please read what I wrote? 'Russo-' is not the standard adjectival form, it is a combining form. Are you claiming that the adjective 'Russian' has fallen out of fashion, and that we no longer use adjectives to modify nouns? Please, read what I wrote again. Adjectival forms clearly have not 'fallen out of fashion', whether for naming wars or anything else. What I think you are trying to claim is that combining forms have fallen out fashion, but there is no actual evidence of this presented here, given that we can attest plenty of contemporary sources using them to refer to subjects both ancient and contemporary, including this very conflict. 'Language evolves', but sometimes it doesn't. Putting that aside, I am not opposed to using the standard adjectival form 'Russian–' instead of the combining form 'Russo-' (i.e. Russian–Ukrainian War) if Wikipedia decides to proscribe or otherwise deprecate usage of combining forms. This is something that can be discussed at the WP:MOS. What I must object to, however, is the use of a 'noun–noun' form, which is completely inconsistent with how Wikipedia has named similar wars thus far (i.e. Polish–Soviet War, Soviet–Afghan War, Sino-Vietnamese War &c., &c.) If we're going to make a change, it needs to be across the board per WP:CONSISTENT. But, one way or other there is no good reason to make such a change on this specific article now, in the thick of a conflict, when long-term usage cannot actually be evaluated. RGloucester — ☎ 05:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Neutral. Upon further examination of main title headers under Category:Wars by country, I am striking my above "support" vote and am no longer convinced that the adjectival form is superseded by the proper noun form, but rather that the adjectival form may be predominant, thus eliminating the key argument of WP:CONSISTENT. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support Evidence I think rather conclusive. Even in adjectival form, I expect a lot of sources to be using "Russian-Ukrainian War" rather than "Russo-Ukrainian". "Russo-" is archaic-sounding and probably unfamiliar to many in the general public. Current title is probably the least of all three choices. Walrasiad (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: While there certainly is evidence that the war is moving towards being called the "Russia-Ukraine War," we have not reached the point where it countermands the preceding years' "Russo-Ukrainian War" (or indeed the occasional use of mixed adjectival-noun naming). Should the next few months see a similar consolidation on a different term, I think that a move is the right call. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Moving? I don't know that Russo-Ukranian was ever the common name. I wouldn't be surprised if initially it was chosen on ground of consistency with other war articles from age of nationalism and that we have been waiting for a common name since. Personally, I like the term Russia-Ukraine War since I believe the term Russo or Russian are more likely to be misconstrued as war by Russian people rather than state of Russia, which is a concern given that status of Russian ethnics is narrative in this war.--Nilsol2 (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Use an en dash please, not a hyphen. See MOS:ENBETWEEN, for example. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed. Prefix Russo- takes a hyphen, two nouns take an en dash. —Michael Z. 01:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  Seconded. If this article is ever moved (and I'm not yet convinced that it should be) it should definitely use a dash instead of a hyphen per our MoS rules. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed.--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 02:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment  I'm neutral on the name: both have the exact same meaning. But the rationale for WP:COMMONNAME supporting a move is lacking. News results are relevant, but all of the naming guidelines ask us to use a bunch of reliable sources and references, which are not cited above. Here's some other evidence (searches per WP:SET; restricted to 2014 and later): Google Books Advanced Search: Russo-Ukrainian war "Russo-Ukrainian+war"+-Wikipedia&lr=lang_en&tbs=lr:lang_1en,cdr:1,cd_min:2014&tbm=bks&sxsrf=APq-WBt9U8W8BRMb_9OghqKlpJd6IShRzQ:1646788558525&ei=zv8nYpXBH5GqtQapxYG4DA&start=90&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwiV4LO47bf2AhURVc0KHaliAMcQ8tMDegQIARBT&biw=1261&bih=898&dpr=2 Page 10 of about 1,930 results, Russia–Ukraine war "Russia-Ukraine+war"+-Wikipedia&lr=lang_en&tbs=lr:lang_1en,cdr:1,cd_min:2014&tbm=bks&sxsrf=APq-WBtp5asRBw3fkdCOmAtu3qwCo1eCKA:1646788596374&ei=9P8nYrueFta4tAbJxrrADA&start=140&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwi76LnK7bf2AhVWHM0KHUmjDsg4lgEQ8dMDegQIARBB&biw=1300&bih=844&dpr=2 Page 15 of about 999 results; Google Scholar: Russo-Ukrainian war "Russo-Ukrainian+war"+-Wikipedia&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_ylo=2014 Page 55 of 552 results, "Russia-Ukraine war" -Wikipedia "Russia-Ukraine+war"+-Wikipedia&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_ylo=2014 Page 25 of 250 results. —Michael Z. 01:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  Your results will definitely vary. Start with my links above, and page forward or back to the last page of results to see Google's often-but-not-always-accurate estimate of total results (you may have to click "Tools" to show the estimate). —Michael Z. 01:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  Worth noting that in terms of accuracy, a search term to google tools is as a questions to polling. For example, you searched for the term "Russian-Ukrainian war" which will exclude many mentions like Russian-Ukrainian economic war, maybe a searching for Russian-Ukrainian war OR conflict would be more accurate (same as "Russian-Ukrainian" war OR conflict) --Nilsol2 (talk) 03:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose How it is known in good quality academic sources is of more weight than how it is known in news sources. The evidence provided in support of the proposal is only considering the latter. This n-gram suggest the opposite (ie to retain the present article. Searching Google Scholar, I obtained about 2080 hits for "Russo-Ukrainian War" and about 417 hits for "Russia-Ukraine War", which again tends to support the present title. I sampled a number of news article from the evidence above and many didn't even return a hit for the terms within the article. The results probably have more to do with SEO than with usage in prose (or even in a news article's title). Actual usage (in prose) is the criteria for determining WP:COMMONNAME. I would need to see more "robust" evidence to support a change. There is also the question of whether there is a particular benefit in the change (per others above). Cinderella157 (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Cinderella157's is the knock-out point. Spicemix (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Adjectival form is sufficiently common that there is no WP:CONSISTENT argument, particularly as an RFC on a related topic attempting to find a common form was recently closed as "no consensus". Further, I support the current form, per Cinderella157. BilledMammal (talk) 11:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, per this and this. --The Tips of Apmh 15:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The present title is grammatically correct. Besides, this certainly isn't a matter of one physical territory versus another, particularly as Russia counts everyone of its own nationality or heritage as being on their side. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

As an addendum to the above, this isn't about the land associated with the conflict as a physical space, or the state of things would be more drastically affected more often by the dynamics associated with the land always changing; it's about the people impacted by all of this and where they stand on it. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, for reasons cite above.--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 02:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, for all the reasons above. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 05:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. It looks like the google search results suffer from SEO-itis, so I'm not quite sure that we should accept them as reliable indicators of coverage. "Russo-" is a perfectly acceptable prefix and is not archaic; the Russo-Georgian War seems to be a quite recent war that uses the prefix in its title (one might even say that it is more WP:CONSISTENT to title this war's article like that of the only other post-Soviet war directly involving Russia and a second sovereign state). On the other hand, scholarly literature tends to refer to this whole series of events as the Russo-Ukrainian [war/conflict]. Moving this makes little sense in light of the scholarly literature on the topic; the move target is not the natural title and it provides no advantage in terms of recognizability to any English speaker familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area over than the current title. Both titles are precise enough to identify the topic, and are almost equally concise. As a result, applying the WP:CRITERIA leads me to affirmatively support the current title over the proposed title. — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose both names are readily recognizable, so the WP:UCRN-based proposal doesn't make a strong argument to move. GHITS aren't relevant here. VQuakr (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. The present title is grammatically correct. Plus for other reasons stated above. 24.150.136.254 (talk) 01:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CONSISTENCY. We've had the Russo-Japanese War, the Russo-Georgian War, the Russo-Turkish wars—all this would have to be changed to "Russia-Japan War" or something like that. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 14:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per per WP:CONSISTENCY. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose on basis of WP:CONSISTENCY. Russo-Japanese War as an example. Stevo1000 (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

References

References

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.

Australia, Turkey, Japan, and South Corea not included in the top-right section of Belligerents - Ukraine - Supported by

All of them have supplied military systems to Ukraine according to Wikipedia map: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#/media/File:Countries_supplying_military_equipment_to_Ukraine_during_the_2022_Russian_invasion.svg

Please see note in infobox: For countries supporting Ukraine during the 2022 invasion, see 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. For details of recent support we are deferring to articles on recent events rather than having this article being swamped by recent events that would tend to obscure the long-term events per WP:RECENT. If you are referring to earlier support, the body of the article should reflect the infobox per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Please ensure that the body does indeed reflect any proposed change to the infobox for earlier support and edit accordingly. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Please update losses.

For Ukraine, please change from: 4,619 killed 9,700–10,700 wounded 70 missing 2,768 captured 9,268 joined Russian forces after annexation 300+ T-64 tanks

To:

4,619 killed 9,700–10,700 wounded 70 missing 2,768 captured 9,268 joined Russian forces after annexation 1,041 tanks and other combat armored vehicles 98 Aircraft (3 Mil-25 helicopters) 118 UAV (5 Bayraktar TB-2 drones) 113 multiple rocket launchers 389 field artillery pieces and mortars 843 military motor vehicles

For Russia, you can check in the source.

I have been noting that a lot of western sources have not shown once destroyed Ukrainian equipment but have shown a lot of destroyed Russian equipment so far. Which makes the war look one side, and makes me ask why they need any help? Now it is hard to tell which equipment is Russian and which is Ukrainian as they both have some equipment form their Soviet Union days, but it makes it hard to get reliable data when both sides are using propaganda. Are we sure that any of our data is right, when it comes to lose? Hell are we sure that out map is right. So far, I can tell it better than some of the source that I know are propaganda, but are we sure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.146.246 (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

PGSINK (talk) 10:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Actions in the Black Sea

Is there any evidence of Russian warships having been sunk?

Possibility of war spreading

Have any Russian or Belarus embassies been attacked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 07:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

At least 20,000 foreign nationals from at least 52 countries have enlisted in the Ukrainian army in support of Ukraine to defend democracy. A recruitment website was set up since 05/03/2022. In response, Russia intends to send Chechens and Syrians (veterans from the Syrian civil war) to Ukraine. In effect, the Russo-Ukrainian War has technically turned into the Third World War (even if it is only contained in Ukraine). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 06:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, there is mention that the Polish-owned MiG fighter jets will probably be sent to Ukraine via Germany.

A Ukrainian Foreign Legion has been set up and is currently in Ukraine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 07:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Is Vladimir Putin preparing russia for nuclear war? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 08:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Spillover into Belarus

I'd like to propose adding spillover into Belarus with this as a source. While there is dispute over who exactly is responsible, it does appear this is spillover from this conflict. Not adding the edit myself as I'm <500 contributions and I'm curious if this is WP:TOOSOON U-dble (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Doubtful, as it seems to be a bit murky. Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Has Poland closed its border/frontier with Belarus and have the Baltic States closed theirs with Russia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 08:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

War Maps

Could a series of periodical war maps be displayed on the article page? These would be from Day 1 of the war till the present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 08:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Mention of indirect worldwide reactions

This could be things like:- World economic price fluctuations; How the Russian oligarchs are trying to hide their assets; How squatters in London have broken into the Russian oligarchs homes and have invited Ukrainian refugees into them; etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 14:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Not sure this is really all that significant, Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Chinese Economic Aid

You may want to add that China is supporting Russia's economy by buying a huge amount of oil.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/15/china-has-already-decided-to-send-economic-aid-to-russia-in-ukraine-conflict-us-officials-fear

Cyclon33ee91 (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Historical Context

Is the current Russo Ukrainian War a continuation of the Soviet-Ukrainian War (1917-1921)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 12:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Not unless RS say so, do they? Slatersteven (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 March 2022

2601:985:801:2070:459:5E35:483E:EF0 (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian casualties 498

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Bad References for Russian involvement in early protests

I'm having some issues verifying claims made in a large section under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War#Pro-Russian_unrest

Here are the paragraphs in question:

The initial protests across southern and eastern Ukraine were largely native expressions of discontent with the new Ukrainian government. Russian involvement at this stage was limited to voicing support for the demonstrations, and the emergence of the separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk began as a small fringe group of protesters, independent of Russian control. Russia would go on to take advantage of this, however, to launch a co-ordinated political and military campaign against Ukraine, as part of the broader Russo-Ukrainian War. Putin gave legitimacy to the nascent separatist movement when he described the Donbas as part of the historic "New Russia" (Novorossiya) region, and issued a statement of bewilderment as how the region had ever become part of Ukraine in 1922 with the foundation of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.

When the Ukrainian authorities cracked down on the pro-Russian protests and arrested local separatist leaders in early March, these were replaced by people with ties to the Russian security services and interests in Russian businesses, probably by order of Russian intelligence. By April 2014, Russians citizens had taken control of the separatist movement, and were supported by volunteers and materiel from Russia, including Chechen and Cossack militants. According to DPR insurgent commander Igor Girkin, without this support in April, the movement would have fizzled out, as in it did in Kharkiv and Odessa.

The first reference is a US-Military sponsored document that contains no evidence itself. It has many references, but they are all opinion articles; yet it is being treated as fact, in many places throughout the page

The second reference is appropriate and less biased, and should probably be used instead, where appropriate

The third reference is alongside a claim that "Russia would go on to take advantage of this, however, to launch a co-ordinated political and military campaign against Ukraine, as part of the broader Russo-Ukrainian War". However, the summary of the article alone is that "Putin's power play in Ukraine was impulsive and improvised, without any clear sense of the desired end state. After many months of effort, Russia has achieved limited gains, but at high cost". I feel it's disingenuous to use that as a reference implying that the campaign was co-ordinated, when the article seems to imply the opposite, but I suppose at that point it's just semantics.

The next problem is the first one again. It is a reference for the claim "When the Ukrainian authorities cracked down on the pro-Russian protests and arrested local separatist leaders in early March, these were replaced by people with ties to the Russian security services and interests in Russian businesses, probably by order of Russian intelligence" - which seems like an unnecessary opinion in the entry with that 'probably'.

Additionally, only two names are mentioned during this change of leadership, and Igor Strelkov did indeed have ties with Russian Security Services, but Aleskandr Boroday did not. There are no sources listed when the reference claims, generically, "Ukrainian authorities removed the local political figureheads of the protest movement but, as a consequence, they were replaced by individuals with ties to Russian security services, military experience, and associations with business interests in Russia". While those claims are technically all true for Strelkov alone, it doesn't seem appropriate to imply they are true for others without evidence

Then we have the same reference, among three others, claiming "By April 2014, Russians citizens had taken control of the separatist movement, and were supported by volunteers and materiel from Russia, including Chechen and Cossack militants".

Additionally, none of the references mention Chechens at all, and only this questionable reference mentions Cossacks, and only as part of the baseline history - and with a source that is no longer valid.

They also mention only one Russian in a command position; of the four non-Ukrainians taking positions in the DPR, 3 were Moldovan/Transnistrian, not Russian - only Vladimir Antyufeyev is natively Russian, and the only former soviet officer among them

But most importantly, Vladimir Zakharchenko was still considered the 'Prime Minister' and 'commander-in-chief' - a locally born Donetsk resident. These articles imply that it is incorrect to claim that Russian citizens had taken control of the movement at that point

And finally, we have the last reference, same as the second, referring to the previous statement about Chechen/Cossack/Russian volunteers, paired with "According to DPR insurgent commander Igor Girkin, without this support in April, the movement would have fizzled out, as in it did in Kharkiv and Odessa"

However, the actual claim in the article is that "the storming of local SBU (security service) buildings that began on 6 April was inconclusive until Igor Girkin arrived with 52 fighters in Slov"ians'k in the north west of the Donbas on 12 April. Girkin (aka Strelkov) himself later stated that 'I was the one who pulled the trigger of the war. … If our unit hadn't crossed the border, everything would have fizzled out—like in Kharkiv, like in Odesa'"

The reference claims they entered Donbas from the north-west, near Sloviansk, implying that the soldiers he recruited were not Russian volunteers but came from within Ukraine. It is disingenuous to suggest the aforementioned Russian volunteers had anything to do with it, when Igor was referring to himself and his unit, and not any Russian support. (Also the grammar is bad, either way)

As a whole, I feel that anything based solely on the first reference should be removed; it's an opinion piece, which cites only opinion articles, and contains no actual evidence. The US Military also has a vested interest in the conflict, resulting in significant potential bias or propaganda, especially if this is the only source that supports a claim. At the least, the statements made about it should be corrected to agree with the contents of the reference

The other references are mostly fine, but the claims they are paired with do not match those in the references, and there are many opinions within the page; I was only checking one very small section, but I suspect the page needs a lot of re-examining for the validity of references

I think it's very important to avoid definitive statements on the inconclusive topic of whether or not the protests were initially spurred by Russia; US and UE claims they were, Russia claims they were not, and there's no evidence of Russian national involvement (other than Crimea) until August 2014 - long after the protests. The context of everything else is dramatically different, depending on whether or not the protests were legitimate and done by Ukrainians due to dissatisfaction with the new regime, or if they were instigated by Russia as part of a bigger takeover

Obviously, if you do find good references, just add those and call it a day; I haven't been able to, but I'm no expert. Just trying to dig out some real info, and was quite disappointed that none of these statements were really provably factual

Dimencia (talk) 08:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Aha, already found something - while this isn't definitive proof, the abundance of pictures and videos seems good, though the only thing it collaborates is that there were indeed some Chechens among the otherwise primarily Russian volunteers. https://el-murid.livejournal.com/1901358.html

Dimencia (talk) 09:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The "analysis" above looks like biased WP:original research. Because a politically ordered effort was "impulsive and improvised" doesn't mean that the resulting actions were not a coordinated campaign. A research report is not an "opinion piece." Words like "probably" are used in analyses all the time, and they have specific meaning. Etcetera. —Michael Z. 15:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Nothing is 'inconclusive'. This attempt to obscure the facts of Russian involvement may have worked in 2014, when we didn't have reliable academic sources on the matter, but it won't work now. Wikipedia abides the academic consensus, we don't create a WP:FALSEBALANCE to legitimise Russian views that have no basis in RS. And certainly, we don't indulge in our own WP:OR. There is plenty of evidence of Russian involvement before August 2014. In fact, that is the primary premise of Wilson's article. If you need further evidence about this, or a specific source for 'Cossacks' or 'Chechens', look no further than Mitrokhin's article. RGloucester — ☎ 15:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, I feel the obscuring of facts comes from publications that do not have independently verifiable sources, even if there are three of them that quote eachother, and portraying them as fact. Wilson's article is great, my favorite of the bunch for being extremely objective - but the sources for most of the important claims are no longer valid links, or available anywhere that I can find. If you have anything definitive, please share, I'm just trying to get peace of mind on what's even going on here - but can't find so much as a single government official, from anyone other than Ukraine, who has made a statement even claiming they have evidence of Russian involvement before August (despite the claims about John Kerry and a wire tap, which I have been unable to find, and the link is broken). Mitrokhin's article is also great, but once more fails to provide any sources for the claims, and those that are provided are inconclusive toward the actual question - did the Kremlin orchestrate events, or is it just an influx of volunteers that sympathize with the situation, and happen to also be from Russia, the nearest neighboring country?

The crux of the problem is that the US, Ukraine, and Russia all love propaganda, and I feel that due to their close involvement and obvious bias in this conflict, sources that can't be verified from nations other than those are unreliable.

But anyway. None of that was the point; half of my complaints on the two paragraphs in question weren't about a source being bad, but about the page itself misrepresenting sources. I spent just... way, way too many hours, researching and double and triple checking, because I was sure the academics of Wikipedia would care about verifiable sources, and yet nobody even read past the second paragraph. Very disappointing. I'll just keep looking, I guess Dimencia (talk) 03:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works. It is not our job to determine whether a secondary source, such as a journal article, has 'independently verifiable sources', and it isn't our job to do that kind of 'independent verification', which would be prohibited WP:OR primary source analysis. What we do is very simple: we determine whether an article's publisher is reliable, largely through discussions at WP:RS/N. In this case, we are talking about the RAND Corporation, Europe-Asia Studies, and the Journal of Soviet and Post-Soviet Politics and Society. If, for instance, RAND and these journals are known to be reliable, and have a peer-review process, then articles published in them are also considered reliable. We presume that, if a reliable publisher of information would decide to publish a given article, then clearly whatever form of verification of facts that was undertaken meets a certain academic standard. So, while you may not consider whatever sources are used in these articles as sufficient, if reliable secondary sources, like RAND or these journals do, that's enough for Wikipedia. Your personal opinion, unfortunately, is irrelevant. If you can find a reliable secondary source that contests the reliability of any of these sources, then, perhaps, we might have something to discuss. RGloucester — ☎ 13:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I am indeed new here and didn't realize that's how it works. But you must understand the irony. I read up on some stuff, Ukraine says Russia was involved early, Russia says they weren't, I want to know what really happened. I dig a little, the US says they were - and points to the Ukrainian statement as 'proof'. I check wikipedia to get the unbiased answer, and they say of course they were, and point at the US statement, which points at the Ukrainian statement - and because that guy pointed at it, that means it's definitely true

But I don't care that much about the source, fine, we'll assume it's trustworthy because I'm apparently required to. What bothers me is that contested statements are presented as fact, with few sources collaborating it, just because there are no sources that dispute it. I don't know if wiki guidelines support this, but when something is contested by involved parties and no proof is available, qualifiers like "RAND Corporation suggests that..." are preferable to quoting the article as fact, for the sake of appearing unbiased. How many articles have to come to the same conclusion, with independent evidence, before it is accepted as 'fact'? Because I see 1-3, but I don't feel three is enough even if they weren't quoting eachother. How many articles have to directly disagree with the premise before a qualifier is added?

Because, regarding a later statement of 'fact' in the article: "Economic and material circumstances in Donbas had generated neither necessary nor sufficient conditions for a locally rooted, internally driven armed conflict. The role of the Kremlin's military intervention was paramount for the commencement of hostilities."

But I've got two articles here that disagree before I got bored of looking: https://www.academia.edu/8349751/Domestic_Sources_of_the_Donbas_Insurgency https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10611940.2015.1160707 Dimencia (talk) 04:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Editorial consensus determines what position represents the overall consensus in WP:RS. Would you quote specific parts of these articles that you think 'disagree' with the existing text? RGloucester — ☎ 15:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Causalities

Should we add the total number of causalities with the totes number causalities of the Invasion of Ukraine? BigRed606 (talk) 07:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

There is too much uncertainty about casualties from the present invasion and the status is also constantly changing. I think that this article should maintain a degree of stability and openly defer to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine for the current events. It is arguably more sensible to have one article stable up to a certain point in history and one article unstable after that than two unstable articles. The article (and particularly the casualties) is reflecting this approach to date. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine supporters in infobox

Why are non-EU/NATO countries that have materially supplied Ukraine not listed in the infobox? --Ugly Ketchup (talk) 18:29, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Are you talking about matters during the present invasion or prior to that? Cinderella157 (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

World War 3 claims

Should the claims about this being the start of WW3 be added https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/world-war-iii-may-already-started-russian-invasion-zelenskyy-says-rcna19967 https://thehill.com/policy/international/598459-zelensky-world-war-iii-may-have-already-started https://www.foxnews.com/world/ukraine-president-zelenskyy-warns-ww-iii-may-have-already-started https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10620665/Zelensky-says-World-War-Three-started.html https://www.businessinsider.com/zelenskyy-russian-invasion-could-lead-to-start-of-wwiii-2022-3 Persesus (talk) 04:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

No, because then every article about every large-scale war since 1945 would have to include a passage similar to this. This is an outcry for support, not a prophetic statement. Icepunchies (talk) 09:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Google Scholar showing more hits for Ukraine War over Russo-Ukrainian War

Now, argue over this all you want but here are the links

Russo-Ukrainian War, since the start of 2022

"Ukraine War", since the start of 2022

and here are my points

DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT SUGGESTING TO RENAME OR MOVE THIS ARTICLE WITHOUT FIRST ANALYZING THESE RS

·None of the RS naming this war are newer than 2018 when the conflict was in a different stage. Claim WP:RECENTISM if you wish, but the on-wiki nomenclature of the city of Kyiv itself is based upon a movement that was started in 2018 and completed in 2020, so I think it's fair to start looking for more recent articles naming this conflict.

·This article's handling of who is at play in this war is inconsistent and I think it's fair to say that it is no longer simply an affair between Russia and Ukraine, and that is most definitely a recent change, which would be made clearer if this war were either compartmentalized with the Crimea-Donbas portion of the war in one part and the Invasion in another, or if this entire war is renamed and focus on the ongoing conflict continues in the infobox.

·This source draws comparison to the Russo-Georgian War and draws attention to the fact that Georgia's conflict with Russian proxies began well before the 2008 invasion, much like Ukraine's conflict with Russian proxies began well before the 2022 invasion, BUT Wikipedia currently holds that the Russo-Georgian War only lasted 10 days, post-invasion, where as the Russo-Ukrainian War includes 8 years of pre-invasion conflict. Holding the current name in context with other conflicts of the same type appears to cause an interruption in consistency.

·The term "Russo-Ukrainian War" is just not that widely used by the press, it's being preferred for "Russia-Ukraine War" or other more popular titles, while I know this is not how WP naming conventions work, I think that it's possible that we could re-evaluate this title, which was given in 2014 and only supported by articles prior to 2018.

I AM AWARE THAT MY FINDINGS AREN'T CONCRETE and I can see that a lot of the results in my second link are from a single journal, as well as the mix-in of some articles which include the term "Russia-Ukraine War". But as it stands, it would appear more recent articles appearing use the term "Ukraine War" in place of "Russo-Ukrainian War". So I'm not trying to mislead anyone, just give some feedback that may help keep this article from spiraling into a mess lest this escalate once more into an even wider conflict. It's already affecting this country I live in.

Icepunchies (talk) 10:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The problem is this will search for instances of the use of those words. For example "Ukraine War" brings up pages titled "Russia-Ukraine war", because "Russia-Ukraine war" contained the term "Ukraine war". So it might be best to just leave it. Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

This is a war now spanning 8 years but the searches are limited to 2022. It is using an unreasonably narrowed sample set. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC) If the assertion pivots about a 2018 date, then why wasn't that date chosen for the search data? (but even that is probably a small set) As to the Russia-Ukraine angle ... Didn't we just have this discussion? Cinderella157 (talk) 11:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree this article is about the whole eight-year war, and a search restricted to the last year represents recentism. When I change the search date in the links above to 2014—, then on the first page of results for "Ukraine war," seven of the ten are actually partial matches for the full names "Russia-Ukraine war" or "Russian-Ukraine war." So let's not read to much into the (overly) specific search evidence. —Michael Z. 14:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Since 2018 for "Russo-Ukrainian War"

Since 2018 for "Ukraine War" NOT "Russia-Ukraine War"

There, an attempt at an improvement, but booleans unfortunately do not work on Google Scholar for whatever reason. You all make good points and my numbers changed because of it. It was perhaps too misleading to use the smaller time window. I think more looks at scholarly consensus could be made still? But RS seems to hold up.

@RGloucester I know we had this discussion before and you're probably tired of all the heated opinions coming to this article but WP:GF, I'm attempting to provide an argument against the title and organization and I don't think it's ridiculous for people to suggest this, especially considering this is an ongoing, escalating conflict with changing foreign relations surrounding it. I don't see the point in a moratorium for moving this page. If something happens, a major event that escalates the conflict to a larger scale, directly affected by the 24 February invasion, there would be plenty reason to do so, regardless of what scholarly RS are saying. They simply won't be published quickly enough.

May I remind you that this current article rename initially came not much more than 6 months post-Crimea, and during the early stages of Donbas. This is inaccurate

Icepunchies (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• 'Ukraine war' is headlinese, just like 'Ukraine crisis' and other similar permutations. Such terms may make sense for use in news reporting about an ongoing event, but are too vague and imprecise to be used as titles for an encyclopaedia article. 'Ukraine war' could refer to any war involving Ukraine. Putting aside other matters regarding the title, which have been discussed at length recently, referring to '8 years of pre-invasion conflict' is a nonsense. This most recent invasion is not the first during this conflict. The fact that you are making such a comment seems to imply you have not sufficiently familiarised yourself with the topic to make these kind of determinations. In any case, I think it is time we consider a moratorium on page moves for six months. Now is not the time to be making these arguments, and this is getting incredibly tiresome and circular. RGloucester — ☎ 15:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Preludic Incident

Just weeks before ordering the invasion of Ukraine, Vladimir Putin survived at assassination attempt. Shaken to the core, Putin ordered that anybody remotely suspected to be involved in the plot (eg military officials/bureaucrats/oligarchs/etc) to be secretly executed in a "Stalinist-style" purge said an expert linked to American espionage services. However, the mastermind behind the assassination plan - believed to be a multibillionaire businessman - slipped through Putin's net and is now somewhere in western Europe under the protection of the French foreign spy service, the DGSE.

The motive was that this "cabal" weren't happy with the state of the Russian economy even before the invasion. According to the expert, the Kremlin conspirators attempted to assassinate Putin by coating a sleeve of his judo jacket with the nerve agent Novichok, but the assassination attempt collapsed when Putin's judo partner put on the poison-laced jacket by mistake.

Putin was so shaken that he now won't let anyone close which is why one sees those images of him sitting at one end of a 40-foot table and his "visitors" sitting at the other end. Western intelligence services still don't know the extent of Putin's purges. It is said that Putin often rewatches (in a continuous loop) the 2011 assassination of Libyan dictator, Muammar Gaddafi.

Putin has walled himself off from the outside world and only speaks with those who don't dare tell him anything other than what he wants to hear. He's living in a delusional shell of fear and suspicion. He's bet everything on success in Ukraine. If Putin loses the war, he's finished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 10:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Related issues question

Should the Russophobia page be link in the related issues page since of what's been going on? Persesus (talk) 04:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Massive edits Done to Casualty section, insane edits actually.

Someone removed all the massive captured Russian soldiers from the casualty section, and has some outrageous edits claiming of 9,000+ joined Russian forces as though this was done willingly or that counts as a casualty, and also, source?

This is really not an accurate Wiki page with these edits in there, and the Russian Casualty counts are outlandishly low. Wiki Editors please wake up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.51.76.65 (talk) 03:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Armenia supported Fascist Russia

Armenia sent fighters with pilots and thus supported Russia AdelajdSikor (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for this? HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

No, if as I believe it would be referring to recent claims. As noted in the infobox, this article is deferring to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (or similar) for events particular to the invasion. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Calling Russia fascist is unnecessary hyperbole and a convenient way to distract from the fascist nation of the Ukraine 2600:8801:BE09:6600:316E:9DEE:8D0F:F714 (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Nazist is more appropiate 77.101.213.226 (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

General Delegate for the Rights of the Child. (from ...,from... ,from Ukraina)

Mr Bernhard von Vos. Has dedicated his entire adult life. For children. Maybe . He's a little disappointed. Why ?Boys and girls, Wikipedia users. For example from Ukraine. They ignore the website dedicated to the General Delegate for the Rights of the Child. Here if only! succeeded. The boys and girls from Wikipedia. To inspire – to write – to write with a dominant idea! Locksan (talk) 10:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any RS establishing any of this? Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Non-existent countries

Two non-existent states are listed as "belligerents" here (boxes on the right):

Donetsk PR Luhansk PR

These "states" only exist within what passes for the mind of the paranoid neurotic child-murderer squatting in the Kremlin. Why have they been listed here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.58.246 (talk) 13:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Discused already, read the other threads. Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The belligerents field can be used for "organisations" in the broadest sense. For example, see Syrian civil war where various non-counties are listed. — Czello 13:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I've no doubt that field can be used ... but the way these 2 "organisations" (a correct term) are currently listed there legitimises something fictitious. They must be listed as "The organisation known as Donetsk PR" and "The organisation known as Luhansk PR". Who's responsible for making such changes? 81.187.58.246 (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

No they must not, and I think that just reads far too needsy. We do not legitimaise then in any way. Slatersteven (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it's not your place to decide whether or not the peoples' of dontesk and luhansk deserve the right to freedom, and to not be attacked needlessly by a fascist neo-nazi state. 2600:8801:BE09:6600:316E:9DEE:8D0F:F714 (talk) 19:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Listing them does not legitimise them, it is simply a statement of fact that they are a part of this war. — Czello 20:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

"Russia vs. Ukraine" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Russia vs. Ukraine and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 26#Russia vs. Ukraine until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 March 2022

Change "stated Ukraine was wrongfully created by Soviet Russia" to "stated wrongfully that Ukraine was created by Soviet Russia" Sveinaberg (talk) 02:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done. lol1VNIO (talk • contribs) 18:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

add Mexico and Japan in the Russo Ukrainian War

add Mexico and Japan in the Russo Ukrainian War Jonathan555568 (talk) 05:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

On what basis (ref), where specifically, and from when (ie is this recent or historical)? If it is recent the I would say not per the note made in the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 March 2022 (2)

PLease i request you to put a plus sign after the ukrainian casualties and russian casualties because the military casualties has sky rocketed since. Greenarmy4y37882 (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done. The table states that the figures are prior to the present invasion and directs the reader to the invasion article for casualty information since then. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

The role of the Personality in the fate of the People.

The thesis, in itself, is undeniable!

15 Let's add ? Improved? Cuivremele (talk) 11:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

OK,. what are you asking us to do, what is this about? Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

The role of the Personality of the President of the Russian Federation. The role of the individual, - the Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation. In the development and in the course of the conflict with Ukraine.

Mr. Putin or Metr Sergun ? Who plays a decisive role? Cuivremele (talk) 12:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

We need RS discusing this, please read wp:forum. Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Parallels & Comparisons

"Vladimir Putin will go down (in history) as one of the world's great villains. He's up there with Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Idi Amin. He's a menace. Putin's silenced anyone who would speak against him and has 'disappeared' more people (not counting the Ukrainians) in the middle of the night that can be counted" notes international affairs expert Dr. John Garrow.

"Putin has mental health problems. There can be little doubt that his brain has been neurologically and physically changed. Absolute power for long periods makes one blind to risk, highly egocentric, narcissistic and utterly devoid of self-awareness" says Dr. Ian Robertson in Psychology Today.

Since clawing his way to the top from 1999, Putin's absolute power has warped his reasoning. He has manipulated and consolidated his power (much like Adolf Hitler did) by transforming, twisting, and usurping Russia's judiciary, media and government institutions to serve him and his ways say psychologists.

Former Ukrainian UN ambassador Yuriy Sergeyev has proclaimed that Putin is a "maniac and hiding a serious (mental) disease".

Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel once concluded that Putin is "in another world". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 13:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Stranger things have occurred in war

Although the following incident may be easily dismissed as an April Fools joke, the presenter swore that it really happened:-

Apparently, a Russian drone was shot down when a Ukrainian woman threw a jar of pickled cucumbers at it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 06:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

References

There is a rule in Russian wikipedia, which is a Russian racist thing!

There is a rule in Russian wikipedia, which is a Russian racist thing, that implies that Ukraine is not a country, but just a part of Russia - it shows that it is correct to say not "in Ukraine" but "on Ukraine". According to the rules of the Russian language: "on *some territory*" refers only to areas of the country, not to a separate country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldNotGod (talk • contribs) 15:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Territorial claims are not racist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.239.195.102 (talk) 12:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 April 2022

Remove the misinformation about Russian troops on the border being the start of the modern Russia vs Ukraine conflict, and change it to more accurately represent the events that took place. Make a mention of the people of the Donbas region being shelled and attacked with increased severity, which actually prompted the "invasion" 2600:8801:BE09:6600:316E:9DEE:8D0F:F714 (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 April 2022

I want to edit because I watch YouTube and know a bit more information MikeMikeLol (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

An edit request is for requesting an edit to be made, not for asking permission to make an edit. So what edits do you wish to make (and not [[wp:rs). Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 17:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 April 2022 (3)

Please link the first occurrence of OHCHR General Vicinity (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 23:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Relevance on Zelensky being jewish

I fail to see how Zelensky being jewish is relevant when discussing if the Ukranian government is a nazi regime. Could someone please explain how that is relevant? There were also prominent members of the 3rd reich that were jewish (or "half-jewish"), so that an individual is jewish can hardly be seen as an argument against a regime's stance on jews. Even if the 3rd reich was persecuing jews, this is not an ingrained quality of nazism; rather the nationalist totalitarian ideology is a defining feature, not hating jews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.239.195.102 (talk) 12:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

RS have made the link, and I am unsure the rest of what you write is even true. Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Vital Communications Link

To prevent any mistakes or misunderstandings, the hot line between Washington and Moscow is still operational and continues to be kept open. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 13:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Article Image

Can someone with experience in maps correct this (or state why it is consistent?): c:File_talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine.svg#Inconsistent_with_source. Habitator terrae (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Please add to the article link to Russo-Ukrainian Wars

Russo-Ukrainian Wars is collection of armed conflicts between Ukrainian states or national movements on the one hand, and Russian states on the other, that have been going on, intermittently, from the time of Kievan Rus' to the present. Please add this link to the article.--Sakateka (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

In the background part, may we please state the specific objectives of Russia/Putin in numbered bullet points?

https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/72072/what-exactly-are-the-stated-objectives-of-the-2022-russian-invasion-of-ukraine

In the post, the sources include

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67843 http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67885 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60785754 https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/20/politics/russia-ukraine-negotiations-us-nato/index.html

Thewriter006 (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Please add the following at the end of the lead: In 2022 the International Criminal Court opened an investigation into allegations of Russian military war crimes in Ukraine.

It is taken from the article about the invasion (apart from the year). General Vicinity (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Can we transclude the map template?

Rather than using the SVG map, which is either blocked or suffering from edit wars, and never seems to agree with {{Russo-Ukrainian War detailed map}} anyway, can we just transclude the map template instead? — kwami (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the SVG map currently used is not great, and discussion on Commons does not seem to be heading towards consensus or a stable system anytime soon. I don't know how to transclude the map template, but if someone with technical skills wants to give it a go (maybe testing on a sandbox first), I'd support that. Another alternative would be to switch to this version of the map, which is not only color-blind friendly, but has a better color scheme in general. It is also less contested, and while it may be less-frequently updated, maybe a little stability would be good. I don't mind the map here being a day or two out of date as long as it's marked as such. Ganesha811 (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

That's disingenuous. The reason that it's not contested is that it's not used anywhere. But it is closer to the situation shown at Template:Russo-Ukrainian_War_detailed_map, so I went ahead and swapped it out. But, assuming that I'm not simply reverted, that will probably only mean that the edit-wars will now migrate over to this map. — kwami (talk) 19:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I hope not! This page is a little lower-profile than 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and I think it'll help to have a more stable, legible map. The edit-warring on the 'main' map was reducing its value to readers, since it was changing back and forth so frequently, which might indicate lack of reliability to a casual reader. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Yellow-on-yellow map

The yellow arrows on the yellow map are near-unreadable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.146.8.169 (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Bucha massacre?

Adding Bucha massacre under human right violations 24.98.147.231 (talk) 05:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Far-right Russian separatists

Please note there's discussion ongoing about far-right Russian separatists in this conflict. The discussion started here, continued here, and has now been raised at the dispute resolution noticeboard. ~Asarlaí 13:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Did Russian politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky actually die from Covid-19 (despite having been vaccinated 8 times) or was he murdered and is his death somehow related to the current war? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 06:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Date of the map

The map is currently shown as April 6, while the Invasion map is already on the 12th. It needs to be updated at all times in the War page 201.20.127.227 (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: six-month moratorium on page moves

Following a succession of unproductive discussions about the page title, which have been circular wastes of time, I would like to propose a six-month moratorium on moving this page. Right now, in the thick of the conflict, any discussion about this page's title is unlikely to be productive or reach a satisfactory conclusion. We are awash with WP:BREAKING news coverage and laden with WP:RECENTISM, making any attempt to determine what the common name for the whole conflict an impossible task. Therefore, to avoid continuous disruption, and to give us some distance from these events before reconsidering the matter, I propose this six-month moratorium, similar to what has been done other ongoing conflict pages. Hopefully, in the intervening period, academic sources will come into play, and the historiography of this conflict, as carried out by RS, will become more apparent. RGloucester — ☎ 16:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why you think it's disruptive, this is a discussion page, does it really matter whether the discussion is continued or not? It's not like the war is just going to stop, so naturally people will question this page which has existed in various forms since 2014. The fact that this article makes the topic so broad is arguably why many new editors are coming in here without knowledge of the full topic. I don't think that all of a sudden adding a 6 month wait period for discussing it will be very productive or do much for this article after those 6 months. Like, is this purely for your own personal gain to do this, because I don't see why discussion of page moves should just stop for any reason.

I know my previous arguments were flawed and acknowledged that, that's the point of a talk page? To yea or nix editing ideas? The defense of Wikipedia:Recentism and headlinese will run dry once the terms are accepted (or rejected) by scholars. That is likely to happen way before six months time.

The reason I even raised the question was due to the infobox fluctuating, at one point it includes all NATO members, at one point it includes Belarus, gets rid of it and returns it, estimates change sources from the US to Ukraine to Russia to the UN, it's not really clear which conflict this article is highlighting, it really seems like there is little focus. Of course Wikipedia:Recentism is going to be a thing, there was a major shift in power and intent made by the Russian Presidency, and a sudden involvement of many nations of NATO, and it's just not clear what the infobox is trying to sum up, surely it will change again. I thought maybe the article spanning 8 years of events and the new developments occuring being so different from events that have been occurring in the last 8 years may have caused confusion in this article's direction. It's not an unproductive conversation until it's shut down by the same logic over and over without any consideration otherwise. My intention was to spark conversation about re-focusing this article's title to better suit its content, or to help to narrow the topic. Not to cause the shutdown of discussion altogether. Icepunchies (talk) 21:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

There's no need for that. I'm curious why you feel the need to shut down discussion. It has seemed like there has been a growing consensus on a move which you have seemed singularly opposed to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.124.33.16 (talk) 17:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

A true moratorium on page moves would require us to predict the future. We can't say for sure what terminology RS will be using three days from now, let alone three months. However, I could see myself supporting something like "Any new RM must succeed an informal discussion in which at least three users have spoken in support of the proposed name." -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 18:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

What terminology RS are using in three days from now has very little consequence in determining any Wikipedia article title, let alone the title of an article on an eight-year war. This isn't how Wikipedia works. We are WP:NOTNEWS. When naming articles about historical events, academic sources are required, and updated ones dealing with the full breadth of this war simply won't be available for at least a few months. If six months is too long, then three months is another option. In as much as the community completely rejected a recent proposal for a move, something must be done to prevent us from having to make the same arguments again and again. RGloucester — ☎ 18:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Yep, seems to me a 6-month wait is a good idea. By then the war may be over and we might see what it is being called (in hindsight). Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea in principal. Is there a specific example we can reference to see how this has been done in practice? --N8_wilson 21:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

An example I am familiar with is that of ISIL. Essentially, the community comes to a consensus on the talk page, and then a moratorium is introduced. RGloucester — ☎ 21:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for digging that up. Looks like editors also added it to the "history of page move requests" at the top for visibility. I'm in favor. --N8_wilson 22:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support There have been several formal and informal discussions recently to change the article name with no consensus for a move at each discussion. It is becoming a time-sink and a distraction from more significant issues. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose because there is a strong possibility that new RS will start to show changes in terminology before 6 months is up. This, and I feel 6 months is a tough sell anyways. Icepunchies (talk) 08:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support But I would reduce the hold period to, say 6 weeks or one month.Dovid (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
• Strong oppose moratoriums suck because they entrench the wrong title. By trying to ban all discussion, you ban good discussions as well as not-so-helpful discussions, and good discussions are never disruptive. In all seriousness, I'm not impressed by the quality of the previous RMs, and I suspect the current title may not be borne out by a careful examination of the sources, so a well-organised RM, equipped with a source examination and approached with open minds, would be productive. Incidentally, the last time I saw an attempt to apply a moratorium on page moves (at Uyghur genocide) I also disagreed with the existing title (in that case, the moratorium proved to be worthless and unenforceable as soon as editors acting in good faith challenged the title with sources). So I'm not a fan of moratoriums. I think they're rubbish bureaucracy. Jr8825 • Talk 06:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Conflicting wikipedia articles

The article says Russia is wrong in stating Ukraine was created by Soviet Russia. But the wikipedia article that talks about Ukraine forming was due to Russia granting it independence, with Crimea as it was promised on the condition of a permament naval base.

I think the articles are biased toward western views and don't reflect neutrality on the formation of modern ukraine. 58.174.122.48 (talk) 17:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

It might help if you tell us which articles as this Ukraine does not say they were granted independence by the USSR, it defacto gained it when the USSR disbanded and they did join its successor. IN fact Ukirane had been independent in 1918. as and had only been Russian since about 1650. Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine gained its independence after it held a referendum in 1991. This is different to the USSR creating Ukraine. There's no contradiction between these positions: both this article and Ukraine's article are based on reliable sources and independent sources, which support the current wording. — Czello 17:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 April 2022

The invasion caused global outcry amongst private citizens. Many foreign volunteers have sent themselves to becomefreedom fighters, with some being combat veterans and others being inexperienced civilans. Russia has declared that these fighters will not be granted POW status if captured, labeling them as "mercenaries" despite the fact that most legitimate fighters officially enlisted in the Ukrainian Military upon arriving in the country. OHMYGODWEDIDIT (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Sources

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 April 2022

Please remove :

9,268 joined Russian forces after annexation[15]

and remove [15] from sources Beeballerina (talk) 10:09, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done No explanation given for removal. — Czello 11:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposed move to "Russo-Ukrainian War"

' ' 'Support' ' ' Whenever I google "Russo-Ukranian War", "Russia Ukraine war", etc, I pretty much only ever get the pages and articles for the invasion. Considering Ukraine and Russia weren't in direct conflict (excluding little green men) before it began, and the confusion calling this prolonged the conflict the war instead of the actual ongoing direct fighting, why don't we move this article to "Russo-Ukrainian conflict"? Aubernas (talk) 09:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

That has been proposed multiple times before and been rejected. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@Rreagan007: instead of shooting down newcomers who point out the obvious, I think it's about time we caught up with reality (this is not directed at you in particular, but regular editors to this page seem to have shut down several similar threads, erroneously in my view). There is now a full-scale war between the two countries. Previously, there was a limited Russian invasion of Crimea and intense meddling in Donbas, followed by military intervention to prop up its losing proxy militias, which sparked a regional undeclared war which gradually became an almost-frozen conflict: this protracted war is covered (messily) at War in Donbas. There was no broader "Russo-Ukrainian War" outside of the Donbas, as this article's title implies; there was instead continued hostility/interference short of direct fighting. "Russo-Ukrainian conflict" (non-proper noun) is the obvious title for this article's scope (although this article's previous title "Russian military intervention..." better identified the main protagonist and instigator, despite neglecting the political aspects of Russia's interference). I believe "Russo-Ukrainian War" would help more readers as a redirect to the invasion article. I have WP:OR/WP:SYNTH suspicions about the current title being a conflation with the War in Donbas, and applying a term used to describe the war in that region to the entirety of events in Ukraine. Skimming through the previous RMs briefly, it appears the current name was agreed upon in June 2020 following a short, flimsy discussion with no real examination of the sources (and was questioned at the time). Since then, the current title seems to have avoided proper scrutiny because RMs have been badly thought through/justified, and discussions have focused on problems with the proposal/rationale, rather than the actual merits of the existing title. Jr8825 • Talk 05:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Jr8825: I saw this section before you replied and was going to say similar but didn't get around to it. But I agree. It's not even a common name in scholarship, and it borders on OR to say Ukraine and Russia have been in active states of war since 2014. The scope of this article, de-facto, is just every piece of Russian-Ukrainian conflict since 2014. It's a fuzzy scope under a misleading title. Recent RS coverage only refers to the recent invasion as a war, and even with a before: filter in Google it's hard to say the majority of RS called this the "Russo-Ukrainian War" as a proper name, honestly it rarely features, it most certainly isn't a proper name. I'd propose an RM if I have the time to do the source digging to have a reasonable chance of passing. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Even the cited sources, 2/3 use "Russo-Ukrainian war", and the third is obviously just an example of title case and it doesn't use the term again except in the context of a title. It's clearly meant to be descriptive. The title is {{fv}} and OR. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

If there is a hostile occupation of territory, there is a war, no? The fact that it fell out of the English-language news cycle is irrelevant. By that measure, there is nothing wrong in Honduras, and Congo is at peace. I oppose any attempt to change the scope.

I don't see the point of changing the title, on the other hand, but don't actively oppose doing so either.Elinruby (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

The idea that "if there is a hostile occupation of territory, there is a war" is WP:OR and also wrong. To take an obvious example, few would call the Israeli occupation of the West Bank a continuous 50+ year war, although there was certainly ongoing asymmetric warfare, terrorism and state-sponsored violence – it would more likely be called a conflict. The active war was in Donbas, hence the article War in Donbas. Jr8825 • Talk 18:13, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I rather suspect that this may depend on the language of the sources. Elinruby (talk) 21:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 April 2022

I suggest the caption of the infobox be changed, from "The military situation as of 6 April 2022, during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" to "The military situation as it is currently, during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" or anything along those lines. This is for better consistency in time so the date does not have to be updated daily. Flagvisioner (talk) 02:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done:. This is contrary to MOS:RELTIME. Mathglot (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Map Needs to be Updated

The map of the current situation in Ukraine is from 13 days ago and needs to be updated. DirtyPotatoEditor (talk) 10:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Sloppy citations

Deliberate or not (I shan't cast aspersions), I have noticed that citations are being used without context. If a newspaper has reported something, name the newspaper in the text. Steer away from using opinion pieces as sources for factual information. Don't synthesise sources to make claims that are considered original research. In sum, this page is in desperate need of a clean up. Yellowmellow45 (talk) 20:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Article does not have a Declaration of War section

Normally as article which refers to a War would be expected to have a section about the actual Declaration of War, though there is no such section in this article. When did Russia declare the War, on what date, and with what words did Russia declare War. Similarly for Ukraine, on what date did Ukraine declare/acknowledge War, and with what words did Ukraine declare/acknowledge War. Can a Declaration of War section be added to this article or is there a reason for no such section being in the article? ErnestKrause (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

There could be a 'see also to Declaration_of_war#Russo-Ukrainian_War General Vicinity (talk) 03:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

The section of that other article you just linked does not appear anywhere in this article. Should it be brought into this article as a separate section with the same title as your linked article on this subject? ErnestKrause (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

There was no formal declaration. In 2014 the Ukrainians also stated the Russian invasion was an effective declaration.[1] —Michael Z. 02:43, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Kherson‎#Requested move 24 April 2022

Please be notified of Talk:Battle of Kherson‎#Requested move 24 April 2022. It affects many articles related to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (with one or two from Russo-Ukrainian War that are not part of the invasion). The proposal is to move from "battle of X" to "battle for X". Cinderella157 (talk) 05:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Russia are supported by Germany.

the european union confirmed that germany illegally sold arms to russia despite the embargo 88.156.128.39 (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/04/22/exclusive-france-germany-evaded-arms-embargo-sell-weapons-russia/ Renat 22:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Well its was not just gmernay then, but may have been 9 others (as well). Yes, we can add this. Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 April 2022 (2)

Please remove :

9,268 joined Russian forces after annexation[15]

and remove [15] from sources

The reason is that the article does not seem accurate with its timing and facts. I am not sure who added this but It looks like anti-propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beeballerina (talk • contribs) 21:51, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I would support this user's request to remove this claim from the Infobox. The reference is to this page at GlobalSecurity.org, which has been discussed at WP:RSN a number of times, most recently here, with divided opinion. This appears to be a website run by an individual (John Pike) who has a good reputation according to the Wikipedia article, but I don't see any sourcing for any of his figures at the article. This may be worth bringing up at RSN again.

In the meantime, the Arkady Bakhin quotation at GlobalSecurity.org underlying the footnote, appears to come from this article at TASS. Even if the Bakhin quotation is accurate, I wouldn't trust anything he said, or at the Russian state-controlled media TASS without verification at a reliable source. I think we should remove the statement from the Infobox until a better source can be found, or at best, put double-quotes around it, and add WP:INTEXT attribution to TASS. Mathglot (talk) 03:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Supporting this request, I do not have extended-confirmed permissions (yet) but this source is far too dubious and unverifiable for inclusion on an Infobox at such a prominent, real-time topic. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 13:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Ive gone ahead and  Done the edit request. Looking at the RSN conversation, it does seem to not be generally considered "high quality", and that seems like quite a significant claim there, so to err on the side of safety, I've removed the said line. Aidan9382 _(talk) 12:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Date on the top right map is incorrect

These two pages show the same map, but with different dates in the caption:

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War - "The military situation as of 6 April 2022, during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine"

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine - "Military situation as of 23 April 2022"

The caption on this page's map should be updated to 23 Apr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:7E86:601:344F:C90E:933F:1F42 (talk) 09:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

 Already done I know this is not technically an edit request but I'm including that this has since been properly changed at the time of this comment. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 13:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

No fly-zone

Should we mention NATO's (and the UN's) rejection of a no fly zone? Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

There are many reliable sources regarding Zelenskyy's repeated requests for this, and receiving no backing. Also, Biden made early comments that he would not want to employ such drastic measures which would lead to an escalation of the invasion involving 'boots on the ground' or 'planes in the air' from anyone other than Ukraine against Russia. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

"recognized the the Ukrainian oblasts of DPR and LPR"

• Reapeated 'the'.
• 'Ukrainian oblasts' are Ukrainian oblasts. I assume that you mean that Russia wants to extend the 'PR', which means a Russian invasion, please be precize.Xx236 (talk) 06:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done: reworded this, as DLNR are not oblasts. —Michael Z. 16:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

"2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" section additions

Proposed addition following final paragraph of this section:

From February 25th to April 2nd Russian forces closed in and attempted to capture the city of Kyiv. Russian forces besieged the city with artillery and rocket fire through March[1]. Following successful Ukrainian counterattacks in late March, Russian forces began withdrawing from the Kyiv area on 29 March[2][3]. The capture of Kyiv was a major objective for the Russian Offensive, the failure to do so was a major defeat for the Russian Army. On 2 April, Ukrainian authorities reported that the entire Kyiv region had been recaptured, ending the Battle of Kyiv(2022)[4][5].

Following the failure to take Kyiv, Russian forces diverted to the Eastern and Southern portions of Ukraine where heavy fighting continued. Russian forces began a "Heavy Offensive in Donbass"[6], and continued the Siege of Mariupol which had been under siege since the beginning of the invasion[7]. Conflicting information regarding a potential ceasefire in the besieged Ukrainian port city of Mariupol. Some sources claim that the Russian forces are currently maintaining a cease-fire around the Azovstal Iron and Steel Works plant[8]. However, other sources claim the Russian forces are attempting to "storm" the steel plant[9]. Sources of information regarding this potential ceasefire or offensive have been released around the same times. As of May 2nd, the NBC reports that "civilians are finally being evacuated from the bombed-out steel plant"[10].

References 1. CNN, Nathan Hodge, Olga Voitovych, Paul Murphy and Laura Smith-Spark. "Russian bombardment of Ukrainian cities blunts hopes of swift breakthrough". CNN. Retrieved 2022-05-03. 2. "New York Times New York State Poll, March 1999". ICPSR Data Holdings. 1999-06-16. Retrieved 2022-05-03. 3. Vovk, Dmytro (2022-05-03), "Forced Displacement, Religious Freedom and the Russia-Ukraine Conflict", Religion and Forced Displacement in Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asia, Nieuwe Prinsengracht 89 1018 VR Amsterdam Nederland: Amsterdam University Press, ISBN 978-90-485-5393-8, retrieved 2022-05-03 {{citation}}: Empty citation (help): horizontal tab character in |place= at position 25 (help); horizontal tab character in |title= at position 32 (help) 4. "Volume of exchange-traded derivatives by selected region, January-April 2021". dx.doi.org. 2022-04-15. Retrieved 2022-05-03. 5. "'Ukraine has won the Battle of Kyiv'". National Review. 2022-04-03. Retrieved 2022-05-03. 6. "Figure 8 from: Pyle RL (2016) Towards a Global Names Architecture: The future of indexing scientific names. In: Michel E (Ed.) Anchoring Biodiversity Information: From Sherborn to the 21st century and beyond. ZooKeys 550: 261–281. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.550.10009". dx.doi.org. Retrieved 2022-05-03. {{cite web}}: Empty citation (help): External link in |title= (help) 7. "The siege of Mariupol". France 24. 2022-04-21. Retrieved 2022-05-03. 8. "Russia announces ceasefire around Mariupol's Azovstal steel plant: Ministry". Al Arabiya English. 2022-04-25. Retrieved 2022-04-25. 9. Reuters (2022-04-24). "Ukraine's military says Russian forces are trying to storm Azovstal plant". Reuters. Retrieved 2022-04-25. 10. "Russia-Ukraine war live updates: Civilians evacuated from Mariupol steel plant; Pelosi meets Polish president". NBC News. Retrieved 2022-05-03.

link to draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hogebasj/Russo-Ukrainian_War?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template#Article_Draft

Punctuation goes immediately before the refs. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Unnecessary part?

If you look in ‘belligerents’ there’s a link ‘Supporters of Ukraine in the 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine’ but there are no supporters according to that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coco the Dawg (talk • contribs) 04:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

The state of this article

Following up on an issue identified by Jr8825 here and myself. I've OR/SYNTH concerns about this article and, if you look at how it evolved over time, its not clear its current state was even intentional. This article gradually morphed from an article on the 2014 annexation of Crimea, and as that carried on, to an article basically on all of Ukraine and Russia's interactions since 2014[2], which is not a well-defined article scope. Eventually, a pre-invasion low-participation no-sources RM resulted in it being called "Russo-Ukrainian War". The issue is most obvious in the current lead, which focuses on 2014 events, provides a one-sentence summary on the state of occupation as of 2019, and then discusses the 2022 invasion. It labels 2015-2022 as a "frozen conflict phase (2015-2022)". In reality, it is talking about three disparate events that occurred in 2014-2015 and then in 2022, and it pops them all into one article under an OR heading of "Russo-Ukrainian War".

This article has no clear scope. The cited sources do not support "Russo-Ukrainian War" existing as a proper name. For example, one cited source referring to a 'war' was cherry-picked; the source is talking about the aggression in Crimea and Donbas, discussing both independently and and in a summary concluding sentence used the word 'war' once–evidently just varying vocabulary–and that was used to support the title. Never-mind that the section is titled "The Modern Russo-Ukrainian Conflict" (pg 127) and discusses both events independently. It made no claim of an ongoing war since 2014. There is no consensus in RS of that existing, and forget consensus I'm not even sure there exist sources that clearly claim that.

It's clear this article is a summary article of three disparate conflicts:

• Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation (2014)
• War in Donbas (2014-2015)
• 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022)

Calling this a "Russo-Ukrainian War" is something invented on Wikipedia, and thus pure OR/WP:SYNTH. The existence of a war is justified by a section titled "frozen conflict phase (2015-2022)" to fill the timeline, also invented by Wikipedia and completely unsourced. This is causing problems in sub-articles too, confusing their scope and layout, e.g. List of foreign aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War which is mostly 2022 invasion content. Sources that now refer to a 'war' are referring to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, and so readers searching for a 'Ukraine Russia war' are probably trying to find that, but ending up here. This article has no clear scope, and I'm not sure it can find a clear scope; the purpose of this article is something we usually use a navbox/campaignbox for. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

The scope is quite clear: the military conflict between the Russian Federation and Ukraine since the initial invasion in February 2014. There are plenty of sources referring to the “eight-year war” in Ukraine, for example, demonstrating that it is a thing. Of the 14,000 killed and tens of thousands wounded, over half occurred in the “frozen conflict” phase, and over a million remained displaced, mainly within Ukraine.

The name has been discussed before. Please review the naming discussions above and in the archive: as you can see, there have been four requests since and they were not implemented. But make another WP:RM if you think you can find consensus for a change.

Regarding the mentioned source:[3]

• P 85: “However, only the Russo-Ukrainian war has shown all these tools are not just isolated instances, but a very well thought out and elaborated set of political, informational, ideological and military measures aiming to occupy the victim . . . ”
• P 100: “The Russo-Ukrainian war has already become the longest and the bloodiest hybrid war in the history of mankind. ”
• P 134: “In the end, these similarities of the WWI situation allow us to analyze and predict the impact of the propaganda techniques in the modern Russo-Ukrainian war”

 —Michael Z. 20:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

The name has been discussed before. And all the arguments seem to lack sources. And where they have sources, they're misused. For example Oppose I am pretty sure Russia declared war on Ukraine.[4] -- obviously, per the 2022 source, a war exists as of 2022. But then Wikipedians are extrapolating 2022 sources to say the war started in 2014 and there has been a constant state of war since, which is OR.

I mean look at the infobox. On an article about an apparent 8 year war, the source for the people missing is a figure of missing people in Donbas, by the Donbas police department. One source for deaths in Russia is a Russian report on the War in Donbas[5] - it doesn't contain the figure reported on our article, so I presume editors have added death tolls from the various sources (each reporting independent data) together themselves. The closest to a source providing an overall figure is Radio Svoboda, but they made a request for data count[ing] the total number of victims of hostilities in Donbas from April 14, 2014 to February 10, 2020. which is a War in Donbas figure. The data used in the infobox is not "Russo-Ukrainian War" statistics, they're War in Donbas statistics with editor-conducted calculations in some cases. If there were a 'Russo-Ukrainian War' since 2014, don't you think at least one, probably multiple, RS would be clearly reporting data pertaining to it (which, at minimum, would include combined figures from the annexation and the War in Donbas)? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Another obvious example of an issue is Russo-Ukrainian_War#Reactions which has 3 separate sub-sections for reactions to each of the three separate events. There seem to be no reactions to the '8 year war' as a whole. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

You're pointing out normal problems that arise on articles about current events, especially parent articles. Yes, many things in this article are over-detailed and should refer back to the child article. That doesn't mean the article scope is wrong/undefinable or that the article needs to be renamed. Just fix the issues (or wait for someone else to; there's no deadline). VQuakr (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Those are not three disparate conflicts; reliable sources have repeatedly noted their connection into a larger policy of annexation by Russia. This article is a parent article to all three; that's its scope. Agreed the lead needs refocusing. As noted above we are not the first to use the string "Russo-Ukrainian war", but even if we were a descriptive title is not SYNTH. VQuakr (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, this is an ongoing conflict, that has not in fact let up. The only difference now is that Russia is officially involved Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

You’re completely right, and you forgot to mention the fact that Russia only lost 500 soldiers in the whole period from 2014 to 2022 when the war was apparently happening according to wikipedia editors. And most ukrainian troops were killed in direct combat with rebels, all according to sources listed in the infobox. I have opened one very detailed move request for this article, including many sources that prove that “Russia-Ukraine War” is only used for the 2022 invasion, yet editors literally just rejected all sources i included and immediately closed the request instead of using valid arguments to my sources. Wikiman92783 (talk) 12:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources, please. Xx236 (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/05/02/russia-ukraine-war-news-putin-live-updates/, https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/02/russia-ukraine-war-what-we-know-on-day-68-of-the-invasion, https://www.npr.org/2022/05/01/1095830805/russia-ukraine-war-what-happened-today-may-1, https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2022/5/2/russia-ukraine-war-list-of-key-events-on-day-68 85.98.239.106 (talk) 08:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

THis is a source:

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/russo-ukraine.htm

None of your sources say - there was no war till February 2022.

The Normandy Format is about the war. It references plenty of sources.Xx236 (talk) 13:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

A think tank is the best RS we can come up with in this section? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:38, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

That’s not exactly true. We do know the Russian Federation sent soldiers into Ukraine without ID, made “peacetime” military casualties a state secret, and made hundreds of thousands of eastern Ukrainians Russian citizens. We also know that major battles like Ilovaisk and Debaltseve were fought by several Russian battalion tactical groups and MH17 was shot down by the 53rd Brigade from Kursk. So all we know about “500” and “direct combat with ‘rebels’” is that it’s likely wrong. By the way, 500 Russians killed in Ukraine made it an international conflict, i.e., a war, but now there’s tens of thousands of casualties, but it still remains “peacetime” in Russia. —Michael Z. 18:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

See Little green men (Russo-Ukrainian War) with reference to Mzajac's point Elinruby (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

"War", "Security Operation" or ...?

Russia appears to be acting more and more like a Mafia state where Putin is the "Il Capo de Tutti Capi" (The Boss of the Bosses), The Oligarchs are the "Dons" (subordinate bosses) and this whole thing is Russia "muscling in" on Ukraine's "turf". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 06:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Does Vladimir Putin intend to launch a second Holodomor against Ukraine just like Stalin once did? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 06:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Russian imperialistic ideology

This war has its roots in Russian imperialistic ideology. Russian politicians read Russian nationalistic and imperialistic texts Rashism#Ideological history. There exists also popular anti-Ukrainian fiction and science fiction. Writers Igor Girkin and Fyodor Berezin participate in the war.

This article uses the word 'ideology' only once, mentioning far-right ideology in Ukraine. Xx236 (talk) 09:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Dugin

https://www.wionews.com/trending/aleksandr-dugin-russian-ultranationalist-philosopher-close-to-putin-who-is-he-471344

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/aleksandr-dugin-russia-ukraine-vladimir-putin-60-minutes-2022-04-12/

https://www.npr.org/2022/03/27/1089047787/russian-intellectual-aleksandr-dugin-is-also-commonly-known-as-putins-brain

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/3/30/putins-philosophers

Xx236 (talk) 11:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Recent removal

Tens of thousands bytes removed without any discussion.Xx236 (talk) 09:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

My changes to the 'Reactions' section

Hello! I recently made an edit removing a large amount of content from the Reactions section. Why? Because I thought the section was in dire need of help. It was messy, confusing, in places seriously out of date, and structured strangely. Above all else, it was not written in a good summary style. The section was indiscriminate in what information was included, leading to a messy piece of writing that made no distinction between important, meaningful, lasting reactions and unimportant ones. It did not provide a general overview of reactions to this important event, but rather a cherry-picked sampling. This is the inevitable consequence of a long-standing article on a complex, multi-phase event taking place over 8 years. Until I (or someone else) puts in the work to add a truly encyclopedic, well-summarized 'Reactions' section, I think it's better to link to the relevant sub-articles in all their glory rather than allowing the messy section to stand on this page. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: EDT 251 - Research Skills and Strategies

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 March 2022 and 13 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hogebasj (article contribs). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogebasj (talk • contribs) 15:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Grain war

https://www.euronews.com/2022/05/14/ukraine-war-grain-exports-blocked-by-russia-threaten-to-bring-hunger-and-famine-g7-warns

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/germany-accuses-russia-of-waging-grain-war/2588110

https://radioopensource.org/grain-war/

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/economy/article/2022/05/12/war-in-ukraine-threatens-the-world-s-breadbasket_5983258_19.html Xx236 (talk) 09:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Xx236 it is unclear what you want to be done, please specify. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 01:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

under "supported by NATO," should the NATO states be listed individually?

it seems odd to list many entities as one2601:642:C481:4640:0:0:0:6DE (talk) 06:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Support from NATO and non-NATO nations

When a NATO member country supports Ukraine, it is not to say they act on behalf of NATO there⸺if you get what I'm saying. Nordic non-NATO countries have also supported Ukraine. Feel free to add this information there therefore. ToniTurunen (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

https://www.euractiv.com/section/defence-and-security/news/ramstein-meeting-gives-birth-to-global-contact-group-to-support-ukraine/ Probably more than 40 countries suport Ukraine. Xx236 (talk) 07:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The usual practice here has always been to list sides that, besides mere diplomatic or humanitarian support, also had a direct of indirect military role (often, but not always, including those supplying military-grade equipment). Under that note, adding Sweden, Finland, South Korea, Japan, Australia and New Zealand to the list is the most accurate course of action. These countries have supplied arms to Ukraine just like NATO, yet cannot be included under the NATO umbrella. Having NATO as Ukraine's sole defender seems dangerously close to US-Eurocentrism and pure misinformation. The Last Scholar (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine is NOT supported by NATO; to say this is a misunderstanding of how NATO works. NATO does not have the authority to state opinions or make declarations in this manner, that is done by its constituent member states speaking as individual states. NATO is not a political body capable of having such views beyond issues relating to its constitutional purposes. Things that Boris Johnston or Joe Biden may say represent the views of the UK or USA, not NATO. It is an important error because it supports a misleading view, one that Russia would like to promote, that Russia is in a proxy conflict with NATO rather than a range of countries around the world, only some of whom happen to be in NATO, all of them speaking for themselves. The only two things of significance that NATO has said is to reiterate that an attack on one NATO country would be considered an attack on all (which has not happened) and comments about the possible admission of Sweden and Finland. While convenient to reduce the list to one to fit a small space in the info box, it omits important others and supports a spread a serious misunderstanding. Ex nihil ^(talk) 13:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

From the AP,

NATO, as an organization, refuses to send troops or weapons to Ukraine or impose a no-fly zone over it to keep the trans-Atlantic military group from being drawn into a wider war with nuclear-armed Russia. Individual NATO countries, however, have provided anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons to Ukraine, as well as equipment and medical supplies.

Read the sources carefully and you will usually find it says "NATO members" or something similar. But not "NATO". ::NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Yes, and yet the infobox still stays Supported by: NATO, which is incorrect. Ex nihil ^(talk) 07:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Additional deaths

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/3482769-who-estimates-3000-avoidable-deaths-in-ukraine-due-to-lack-of-access-to-chronic-illness-treatments/ Xx236 (talk) 12:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

ALOT more additional deaths than that. The Civilian toll will just be left as it is, after the war it may be updated. PreserveOurHistory (talk) 14:01, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

The term "Revolution of Dignity"

The Crimean separatists and Donbas separatists would obviously not agree to this characterization. I suggest editing this term to the "2014 Ukrainian Revolution." If the editors were to add "(characterized as the 'Revolution with Dignity' in Ukraine)", that would be accurate and OK, albeit a bit wordy. The page on the 2014 Ukraine Revolution should also be edited along the same lines. The current entry is biased and inaccurate from the perspective of one side in the dispute. Wikipedia needs to stop being so partisan in everything. It is tiresome. 108.56.219.144 (talk) 05:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:RS and WP:COMMONNAME, the latter is derived from usage in reliable sources. A09090091 (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but are these independent and does it satisfy WP:DUE? Cinderella157 (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Complete the article with extra info

Can someone please add info into the article as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Nuclear_arsenal_of_Russia ?

It would help the 30k people looking at this every day with having some perspective with regard to nuclear arsenals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:A702:EA85:C45F:2E5A:862B:6891 (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Latest statement about nuclear weapons

Add this into the article please. It's the Russian ambassador to London's declaration about nuclear weapons.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61618902 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:A702:EA85:2521:62FF:8BC7:AF90 (talk) 22:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Russian conscripts

I request to add an information on the fact that Russian concscripts are used in the war since the beginning. Thanks. Few sources: [6][7][8] AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 13:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Alexander Davronov, I encourage you to go ahead and add the content yourself! No reason not to, I think it would be good to mention if it is not already well-covered. I'd recommend not using the US Embassy source as that is definitely non-neutral, or at least using it only as an attributed opinion ("The US Embassy in Georgia claimed in 2022..."). —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: or at least using it only as an attributed opinion I totally agree with you, but I'm Russian and I tend to abstain from contribution into the article. There is a plenty of sources besides US embassy website. Cheers. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 May 2022

 Not done

 – no consensus, requester agreed to move to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. ;; Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk  10:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I want to add a section including NATO contributions to the war and their involvement. BadKarma22 (talk) 04:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Any real details belongs in the subarticle 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. In this article, it is enough to include a sentence or two summarizing that support, and another one or two about why that matters. You could write some draft text with sources and post it here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

'The NATO' (France and Germany) delivered military teechnology to Russia.

'The NATO' (Hungary) vetoes sanctions. Xx236 (talk) 12:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your response! BadKarma22 (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll move this to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine BadKarma22 (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

BadKarma22 If we're talking boots on the ground then NATO as an entity itself is not directly involved, although people have commented that NATO is fighting a sort of "proxy war", if you would. At this point it's mostly been strengthening troop numbers in surrounding nations. Hope this helps. Perhaps if you included a section detailing the commentary by people such as Jeffrey Sachs, that could be of use? X-750 _{I've made a mistake, haven't I?} 09:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

It is a dangerous fallacy that NATO has contributed to the Ukraine war effort. Its member states may have done so in various ways but that does not mean that NATO has. It is important to recognise this, because NATO has no authority to act or speak at the moment, all that has been done was done by its constituent member states acting and speaking as individual states. Russia promotes the idea that they are in conflict with NATO rather than a range of countries around the world, because it suits them to do so. If NATO were to contribute directly, as NATO, then that would be an enormously important event, but that has not happened yet. All NATO has said is to reiterate that an attack on one NATO country would be considered an attack on all (which has yet to happen) and comments about the possible admission of Sweden and Finland. Boris Johnston speaks for UK, Macron for France, Biden for USA; nobody has spoken for NATO and none of the foregoing three examples have the authority to do so and won't. I think this discussion arises from a misunderstanding of how NATO works. The day NATO contributes to the war effort as NATO, we will all know about it, and we are into World War 3. Ex nihil ^(talk) 14:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

X750 if, as you say, NATO has "mostly been strengthening troop numbers in surrounding nations", that fact is not evidence of NATO supporting Ukraine. After all, they are only in the "surrounding nations". And anyway, the claim would still need RSs NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

That's exactly... what I meant NewsAndEventsGuy? My stance is that NATO is not supporting Ukraine X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 21:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I kind of thought so; I wasn't talking about the issue just potential edits. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

BadKarma22 I oppose your desired change on the basis of RSs such as this one from the AP

NATO, as an organization, refuses to send troops or weapons to Ukraine or impose a no-fly zone over it to keep the trans-Atlantic military group from being drawn into a wider war with nuclear-armed Russia. Individual NATO countries, however, have provided anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons to Ukraine, as well as equipment and medical supplies.

Read the sources carefully and you will usually find it says "NATO members" or something similar. But not "NATO". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

References

U.S. disinformation campaign

I don't see any discussion here about the U.S. disinformation campaign and its impact on Wikipedia's reliance on sources that simply reprint U.S. intelligence products. Any comments? Jojalozzo (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Until and unless there are WP:Reliable sources to go with your claims, there's nothing to discuss. You can list them like usual and after your sig include {{reflist-talk}} to generate footnotes here in the thread. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12040

Spending by Obama in 2014 was for "non-lethal" weapons, and by Trump in 2017 for "lethal" weapons.

The distinction between the two is riot control equipment is non-lethal (e.g. police), and everything else such as bullets are lethal (e.g army).

I'm pretty sure America is honest about what it's doing as a government, but individual players obviously have varied agenda. But, I'm 100% sure, if the USA government did something, they'd have a receipt for it. But, the caveat is, obviously, we're not always going to agree with those players are we.

Anyway that's my stance on "disinformation", I usually put it down to incomplete research, but then I like reading more than others I guess.

I hope you all have a nice day, and in the future we don't have wars like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.184.175.53 (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Grammar in title

Wouldn't the norms of English grammar dictate the use of an en dash "–" instead of a hyphen in the title "Russo-Ukrainian War". The dash article attests to the en dash's usage in lieu of a hyphen in the cases of compound words such as "Russo–Ukrainian". Quoting the article, one of the en dash's main uses are "as a substitute for a hyphen in a compound when one of the connected items is more complex than a single word", as in the examples given such as "Radical–Unionist coalition", "Boston–Hartford route", and "New York–London flight". Cheers, – 𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘 05:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

OK by me Changed mind, opposed, see below.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

OK by me. Didn't notice till you pointed it out. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Cinderella157 (talk) 13:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

NO. Please search the talk archives before making these proposals. MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES establishes the use of hyphens when combining forms, such as 'Russo-', are used. RGloucester — ☎ 22:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Who knew? Thanks for pointing that out, I retract my OK above. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

War chart

Can someone add this war chart in please?

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-61726733?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=62a21cd832686a6e65aef049%26Russia%20may%20have%20lost%2020%2C000%20soldiers%2C%20Western%20official%20says%262022-06-09T16%3A45%3A20.265Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:45d54071-a546-4f7a-b65e-d44f4ad1433a&pinned_post_asset_id=62a21cd832686a6e65aef049&pinned_post_type=share — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:A702:EA85:F002:281A:E7C5:89B2 (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Caption

The caption on the image says “The military situation as of 19 May 2022”, when it should say “The military situation as of 5 November 2024”. 2A01:119F:253:7000:9072:8D51:B6AB:8A80 (talk) 09:04, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 May 2022 | Add Flags next to leaders names

Next to vladimir putin and Sergei Shoigu add '' next to voldemort zelensky, Petro Poroshenko and Oleksandr Turchynov add '' — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

PreserveOurHistory Why? They're on the same side, no need to add more flags. You've done this once already at short-range ballistic missile. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 14:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

it looks better PreserveOurHistory (talk) 06:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Not a particularly good reason, PreserveOurHistory. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 11:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

another reason is that is how wiki articles usually are. PreserveOurHistory (talk) 09:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 June 2022

I Russo-Ukrainian militairy operation 2A02:A457:53D3:1:31A3:64B4:8BCF:163D (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Its the Russo-Ukrainian militairy operation not Russo-Ukrainian war

RS call it a war. Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: This is actually a controversial edit, so you'll need to discuss first with other editors. Please open a new section here and start a discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Wiki "Belligerents"

It's about who supports. Ukraine is supported by Greece, Turkish, English, French, German, Swedish, Australian, Norway, United States of America. But not listed on wikipedia? Meanwhile, on the Russian side there is Belarus. Is wikipedia in terms of this information, can be very accurate or not? Wikipedia should always be updated for the latest information. Neutrality is always upheld, as a proper medium of information and does not erase the role of each event because it can change history later. SoloRazer (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

It does not matter how often this is asked, or how often the same thing is reworded. If we have said no once we will say no again. Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

It's possible you (like me until now) were unaware of an addition. In the current version, 1091026877, under Ukraine in the infobox it says For countries supporting Ukraine during the 2022 invasion, see 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. This resolves the legitimate point you raised, but since its already taken care of, there's nothing to see here, move along folks. However if anyone wants to make a case, based on RSs, for doing something for suppporting nations prior to 2022, I'll listen. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the work you guys have done, and I know this has been a headache, but would it be possible to use the main title of the linked section (Foreign Military Support) as opposed to Foreign Military Involvement. It is confusing without the context and infographics shown from the beginning of the section.

Thanks! Debiant (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

*Minor* grammatical errors under "Russia-NATO relations"

Found a couple of minor errors in the ["Russia-NATO relations"] section of the article:

> "Russian military aircraft flying over the Baltic and Black Seas often do not indicating their position or communicate with air traffic controllers"

Needs correction to "indicate"

> "Although Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov have characterized the conflict as a proxy war instigated by NATO"

Needs correction to "has"

First time poster, apologies if this is inappropriate. Hoppingskipper (talk) 14:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed. Thanks for your help, Hoppingskipper! Jr8825 • Talk 14:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 June 2022

Add "(click to view)" to the Russian Invasion map gifs subtext as it has exceeded the number of frames that will allow it to play in thumbnail form. Physeters^✉ 03:44, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done Jr8825 • Talk 14:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 18 June 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. User:Onetwothreeip is represented as requesting this move but did not make this request. See below. (non-admin closure) Cinderella157 (talk) 00:45, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

---

Russo-Ukrainian War → Russian-Ukrainian War – Common name. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• Not objecting, but I doubt this is uncontroversial. The article has been moved before, and the topic is something that is currently on-going. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
  • The article has not been moved since 2020 except for formatting issues over the dash. I could not find a single objection to "Russian-Ukrainian War". Similar to the minor formatting changes, I am requesting a very minor grammatical change to the title, not a substantive one. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Oppose Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Russo-Ukrainian_War&type=move it's been "Russo" since 2014. Looking at Template:Russian conflicts, "Russo" appears to be the convention, including for example Russo-Georgian War, so I object. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
      • The "Russo" is precisely what I am seeking to change. You're entitled to object but I don't see how you can say there's a convention. There are 27 uses of "Russo" and 15 uses of "Russian". The former is more historical while the latter is more modern. Pointing out a single other example would be WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
        • I only counted 4 using "Russian" in compound words (i.e. with hyphens/dashes) on that template, with the most recent being Anglo-Russian War (1807–1812), for the sake of WP:CONSISTENT. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
          • I'm seeking to replace the word "Russo" in the title of this article with "Russian", so that would bring the total up to five hyphenated titles, and sixteen overall. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose  Please show evidence that it’s the more common name in reliable sources, as opposed to many others (Russia–Ukraine war, Ukraine war, Ukrainian conflict, &c.). Please address the WP:CRITERION of consistency with other article titles, e.g., Russo–Georgian War. Please provide evidence that these terms are historical or modern. By the way, Anglo-Russian is the same kind of prefixed compound taking a hyphen as Russo-Ukrainian, as opposed to compound adjectives taking a dash English–Russian and Russian–Ukrainian. —Michael Z. 16:22, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose lazy proposal, no proof given. Super Ψ Dro 16:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Inadequate rationale. VQuakr (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose and rename to Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–2022), stop using this inadequate page name Wikiman92783 (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose A weak case with no real eveidence and nothing to show that the change would be a benefit. While this event isn't the only event that might be labeled "Russian-Ukrainian War", this ngram shows no clear reason to prefer one term over the other. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose on process. Whoever has started this requested move has used my username without permission and without notifying me. This appears to come from a purely technical request that I made, hence the brief explanation, which was obviously not intended to be the basis for a move request on an article talk page. I would never disrespect my fellow Wikipedia editors by asking them to support a proposal to move an article with this lack of detail. The right action would be to re-open a move discussion with a proper rationale and for whoever started this to take responsibility for what has taken place. @GeoffreyT2000, Kj cheetham, Mzajac, Super Dromaeosaurus, VQuakr, Wikiman92783, and Cinderella157: Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Opening paragraph falsely states that "Russia launched a full-scale invasion""

notice: The initial comment in this section was edited after receiving replies to an earlier version. --N8_wilson 🔔 23:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The claim made by NATO & western mainstream media of Russia's "full-scale invasion of Ukraine" is false and misleading. There was no "Full scale invasion". Apparently, Russia's military operation "invasion" was relatively gentle, focused on simple, stated objectives, in comparison to the USA's full scale invasion of Iraq in 2003. To repeat the words Russia's full scale invasion of Ukraine, is 1) take sides and to 2) to contribute to what many view as the anti-Russia big lie. For true neutrality, the text should be changed from "full-scale invasion..." to something like "limited scale invasion which Putin ordered while claiming it as "collective self defense" authorized by Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. The view that the invasion/military operation was illegal is arguable and should be determined by an impartial court of law not by Ukrainian or Western authorities. Additionally, many allegations against Russia for war crimes have been made & stated by the media as factual, while few if any have been proven.

---

notice: The initial comment in this section was edited after receiving replies to an earlier version. Replaced italics with quotation marks on the Scott Ritter quote below, in accordance with WP policy for quotations.24.42.166.244 (talk) 05:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Quoting Scott Ritter . ″..the inherent right of individual and collective self-defense, as enshrined in Article 51... United Nations Charter A plain-language reading of Article 51 makes it clear that the trigger necessary for invocation of the right of self-defense is the occurrence of an actual armed attack — the notion of an open-ended threat to security does not, by itself, suffice...
  Vladimir Putin, citing Article 51 as his authority, ordered what he called a “special military operation” against Ukraine for the ostensible purpose of eliminating neo-Nazi affiliated military formations accused of carrying out acts of genocide against the Russian-speaking population of the Donbass, and for dismantling a Ukrainian military Russia believed served as a de facto proxy of the NATO military alliance. Putin laid out a detailed case for pre-emption, detailing the threat that NATO’s eastward expansion posed to Russia, as well as Ukraine’s ongoing military operations against the Russian-speaking people of the Donbass.... Putin’s case for invading Ukraine has, not surprisingly, been widely rejected in the West. “Russia’s invasion of Ukraine,” Amnesty International declared, “is a manifest violation of the United Nations Charter and an act of aggression that is a crime under international law. Russia is in clear breach of its international obligations. Its actions are blatantly against the rules and principles on which the United Nations was founded. ″
  • Russia, Ukraine and the Law of War. Crime of Aggression (part one of a two-part series, lays out international law regarding the crime of aggression and how it relates to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine), By Scott Ritter, Consortiumnews 29 March 2022 https://consortiumnews.com/2022/03/29/russia-ukraine-the-law-of-war-crime-of-aggression/

---

• Thank you all very much for your work. Conflict handled with honesty leads to harmony. 24.42.166.244 (talk) 17:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I am unsure that Putin's view that this was an act of "collective self defense" when Russia had in fact not been attacked is valid. Nor am I sure we can say (as he attacked un multiple lines of advance) that this was not a full scale invasion. Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Consortium News is listed in WP:RSP as a deprecated source, “known to lean towards uncritically repeating claims that are fringe, demonstrably false, or have been described by mainstream outlets as "conspiracy theories."” —Michael Z. 19:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@Mzajac: Actually Consortium News is listed as generally unreliable not deprecated. The publisher also made it clear in this case that the article is an opinion piece by Scott Ritter appending to the work, The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News. Sources like this could be permissible for citing uncontentious claims or certain statements of opinion with appropriate in text attribution. (Subject to other policies of course) That said, it appears the author put forth no claim as to the scale of the invasion and his views about the legal justification, regardless of whatever merit they may or may not have, shouldn't be included here as fact as suggested by the phrase citing it as ... authorized by Aricle 51.... The proposed wording also seems to suggest that Putin himself invoked that legal justification which, although it may be the case (I have no idea), is unsupported at least by this source as best I can tell. --N8_wilson 🔔 21:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

In case you don't already know, many westerners who routinely question what the establishment would have us believe and routinely turn to investigative journalists in the Alternative press for our information, while considering the many of the establishment's views that they feed to the unquestioning masses, as the most unreliable, deceptive, anti-democratic, and pro-war/insane of all. Hope goes along with these suggestions for this article, but no expectation. Whatever will be will be. :-) Thank you 24.42.166.244 (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@24.42.166.244: Please take note of the preferred practices for revising you own comments and other talk page guidelines as they help us maintain productive dialogue here. --N8_wilson 🔔 23:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@N8wilson 🔔: Thank you very much! 24.42.166.244 (talk) 00:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Renaming article to Ukraine War

Does anyone but wikipedians call this the Ukraine War? I propose renaming this the Ukraine War and removing the current redirect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ukraine_War&redirect=no

Thoughts? 666hopedieslast (talk) 08:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

A new section under 4 Related Issues should be added: 4.4 Western propaganda, censorship, and disinformation campaigns

The topic of Western propaganda, censorship and disinformation campaigns should be included in this article. Clearly having a section for Russian propaganda without a section for Western propaganda is anything but balanced & neutral. Below is a 'tip of the iceberg' of material from investigative journalists reporting on the proposed topic.

<extensive copy/paste copyvios removed>

For the record. Thank you in advance for trying to live up to wikipeda's high principles. 24.42.166.244 (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Please keep discussion to concrete improvements to articles. See the WP:Talk page guidelines and WP:Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Other talk may be removed. —Michael Z. 02:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I've removed extensive copy/paste copyright violations from this discussion posted by 24.42.166.244. Most of it was content from American Conservative, Counterpunch and lots of commentary by Noam Chomsky, with a little Julian Assange, Edward Snowden and Ron Paul Institute thrown in. Most of it was repetitive and appeared to serve the IP commenter's soapboxing rather than offering concrete article suggestions, and most of these sources are to be used with care and in-text attribution., if used at all. Acroterion (talk) 03:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Acroterion: Thank you for sharing that information. I noted that all the material/quotes submitted for consideration were deleted and are not visible in the history & "view revisions" while normal deletions are. Was that intentional? I had guessed that significant properly sourced quotes from notable people in the 50 to 200 word range would be ok. There were a lot of very relevant & properly sourced quotes in the post. It took me all day to find them. There were far more quotations from notable people, than my own opinions (which was less than 5%). Is there a way i could retrieve a copy?
As was obvious in the post, first I posted some comments, quotations & sources/links shortly thereafter, comments were posted by other wikipedia editors who seemed to indicate that more material was needed. So I did more research & posted more sources/quotes/material. Didn't know that it would upset anyone, but can understand the conflict with the dominate POV.
One quote that was posted that you may have forgotten to mention was from Philip Giraldi a former CIA agent who has said a lot about the Western Propaganda in this war. Apparently this isn't the same link that used - but it should suffice: https://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/and-what-about-those-biolabs/
Another author i listed who you may have forgotten to mention was Chris Hedges who points out that the ruling elite have directed the social media platforms to censoring all who challenge the establishments, dominate narrative on Ukraine and more. https://consortiumnews.com/2022/04/18/chris-hedges-american-commissars/
another included a quote from Oliver Stone where he pointed out (as have many others that there has been a massive anti-russia propaganda wall in the US, and that the US had long been working diligently to get the masses to believe that Putin was a villain: https://scheerpost.com/2022/02/11/oliver-stone-american-exceptionalism-is-on-deadly-display-in-ukraine/
Another source i mentioned but you deleted was the group "Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting," This article: ‘Disinformation’ Label Serves to Marginalize Crucial Ukraine Facts" could be helpful for researchers: https://fair.org/home/disinformation-label-serves-to-marginalize-crucial-ukraine-facts/
Sorry for failing to read the talk page guidelines before posting. Thanks again. 24.42.166.244 (talk) 05:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

There is no reason to post lengthy quotes when links will suffice, and allow reviewers to read the entire source. For the article to start talking about "western propaganda," it will have to gain substantial currency in reliable media. Otherwise, it would be represented in due proportion to its prevalence in such media, which is scant. 50 to 200 word quotes, much less dozens of them, are far beyond what is allowed in a free content publication, even on talkpages. In order for me to email the deleted content, you will probably need to create an account and add an email contact when you set it up. You may wish to review WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE. Acroterion (talk) 12:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Please don't be offended, but it seems important to say that it seems like your deleting links/quotes so that nobody can see what was posted even on the history page, was a form of censorship. Is that practice fully in accordance with WP's policy? Obviously there are many interpretations of policy. Thanks for all the good work you do & Best wishes 24.42.166.244 (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

You are a little too eager to find censorship and to lecture other editors on what you think Wikipedia ought to be doing. Had your additions not been copyright violations, and therefore liable for compulsory removal and deletion, the section would have simply been collapsed or removed as soapboxing with no concrete suggestion for improvement. You are warned that talkpages aren't fora for your personal views or for advocacy. I've removed your little bit of soapboxing below. Stop using talkpages as advocacy fora. Acroterion (talk) 22:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your views. Clearly you know a hell of a lot more about WP than this newcomer, but you may find it helpful to review this: Wikipedia:Assume good faith policy. Surely there was a time when even you - knew as little about WP, as other newcomers. Sincere Best wishes 24.42.166.244 (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

AGF is not infinite and doesn't require us to set aside Wikipedia sourcing and editorial policies to satisfy Russian talking points. You may have noted that the WMF is not on the best terms with Russia these days and has an active initiative to combat disinformation. Acroterion (talk) 22:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

South Ossetia

Since South Ossetia has some of its forces attached to Russian military, and there have been South Ossetian desertions from Ukraine (therefore we conclude that there are south ossetian troops there), shouldn't the breakaway state be considered a co-belligerent? 2804:14D:5C59:5717:385A:9FDA:283E:DD25 (talk) 22:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I think they were Russian citizens and volunteers, and the S.O. quasi-state is not participating. Check what was discussed in archives here. —Michael Z. 02:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

*added Japan South Korea United States Taiwan Australia

• added Japan South Korea United States Taiwan Australia Jonathan555568 (talk) 11:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Refinement for Russo-Ukrainian War # Pro-Russian unrest

In the sentence (last of section),

«The role of the Kremlin's military intervention was paramount for hostilities to begin.»,

«begin» should be replaced by e.g. «continue». «begin» is incompatible with the text before. It's also refined later in the source*. There, «commencement» is in the abstract, but «continuation» at p. 530.

* Mykhnenko, Vlad (2020). "Causes and Consequences of the War in Eastern Ukraine: An Economic Geography Perspective". Europe-Asia Studies. 72 (3): 530. doi:10.1080/09668136.2019.1684447. The role of the Kremlin's covert military intervention, aided by its local proxies, remains paramount, necessary and sufficient for the continuation of hostilities.

(Forgot to sign, so here: – Markus Prokott (talk) 03:34, 6 July 2022 (some Time))

Both are saying that without Russian military intervention a war would not have started and continued (at date of publication) for five years. In case that’s not clear, the essay unequivocally states: “The war in Donbas was principally the end result of foreign instigation, intervention and invasion, aided and abetted by collaborating elements of the Yanukovych regime” and “the evidence presented here points to the paramount role of exogenous political agency and of endogenous military geography in explaining the outbreak of the armed conflict in eastern Ukraine in April 2014.” —Michael Z. 17:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

For some reason, the author of the source says in the abstract «commencement», later «continuation». The first one seems to be, at least, mistakable. In the more relevant main part, the author decides for «continuation», which is backed by the rest of the text (and probably its references) here. The term «hostilities» also is generally to broad to apply a clear «start» to it, at all. For prevention of error, we should stick to the most binding part of the source and/or be more precise about the hostilities.

What «Both [words] are saying» isn't the problem. It's their difference. What else you present of the source isn't in contrast of either wording, or is it? – Markus Prokott (talk) 09:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I don’t see the problem. We are using this source to support a statement that the main cause of the war was actions by Moscow, although other factors contributed. The wording can be tweaked, but I don’t think we disagree. —Michael Z. 18:37, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, there is no problem. Never claimed a content-wise dissent. It's solely about a more accurate wording that fits better to the rest of the text, as well as the source's main section. Normally a tiny job, but with that protection in effect I can't do it. – Markus Prokott (talk) 11:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

separate section for International law violations

a separate section for all the international violations presumably done by the parties will be a good addition.... any views? 203.115.91.240 (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Strength of the Armed Forces of Ukraine

Anyone have some references to the current estimated strength under mobilization of the AFU, as well as the National Guard, Border Guard, and Territorial Defence? The infobox under “Strength” directs us to Order of battle for the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, but that article has only organization and no numbers whatsoever. —Michael Z. 20:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Renzikov says “We have approximately 700,000 in the armed forces and when you add the national guard, police, border guard, we are around a million strong.”[9] —Michael Z. 20:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Naming this a ‘war’ without addressing the primary offensive against civilians is in error.

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

---

How can this be called ‘an ongoing war’ when Ukraine was a sovereign nation attacked on Feb 24, 2022 by Russian forces? How can this be called a ‘war’ when top military experts worldwide are calling this a genocide? Calling this a ‘war’ and an ‘extension of a war in from 2014,’ seems to exclude the unique and obvious situation of an unprovoked attack on primarily civilians. 2601:190:C400:9E30:458F:5D8E:F216:7666 (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can look at the current situation and not see it as a war. Attacks on civilians doesn't make it not a war. However, in terms of when the war started, you might be looking for the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article. — Czello 11:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Could you explain why you believe it not to be a 'war' because of these factors and what else it would be called? I might be missing something but a war frequently includes civilian casualties. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 13:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The current situation does not meet the UN definition of genocide. Such inflation of the term constitutes Holocaust denial according to many scholars, among others J. Arch Getty and Kristen Ghodsee if memory serves me right. KetchupSalt (talk) 11:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Thirty genocide and legal experts published a report saying that the Russian state is guilty of inciting genocide, has committed genocidal acts listed in the convention, that genocide may be taking place, and that state parties to the convention have an obligation to prevent it.[10][11]

The “Holocaust denial” idea defies logic. If these academics are saying someone (who?) is somehow denying the Holocaust by examining Russian war crimes, please provide references and not just baseless innuendo. —Michael Z. 13:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

My apologies, I was being imprecise with language. What I mean specifically is that 2601:190:C400:9E30:458F:5D8E:F216:7666's assertion that mere violation of a country's sovereignty and the killing of civilians does not constitute genocide, or else nearly every invasion in modern history would be a genocide. Such expansion of the term also waters it down, which is a well-known tactic employed by fascists since the end of World War II, specifically for trivializing the Holocaust. It is of course entirely possible that the Russian government is intent on genocide in Ukraine, especially in light of Putin's speech before the invasion where he denied the existence of the Ukrainian nation, as indeed the report you link points out. KetchupSalt (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

The conflict has been frozen since 2015. Moreover, why should it be called a war when the countries have not declared war on each other? Even Ukraine, which screams about how "evil Russian orcs rape 100,500 women per second and cook jelly from Ukrainian children," has not declared war. 213.87.102.249 (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Although it must be admitted that Ukraine does not really like wars. For example, in 2014, Ukraine used the brand name "Anti-Terrorist Operation" instead of the civil war. 213.87.102.249 (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately the people running this site don’t know how it works. It’s clear that the Russia-Ukraine war started on february 24 according to every single source, yet they bring up pointless self published books and change the notion of this war Wikiman92783 (talk) 11:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Pleae read wp:soap. Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Please read literally every single other wikipedia guideline article and learn how to run the site and stop sending personal insults. Wikiman92783 (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Woah, let's calm down and stop starting fights. Let's work together to settle this civilly. BadKarma22 (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

In other wiki articles they list other names for the event in the first few sentences which could work as something of a middle ground. I've seen Putin's War thrown around in the West. I can't find a really good name from any Russia source though. The best might be: Russia's Ukraine Operation which I found in Russia Today, but even that's a bit too technical. I don't know how Wiki formatting works 2:03, 11 May 2022 (EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1900:A5A0:892E:7508:FA84:85F4 (talk)

I love the name "Russo-Ukrainian War": traditionally, the loser of the conflict gets the hyphenated prefix and the victor gets the full name. So.... Russo-Japanese War (they lost that one too), Franco-Prussian War? Don't even need to look it up to know who won. Russo-Ukrainian is quite accurate! 70.51.88.190 (talk) 01:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

And how did they lose the war? This has aged like milk. 2A02:8388:2100:E400:C824:9941:9A0D:5854 (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Change to “Russo-Ukrainian Conflict”

Following the long, long Wikipedia precedent set by other long term conflicts that simmer down and flare up (Most notably Nagorno Karabakh, Afghanistan, and Libya) and not to mention the average common usage of the term(the war started to most people in February), I propose taking the name Russo-Ukrainian War to the other page and renaming this one to Conflict(because this page covers the broader conflict as a whole, including the down time, while the other page should cover the active full scale war that started in February)

Semi-Related, but for the same reasons the War in Donbas article should be split in two(not to mention length and neatness reasons.) War in Donbas(or Donbas War) should cover the active true hot war phase in 2014-2015, and a separate article (2015-2022 Donbas Skirmishes) should cover the mostly frozen conflict stage with the occasional flareup(which is exactly how those other ones handle it). All of these, plus the various political crisis like Kerch Strait and Euromaiden, are part of the greater Russo-Ukrainian Conflict that started in late 2013, which is the scope of this article. The term “Russo-Ukrainian War” should, as following the precedent set by the other similar cases AND the common usage, be reserved for the full scale war between Russia and Ukraine that broke out this February.

Please note, this is not an attempt to downplay anything. Do not read my intention like that. I simply want to fix a messy set of articles(not even there own fault, we couldn’t have seen the trajectory of this in 2014, Nagorno Karabakh and Afghanistan had far more hindsight beforehand) and get them consistent with the others, not to mention far more in line with common usage.

I’d also like to say support for this has been consistently high from the other side(the page that wants to be Russo-Ukrainian War, but is currently 2022 invasion), so we really just need a decent amount of approval from this side in order to clean this mess up. I hope I can count on your support 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:9957:F09A:E13D:8B3F (talk) 06:52, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it is now a war, whatever it was before, a war between two sovereign nations. Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Of course it is a war now. That is why I want to rename the other page to Russo-Ukrainian War. I also believe it was a full scale war in 2014-2015, hence War in Donbas.

I simply find it dissngenius to imply a degree of equality between the state of things in 2015-2022 and the current state of things, and again, it’s dreadfully inconsistent with most other long conflicts with flare ups and frozen periods 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:9957:F09A:E13D:8B3F (talk) 15:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I do not, it was a war then, it is a war now, all that changed is the intensity. Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. The argument is full of unsupportable opinions and makes no reference to our naming guidelines. Please start a formal WP:RM if you’re serious about gauging consensus.  —Michael Z. 17:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Unsupportable? I mentioned all the other page families that follow that exact format.

also I’m a new editor so I don’t know what that is. 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:8405:1A5A:6199:DD98 (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I mean some of your statements re not supportable by references to WP:reliable sources. Specifically, they say that an international military conflict started when the Russians invaded Ukraine in February 2014.

Also, be familiar with the naming guidelines at WP:TITLE. Titles of these article have been considered before, and it’s helpful to read over the relevant discussions so you’re not repeating old arguments. They are linked at the top of this talk page, where it says “Deletion Discussions, Moves, Merges, Press, etc.” —Michael Z. 21:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Map

Map is not updating. Please update it. Sarge Da2 (talk) 09:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Mistake in dates

Civilian casualties: 3,393 killed (September 2021) - should be 2022 157.254.225.94 (talk) 11:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

That's actually correct, that number is just about the war in the donbas. It says to look at the 2022 invasion article for the 2022 casualties. Tristario (talk) 12:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Casualties

The casualty section probably needs updating Patbahn (talk) 01:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

https://www.efe.com/efe/english/portada/ukraine-says-10-000-soldiers-killed-since-start-of-russian-invasion/50000260-4829435

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/russia-ukraine-crisis/ukraine-claims-over-10-000-russian-soldiers-killed-since-war/2524783

https://www.brusselstimes.com/237100/ukraine-conflict-10000-ukrainian-soldiers-killed-since-start-of-war

https://www.laprensalatina.com/ukraine-says-10000-soldiers-killed-since-start-of-russian-invasion/ 178.71.210.129 (talk) 15:06, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

According to Amnesty International, Ukrainian "fighting tactics" of launching attacks from populated civilian areas, including schools and hospitals, puts civilians in harms way (https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/08/ukraine-ukrainian-fighting-tactics-endanger-civilians/), a practice colloquially known as, using human shields. Occams ied (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

List of countries supporting Ukraine

That list inudes Kazakhstan. It's not an appropriate list to equivocate with military support. Not at all, since a cursory view of that list includes nations like Malta and Kazakhstan and most likely other nations whose foreign policy being described as pro-Ukraine would be patently absurd to anyone actually informed about the war AND the pervasive war propaganda.

It's almost as if this very wiki page is participating in a vast Russophobic conspiracy. 2601:5C4:200:5C40:5C25:C407:8CAE:BF54 (talk) 14:55, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Do we say they offer military support? Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

welcome to wikipedia 121.45.100.185 (talk) 11:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 October 2022

Okay, I am the Ukrainian who has left the conflict in my home country to the United States of America and I saw things there in my country that are not correct written in this article and I would very like to clarify the things which are wrong. Beansshrekmemes (talk) 13:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 September 2022

I have some stuff to add for the war. Using this source (https://www.msn.com/en-xl/news/other/ukraine-round-up-counter-attack-continues-kremlin-remains-defiant/ar-AA11Ketu) it can be added that Ukraine launched a counter-offensive during the Russian's offensive towards Kharkiv on 6 September. By 11 September, Ukraine had taken back the cities of Izyum & Kupiansk. It can also be added that in response, the Russians were 'regrouping'. Ulysses Grant Official (talk) 00:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

 Already done as it is mentioned and linked via the sentence Ukrainian forces launched counteroffensives in the south in August, and in the northeast in September. in the section 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Feel free to propose additional, more specific changes to the content if you think it should be modified from that. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 00:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Sources

New to Wikipedia, this is locked but the 7% figure in the introduction should be cited: https://press.un.org/en/2019/ga12122.doc.htm that's where it comes from. I thought Wikipedia had a strict policy of citation!! Nerdfighter3 (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

What seven percent figure?

Also, you may open an edit request next time! Aaron Liu (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I believe he was talking about this:

"By 2019, 7 percent of Ukraine had been designated by the Ukrainian government as being temporarily occupied by Russia." It is in the third paragraph in the introduction, final sentence. Raymond Kestis (talk) 05:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

edit request

In the history section, please re-add link to main articles e.g. there are links to specific battles like Battle of Ilovaisk but no link to the War in Donbas --Nilsol2 (talk) Nilsol2 (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Relevance of Zelenskyy being Jewish

It is heavily implied in this article that the existence of a Jewish leader precludes the possibility of the existence of the existence of neo Nazism in the country.

This is, at best, false logic.

The phrase "..., despite Zelenskyy being Jewish." Should be replaced with ". However, some people believe this unlikely due to Zelenskyy being Jewish." 120.22.203.116 (talk) 08:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I think the idea is it precludes the idea the country is Neo-Nazi, Putin's claim. Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I have seen a number of sources state some version of this. I can think of several kinds of logic to it, not necessarily corresponding exactly to anon’s interpretation of it. Zelenskyy being Jewish makes baseless statements by his enemies that he is a Nazi all the more dubious. A democratically elected and highly popular Jewish president makes it extremely dubious that the Ukrainians that elected and support him are Nazis, or that Ukraine is a Nazi state. Etcetera. These seem pretty self-evident, to me.

Let’s survey what the sources do say: maybe it should be attested, or maybe not. Maybe we can improve the language anyway. Maybe there are other facts that should be stated along with it.

For example, the fact that Russia’s statements about Ukrainian “Nazism” are accusation in a mirror associated with Russian incitement of genocide: the New Lines Institute report on Russian breaches of the Genocide Convention (p 17) cites Kremlin-controlled media widely claiming Zelenskyy is not a Jew (Russian propaganda also loves to insist his non-Jewish predecessor Poroshenko is a Jew). Easier to understand the logic now?

We won’t write “some people,” because WP:WEASELWORDS. —Michael Z. 15:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Russia's government engaging in projection doesn't mean Ukraine's government hasn't armed and incorporated neo-Nazi freikorps into its forces. This is a basic fact that I presume no one in here disputes. Rather than the current non-sequitur of Zelensky being Jewish, it might be more informative to contrast with Russia's own use of fascist freikorps like the Wagner group. KetchupSalt (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I don’t know if anything about “Freikorps” is a basic fact at all, but there’s an article in a good media source about Putin’s Dirlewanger Brigades.[12] And the Russian torturers’ collection of gold teeth is about to hit the news, so fans of Nazi metaphors are in for a good week. —Michael Z. 20:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Don't deflect by pretending you don't know what words mean. I brought up Wagner group for precisely this reason. Hypocrisy on Putin's part is something worth mentioning. This doesn't absolve the Zelensky regime, which is what the paragraph in question appears to try to do. KetchupSalt (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I never denied that I know what all the words mean, including POV-pushing “absolve the Zelensky regime,” meaning you want to allow that maybe Zelenskyy’s only kinda Nazi, despite what is described above is actually nationalizing and de-politicizing a militia that had some neo-Nazi element, which was completed years before Zelenskyy was elected.

The passage should say something like “despite it’s completely false,” because when the government being Nazi is patently false it’s WP:UNDUE to pick one piece of evidence or cram the article with all of the evidence that it’s false. —Michael Z. 23:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I think that we can safely remove these words as this fact is already mentioned in the Russian accusations and demands section. I'm sure that our readers are not so naive as to read about Putin's accusations and accept them at face value immediately. Alaexis_¿question? 06:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 September 2022

Add (until 2022) to DPR and LPR in belligerents Loganp23 (talk) 23:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Good Lord. Putin just admitted they were always fake by holding fake referendums and absorbing them, and someone wants to stress how real they were up until the moment he did. They were never sovereign or independent entities. They can’t be legal belligerents in an International conflict. Just remove them. —Michael Z. 04:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

 Already done ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 22:41, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian Mass Exodus

For a generally serious improvement onto the article, I believe we should highlight the mass exodus of Ukrainians prior to and during the Russo-Ukrainian War, coming from sites such as [13]https://www.nbcnews.com/specials/ukraine-refugee-exodus-interactive-map/index.html, [14]https://www.bbc.com/news/world-60555472, [15]https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russian-recruits-ukraine-exodus-votes-annexation-putin-rcna49546, [16]https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/europe/2022-03-28/ukrainian-exodus, and [17]https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-poland-migration-00b1b341c356c26db266c64e4e2b5541.

I'm unsure if its already been turned in it's own separate article or as some minor area of the article itself, but having it highlighted as a major section would help with the general civilian side of the war as well. Surreal12 (talk) 00:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The more recent part is covered in 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Refugee crisis and 2022 Ukrainian refugee crisis. Unfortunately, this article’s coverage of events after February 24 is lacking. —Michael Z. 03:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Factual v truth(s)

...any edits done here should be fact checked (if such a thing is still possible); there are too many lies, half-lies, and statistics coming from both sides of this conflict of ideas, and from their supporters / detractors; Reuters is probably the only source that might be trusted at this time. Ajpajpajp1 (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• Please point out specific problems with the article instead of vague chatter. You're welcome to bring your suggestion that all sources other than Reuters be declared generally unreliable to the noticeboard, and see how it goes. Kleinpecan (talk) 23:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

"Russian intervention in Ukrainian civil war" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Russian intervention in Ukrainian civil war and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 16#Russian intervention in Ukrainian civil war until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Mistake in title

Technically, the name "Russo-Ukrainian War" is in not accurate as no formal declaration of war has been made. A more title would be "Russo-Ukrainian Conflict" with a commonly known as "Russo-Ukrainian War" mention. The maker of this article is not at fault rather the Western news sources who are trying to puss their agenda. 166.182.86.130 (talk) 19:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• Wikipedia article titles are based on how common the name is, and not on details like whether there was a declaration of war or not. That the Russo-Ukrainian war is a war and not a mere "conflict" is obvious to anyone with half a brain. Kleinpecan (talk) 23:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
  • The name is absolutely not common for the period from 2014-2022 and rather for the post-February 24 conflict. Russia lost 500 soldiers from 2014 to 2022, and over 40,000 since the february 24 invasion. Seems like we found a person without “half a brain” in your words. 78.191.68.26 (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Should Iran be added to the supporters/suppliers of Russia?

With recent incidents of Russia using UCAVs made by Iran and Ukraine cutting off Diplomatic relations with Iran according to reuters, should it be added that Iran supplies/supports Russia? Reuters article below:

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-says-it-downed-four-iranian-drones-zelenskiy-raps-tehran-2022-09-23/ Huntsmanleader (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

If you're referencing the infobox: if we don't list NATO nations as supporters of Ukraine, we shouldn't list Iran as a supporter of Russia — Czello 22:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

The infobox should treat both sides similarly. So the Russian side is now missing a note linking to Iran, and possibly North Korea as providing foreign aid, under “Supported by.”

(What’s NATO got to do with it? The list of states supplying Ukraine is not the same as the list of NATO members.)  —Michael Z. 23:20, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Not that it is right that we don't list them. Eventually they will be listed as the contribution that HIMARS and other weapons supplied to Ukraine is ever more increasing and harder to ignore. The HIMARS strikes on ammunition depots decreased Russian shelling tenfold [18]; that was one of the few things that Russia had going on for itself in the war. Super Ψ Dro 09:20, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Iran and North Korea have already been added without a citation and should be removed. There is a distinction between support by way of aid and commercial transactions. The source cited re Iran in this thread does not distinguish which of these applies in this case - if it actually does at all, since it is denied by Iran and not independently confirmed. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is to summarise key points of the article. Neither of these countries have any mention in the body of the article. The consensus has been for the infobox here to summarise events prior to the 2022 invasion and for the article in general to defer to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine for detail of the invasion. In the fullness of this, I am removing these from the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Not unless we list nations supporting Ukraine (which we don't), instead link to a list of countries supporting Russia. Both sides must be treated the same. Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

According to the Institute for the Study of War, Iranian Revolutionary Guard troops are in Crimea training Russian forces. Some Hecking Nerd (talk) 16:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

That is a significant escalation. These are official military illegally in Ukraine, directly aiding the firing of drones at Ukrainian infrastructure and civilians. I believe it passes the threshold for participation in an armed conflict = belligerent party. —Michael Z. 18:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-curbs-power-usage-after-russian-attacks-destroy-some-energy-plants-2022-10-19/

Iranian military stuff is now in Ukraine actively assisting Russia's terror bombing Preisschild (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

The info box would apparently be too small to include all of the countries sending military aid to Ukraine, someone check the allied intervention in the Russian civil war wikipage, you can probably just copy it from there. Occams ied (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Minsk Accords?

I see not even addressed 2605:B100:101:F35B:AD33:C3D8:26C1:7B22 (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

It’s mentioned in the article. Just find “Minsk” on the page. What about it, needs improvement? —Michael Z. 23:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Western Media edit

Whole war page is showcased as anti-Russia. I find it pro-NATO & agenda driven. Reuters is reporting from Ukrainian lines, not Russian. Where is Russian view in this? Asian & African countries view this war being instigated by US & NATO. 2402:3A80:CFA:E944:89E0:8304:214A:5316 (talk) 17:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

We don't report Russian propaganda as fact. — Czello 17:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I think what 2402:3A80:CFA:E944:89E0:8304:214A:5316 is getting at is that the page is WP:POV and presents NATO propaganda as fact. We should also be careful because just because something is propaganda doesn't make it false. KetchupSalt (talk) 11:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

True, but western media tends to not be state-controlled. This is "independent", and not using Russian media would not prevent us from using Asian & African media. So maybe people need to actually start producing some for us to judge. Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

True, but western media tends to not be state-controlled.

This is wrong. There is plenty of censorship and control over the media in the west. Both self-censorship and intervention by the security apparatus. To think otherwise is naïve. Thinking that western media loyal to one set of belligerents isn't POV is itself POV. KetchupSalt (talk) 11:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

No they are not "loyal", and the western media is not some top-down beast. There are multiple media outlets across the political divide. No one says they are not subject to biass, we are stating they aren't subject to outright state control, we are saying they are not all told to say the same thing. They are not being forced to publish the government's official version of events (by law) on a scale that renders them propaganda tools of the government. So (again) produce the nonwestern media (that is not state controlled) that contradicts anything we say. Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

No they are not "loyal"

They very clearly are. One only needs to look at for instance Swedish state media (SVT) to see that this is the case.

we are saying they are not all told to say the same thing

This is a naïve misunderstanding of US news channels in particular, who are indeed told to say the same thing. I do agree we need more non-belligerent sources however, since they are more likely to report the truth for obvious reasons. KetchupSalt (talk) 09:49, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

The article already only cites non-belligerent sources. Kleinpecan (talk) 11:20, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

OK, so how about then producing some examples of what we say that is contradicted by "non-belligerent sources". Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 October 2022

In the Russian belligerents, change it so that the short lived self proclaimed republic of Crimea is included with the dates March 17 2014- March 21 2014. the republic of Crimea had the same amount of recognition as the DPR and LPR, and if they are included, then the illegal Crimean republic should also be included Scu ba (talk) 15:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. TGHL ↗ 🍁 03:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Edit request

I noticed that the map says it shows the military situation as of October 26, but when you click on the map it shows Ukrainian advances from yesterday (Nov 9). The page for the 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine has the same map, and says it shows the current military situation as of Nov 10. Could someone fix this page so it says the map is current as of today? thanks Indigotwelve (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

@Indigotwelve: Try purging your cache by clicking this link first: ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Just tried that, and the map at the top still says 26 October and I still can't edit the page. I'm a pretty new editor, so that's why it won't let me. If I could I would do it myself. Indigotwelve (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

@Indigotwelve: Done, I initially misunderstood the request and thought you were talking about the map itself and not the caption. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 22:31, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry I wasn't clearer! Indigotwelve (talk) 22:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Updates to Map Needed

The status of Kherson needs to be changed from Russian controlled to either Ukrainian controlled or contested.

The map is reguly updated. Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

USA need to be explicitly listed as supporter of Ukraine

Source: https://www.democracynow.org/2022/11/3/headlines/pentagon_confirms_active_duty_us_troops_are_deployed_inside_ukraine 2A02:810D:12BF:FB6C:9CE7:7A5A:A55C:F9F (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Guards being present at the US Embassy does not make the US a supporter of Ukraine. A good example of why Democracy Now! is only considered a marginally reliable source. Kleinpecan (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Wrong. They're also active at various locations in Ukraine, inspecting weapons. So they're doing the same like the Iranian personnel that which got Iran listed as a supporter of Russia. "However, the U.S. military personnel are inspecting weapons delivery at various locations in Ukraine and there is no proof of combat forces present in the country."

So we can either add the US or remove Iran.

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-pentagon-military-ukraine-idUSL1N31Z26L 2A02:810D:12BF:FB6C:9CE7:7A5A:A55C:F9F (talk) 01:17, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

No, US embassy defence attaché staff are there for accountability of weapons deliveries (preventing illegal trade), while Iranian IRGC soldiers are directly involved in combat operations with Iranian drones, helping Russian forces effectively use them against Ukrainian civilian infrastructure (committing war crimes).  —Michael Z. 04:22, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Hungary

Why is there nothing in the article about this:

• https://apnews.com/article/europe-business-hungary-budapest-viktor-orban-cda12fb2b5f39d22b0a442652be6805d
• https://www.yahoo.com/news/hungary-not-support-eu-aid-141753891.html
• https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2022/11/18/692982/Europe-Hungary-Russia-sanctions-Ukraine
• https://www.rferl.org/a/eu-ukraine-18-billion-aid-hungary-support-orban/32137288.html
• https://unherd.com/thepost/why-viktor-orban-wont-help-ukraine/

--DC 66.234.79.76 (talk) 06:47, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

"2013–15 Ukrainian crisis" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 2013–15 Ukrainian crisis and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 23#2013–15 Ukrainian crisis until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Gliwrit (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

"Crisis in Ukraine" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Crisis in Ukraine and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 23#Crisis in Ukraine until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Gliwrit (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

"Timeline of the Ukrainian crisis" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Timeline of the Ukrainian crisis and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 23#Timeline of the Ukrainian crisis until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Gliwrit (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Draconian conscription law

Nov 26, 2022, 17:43 - «New conscription law»

@Firefly115: I think you also can specify that giving up and turning into a PoW is punishiable under that criminally criminal law.--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:26, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Ceasefire improperly used

Article states.....between Ukraine and Russian proxies, with frequent brief ceasefires but no lasting peace and few changes in territorial control...

Just a clarification... the word ceasefire indicates the 2 sides arranged a stoppage of hostilities. There have been lulls where either side consolidated their gains, or rebuild combat effectiveness, or realigned forces, but there have been zero ceasefires.

I know it is a bit nitty 2603:6011:C3F0:A60:8493:80A0:DC69:1E23 (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

From 2014 and before the February 24 invasion there were multiple ceasefire agreements. Notably, the specific ones written out in the Minsk protocol of 2014-09-01 (“to ensure the immediate bilateral cessation in use of weapons”), and in the Minsk 2 package of measures (“immediate and comprehensive ceasefire . . . starting 0:00 Kyiv time on 2015-02-15”). There were numerous holiday ceasefires and attempts at permanent ceasefires. I believe some were broken immediately and some were effective for several days.  —Michael Z. 20:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

No information on the Ukranian propaganda and disinformation campaigns

I noticed when reading this article under "Related Issues" that there is a section for "Russian propaganda and disinformation campaigns" which is very helpful and significant to understanding the war. However, I noted that there is no section for "Ukrainian propaganda and disinformation campaigns". There is no doubt Ukrainian and international propaganda and disinformation campaigns is highly significant to the war. Regardless of whether one considers the Ukrainian or Russian side to be 'right' or 'wrong', in Wikipedia's ethos of truth and scrutinizing both sides, there should be a credible article written of the Ukrainian propaganda and disinformation campaigns. Thucydides2.0 (talk) 06:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, then you should probably be WP:BOLD and write about it based on RS and avoiding false balance. There has been some discussion of the Ukrainian messaging in the media, for example [19], [20], [21]. Alaexis_¿question? 06:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, as I suspect it will get reverted unless they RS are top line. might be best to give us some examples here. Slatersteven (talk) 08:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The reliability criteria are the same no matter whose side's propaganda is described. Alaexis_¿question? 10:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

True, but not everyone agrees on what is an RS. So it might save time (and edit wars) if we agree here what is an RS for these claims before any adding and reverting starts. Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

So (OP) can you give us an example of the sources that are discussing this? Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Add UK to "supported by" for Ukraine. A senior general admitted

A senior general has admitted to have UK troops on ground performing covert operations

source: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/royal-marines-deployed-on-high-risk-covert-operations-in-ukraine-r7b50gv3p RandomPotato123 (talk) 16:19, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 December 2022

I request the title name of this Wikipedia page should be referred to as the "Second Russo-Ukrainian War" instead of "Russo-Ukrainian War." The first conflict between Russia and Ukraine was a hundred years ago. I thought giving this name would be better and would ease confusion later on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian%E2%80%93Soviet_War#:~:text=The%20Ukrainian%E2%80%93Soviet%20War%20(Ukrainian,Soviet%20Ukraine%20and%20Soviet%20Russia). Lightdroid96 (talk) 02:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please follow the instructions at WP:RSPM to request feedback from other editors before the page can be moved. 25stargeneral (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Renaming the conflict name.

I request the title name of this Wikipedia page "Russo-Ukrainian War," should be changed to "Second Russo-Ukrainian War." The first conflict between Russia and Ukraine was a hundred years ago. I thought giving this name would be better and would ease confusion later on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian%E2%80%93Soviet_War#:~:text=The%20Ukrainian%E2%80%93Soviet%20War%20(Ukrainian,Soviet%20Ukraine%20and%20Soviet%20Russia) Lightdroid96 (talk) 02:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 12:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

That one is the Ukrainian–Soviet War.  —Michael Z. 00:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Also add Russia into the “location” section

Change “Location Ukraine (with spillover into Russia, Poland, and Moldova”

To

“Location Ukraine, Russia (with spillover into Poland and Moldova” Jhvhfhv (talk) 03:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lemonaka (talk) 10:55, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, the NYT wrote about the attacks against the targets within the internationally recognised Russian territory [22] Even without the more powerful Western weapons Ukraine covets, its military has proved inventive with the weaponry it has, striking in Russian territory in the past. Ukraine hit Russian bases in Belgorod, close to the Ukrainian border Alaexis_¿question? 12:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done Lemonaka (talk) 07:25, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Belarusian Opposition has joined the war and are fighting against russia and the Belarusian Government

Here is my sources https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/ukraine-live-belarusian-soldiers-back-ukraine-as-they-turn-on-lukashenko-and-putin/ar-AA15LxAB?cvid=8c75832f922246e5b1db47899acb8e1a&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1714794/ukraine-live-belarus-soldiers-rebel-ukraine-war-lukashenko-putin 82.14.227.184 (talk) 10:22, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I would like better sources. Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

These links say nothing about open armed opposition to Russian forces. Jersey John (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Also add Belarus into the “location” section?

I think that Belarus should be added. Russia deliberately (and with permission) maneuvered through Belarus to invade northern Ukraine in February 2022 and then retreated through Belarus from the north soon after that. Russia has also continually used Belarus for launching air-launched missiles and (I think) surface-to-surface missiles. If we have included Poland for a single stray missile and Moldova for overflying Russian missiles, then Belarus surely exceeds those countries' levels of having been affected as a "location" of the war. Holy (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I do recall at least one missile landed in Belarus, so maybe they are as much part of the theater of War as Poland. Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Belarus is a legal aggressor because it provides its territory as an invasion corridor (and as a threat, to fix Ukrainian forces), and to launch missiles against civilian infrastructure. If missile attacks are launched from on and over its territory, then it is a location of fighting.

I don’t think “spillover” belongs in the infobox at all, but if so, Belarus blamed Ukraine for an anti-aircraft missile falling on its territory with no casualties on December 29.[23]  —Michael Z. 23:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Good point, all the spillovers should be remvoed. Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Regarding fixing of forces, Ukraine has to defend the 1,100-km Belarusian border which has been used for ground and air attacks over most of a year, so this is not only a theoretical risk, but significant location of both kinetic operations and strategic posture.  —Michael Z. 18:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Good responses, thanks! It seems that there's a stronger argument for Belarus than for Poland, and probably even a stronger argument for Moldova than Poland. So, the choices for "location" are

• "Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus"
• "Ukraine, Russia, Belarus, and Moldova" and
• "Ukraine, Russia, Belarus, Moldova, and Poland."

The argument against including Poland is that a single stray missile shouldn't be enough to consider that it is a "location" of the war. Similarly, the argument against including Moldova is that several deliberate overflights (though an egregious violation of its airspace and non-belligerent status) still don't make it a "location" of the war. Still, I'm inclined toward the middle option. What do you all think of these three options? Holy (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Not sure where to draw the threshold, but for purposes of the infobox, I think it’s reasonable to omit the MD overflight and PL stray missile as incidental to locations of actual war fighting, although both are still very serious in the more specific context.  —Michael Z. 18:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I've made the change, using the first option. Thanks for the comments! Holy (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Maps in Russo-Ukrainian War articles

I believe that a good up to date map is vital to these articles as it helps the reader understand what is happening and why. Please do not remove the maps. Add photos if you wish but keep the maps Bluenose Gunner (talk) 03:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

April 2015, Amnesty International

Recent addition of April 2015 Amnesty report [24] is one-sided. What report do really contains is - Breaking Bodies: Torture and summary killings in eastern Ukraine provides compelling evidence of frequent and widespread prisoner abuse by a broad range of captors on both sides of the conflict. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/05/ukraine-new-evidence-prisoners-tortured-and-killed-amid-conflict/ . Please update the article accordingly. Manyareasexpert (talk) 08:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd move it to the Human rights section, there it's already mentioned that both sides committed human rights abuses. Alaexis_¿question? 15:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 20 January 2023

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.

---

Russo-Ukrainian War → Russo-Ukrainian conflict – Suits more to the theme of the article, since this event consists of several wars (War in Donbas, 2022 Russian invasion) and most of its duration as of now consisted of stalemate and occasional shelling along the frontline with less then 500 casualties in 7 years. This situation very much resembled what is happening to this day in the Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia since 2008, Moldovan region of Transnistria for more than 30 years already or what is happening between Serbia and Kosovo, and these conflicts are not usually described as "wars". CapLiber (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Russo-Ukrainian War" is the WP:COMMONNAME. See previous RM for sources and details. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a "war" by pretty much any definition. It also happens to be the most common name. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose using a WP:EUPHEMISM (I’m waiting for a proposed move to “Russo-Ukrainian fracas” already). This argument wasn’t convincing in the many RMs over the nine years that these states have been at war, and it is now less so than ever. —Michael Z. 20:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose — it’s plainly a war. Moonraker (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose because the proposed name is too harsh. Russo-Ukrainian disagreement or Slight tension between Russia and Ukraine or even Special military operation by Russia to denazify Ukraine are far better titles. (This was sarcasm.) Red Slash 20:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. This isn't what it's called on either the Russian or Ukrainian wikis, most English-language sources call this a war, and the argument presented here doesn't make much of a convincing case for this to change. XTheBedrockX (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment  The OP’s claim of “less than 500 casualties in 7 years” is false. There were about 31,000 to 34,000 killed and wounded in the period of warfare around a line of contact (not “stalemate”), more than during the initial 10-month period of more intense warfare from mid April 2014 to mid February 2015. (The UN’s Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights reported in 2015 that there were 19,626 casualties from mid-April 2014 to February 15, 2015.[25] In January 2022 they reported that in the 8 years from 2014 to 2021 the total of all conflict-related casualties over 8 years 2014–2021 was 51,000 to 54,000.[26] Subtracting the two, gives us a figure for the 7-year period.) —Michael Z. 22:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

For the sake of accuracy, the Jan 2022 report explains that new number 51,000 to 54,000:

⁸ The increase in figures in the current estimate compared with those released by OHCHR earlier is mainly due to processed data on casualties among combatants, including non-combat ones, which occurred before 2021, mostly in 2014-2018.

It does not mean that there were 31,000 to 34,000 killed and wounded after the February 2015.

--VoidWanderer (talk) 13:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose given all the previous discussions and sources, it is hard to take this seriously and think the proposer actually believes this would be productive use of time.  // Timothy :: talk  22:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a war, not a conflict

🍁🏳️‍🌈 DinoSoupCanada 🏳️‍🌈 🍁 (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I'd like to point out that the number of casualties presented in my first statement was in fact totally incorrect, and the number of killed (not casualties overall) in 2015–2022 (after the major combat phase of the War in Donbas ended) equals to ~4,000 people, which is ~500 killed per year, which is a very important detail I forgot to mention. Still, tensions on the forntline were falling down in 2019–2021 (before the first Russian military buildup on the Ukrainian border of spring 2021). And since there were no direct large-scale military clashes between Russian and Ukrainian armies in Crimea after the annexation, with only minor incidents like the one in Kerch strait in 2018, the only place where they had been taking place is Donbas. These events are already described as the War in Donbas and have a designated article, so would you say that two wars were taking place at the same time? I would also like to point out that this change is not supposed to diminish the scale of this event or picture Russia as a less agressive side of it, but on the contrary to highlight the invasion that was started by Russia in February 2022, which is a large-scale war no doubt, and to not make it seem like it's just an episode of an 8-year war, since in less then a year it took lives of an almost ten times bigger number of people then in previous years. CapLiber (talk) 0:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for acknowledging the error on casualties. Please be careful about getting stuff like that right. Here is a conventional interpretation: the war in Donbas is part of the overall Russo-Ukrainian war, as is the invasion and occupation of Crimea, and the 2022 larger invasion which swallowed up the Donbas war. Just like WWII included a war in Europe, a war in the Pacific, one in North Africa, along with other phases and theatres of conflict, as well as smaller wars that were parts of them. —Michael Z. 03:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  Importantly, the Kremlin spent seven years pushing propaganda that it was not involved in an international war, that Ukraine was undergoing a civil war, and that there were individual conflicts between Ukraine and “independent” Crimea (for a day) and “independent” militant groups in the Donbas. Any attempt that could look like minimizing the war maintained by Russia, like by not calling it a war but merely “conflict,” is going to rankle.  —Michael Z. 03:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• NO and never This is not a conflict, just a terrible invasion. Lemonaka (talk) 12:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose The nom has not addressed WP:AT and particularly WP:COMMONNAME. Unless someone can show me the money, it should stay as it is. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:08, 22 January 2023 (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.

January 2023 NYRB article by Tim Judah; Should the TOC for this main article be updated

Tim Judah writing for the New York Review of Books has presented a new outline for the Russo-Ukraine War and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, which brings up the discussion of whether the Wikipedia articles for these subjects need to be reviewed and updated. Tim Judah states the following outline as being the most appropriate:

Volume I: Maidan in 2014, Russian annexation of Crimea, seizure of parts of Donbas in eastern Ukraine by Russian proxy forces;

Volume II: (We are currently living in what Tim Judah calls chapter 4 of Volume II)

Chapter One: Russia's lunge at Kyiv which was repulsed and failed;

Chapter Two: Russia's disorganized retreat from Kharkiv, which failed to win popular support within Ukraine;

Chapter Three: Russians are driven out of Kherson in the South by the end of November 2022; and

Chapter Four: Russia's attempt to destroy Ukraine's electical grid, water supplies, and infrastructure as an attempt to internally destroy Ukraine by attrition (Up to present date).

Is this outline by Tim Judah useful to discuss for reviewing and updating both the Wikipedia articles for the Russo-Ukraine War and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine? ErnestKrause (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 January 2023

As of May 2015 Amnesty International had received no reply to these enquiries.

Add a comma after 2015 and change "enquiries" to "inquiries"

As of May 2015, Amnesty International had received no reply to these inquiries. Julianstout (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Again, article sentence does not represent the source correctly. What report do really contains is - Breaking Bodies: Torture and summary killings in eastern Ukraine provides compelling evidence of frequent and widespread prisoner abuse by a broad range of captors on both sides of the conflict. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/05/ukraine-new-evidence-prisoners-tortured-and-killed-amid-conflict/ . Manyareasexpert (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

 On hold@Manyareasexpert, I don't understand what you want to change. Please use a X to Y form.
 Done for @Julianstout Lemonaka (talk) 12:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mzajac, could u please advice with the correct wording? Manyareasexpert (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I would reword it using the delete key. News of an unanswered letter is not noteworthy enough for the main article on an eight-year war. If there is information missing on alleged human rights violation, then it should be covered as an overview in Wiki voice, considering WP:NPOV and WP:DUEWEIGHT, instead of one report cherrypicked to make Ukraine look as bad as Russia. —Michael Z. 00:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree Manyareasexpert (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I have gone and removed the paragraph. Haven’t had a chance to review the article for its overall coverage of human rights violations. —Michael Z. 06:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Change Grammar/Wording?

Here's the quote:

"The Russo-Ukrainian War has been ongoing between Russia (alongside Russian separatists in Ukraine) and Ukraine since February 2014."

Should it be "The Russo-Ukrainian War is an ongoing war" instead of the original one we have? ☭MasterWolf-Æthelwulf☭ (=^._.^= ∫) 15:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The use of war twice is a bit redundant, I'd probably write it as "The Russo-Ukrainian War is an ongoing conflict between Russia (alongside Russian separatists in Ukraine) and Ukraine since February 2014." ― TUNA × 22:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the first sentence would be better if it defined the subject rather than just saying a thing about it. Sure, the name already tells uts it’s a war between Russia and Ukraine, but the first sentence can say more in a defining mode.

Also, “alongside” is obsolete since courts have found that Russia was in overall control of the militants for nine years and has responsibility for their conduct.  —Michael Z. 22:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 January 2023

TankDude2000 (talk) 16:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC) I am planning to change this article from “Russo-Ukrainian War” to “Russo-Ukrainian Conflict”. Russia wasn’t in a war with Ukraine until 2022. The current name should be transfered to the “2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine”.

This is not an edit request, and I suggest you do not do this without getting a consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Changing title

Technically, Russia didn’t officially attack Ukraine in 2014, but rather used rebels to fight Ukraine. That was the War in Donbas or the Ukrainian Civil War. However, the Russo-Ukrainian Conflict, which started with the Crimean crisis, should be the new name. TankDude2000 (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

They sized Crimea (part of Ukraine) in 2014, that was an invasion, an act of war. Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

That was an invasion, since the Ukrainian army didn’t do any offensive. Same with 1968 Czechoslovakia. And the 2022 russian invasion of ukraine should be renamed to russo-ukrainian war. TankDude2000 (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, this war started with Russian aggression in 2014. Slatersteven (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Dude. Uncool. The war between ruzzia and ukraine started in 2022 while the conflict started in 2014. Period. TankDude2000 (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Russian soldiers, under orders from the MoD, were confirmed to have entered Ukraine and taken place in hostilities during the war in Donbas. Reliable professional sources covering this conflict consistently call it the "Russo-Ukrainian War", and there have been like five move requests in the last few months, all closed by WP:SNOW. Please search archives and look at the previous arguments that led to this title being kept before bringing it up again. HappyWith (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 February 2023

TankDude2000 (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)I should remove “international” from “international conflict” at the beginning because the war isn’t international!

See above. Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Lemonaka (talk) 10:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 February 2023

Add the fact that it is an undeclared war Loganp23 (talk) 02:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 03:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

This is not really a notable feature. Of over 200 wars since 1945 a double handful have had formal declarations. Declaring a war of aggression is illegal and serves as evidence of a crime. Declaring war as defender is pointless.  —Michael Z. 04:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

Is there a reason the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 is not mentioned at all in this article? Nor linked to? It seems an absurd omission. I see that there was discussion that it did not deserve mention in the lede, but omitting it entirely seems WP:UNDUE in the extreme. Also pretty odd, since we include it in this template about the war.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed on all points.  —Michael Z. 03:28, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Changing title 2

I suggest that we change this title from “Russo-Ukrainian War” to “Russo-Ukrainian Conflict” because the real war started in 2022 with the illegal invasion made by Ruzzia. TankDude2000 (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

You made another request with the same arguments on this very talk page a few sections up. Why are you making another separate thread, when you’ve already seen the clear consensus against such a proposal? HappyWith (talk) 15:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, check out my talk section on the 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine. TankDude2000 (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLUDGEON HappyWith (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

And wp:tenditious, this needs closing and dropping. Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Wait a minute, how am I able to edit this article? Are you trying to get me banned? TankDude2000 (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

No, that is why we are warning you, not reporting you. Slatersteven (talk) 18:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

First sentence grammar

The first sentence in the lead paragraph isn't really proper English currently:

The Russo-Ukrainian War is [a] conflict between Russia and Russian-controlled separatists against Ukraine, [...]

"Conflict between X and Y against Z" isn't very grammatical or clear. 84.248.144.85 (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I made a very minor improvement.[27] It could still be better.

The first sentence could define the conflict as one where Russia attacked Ukraine in 2014, and escalated in 2022. Russian-controlled militias could be introduced in the intro along with the Donbas War.  —Michael Z. 20:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

It's editable now?

Who decided to make this page unlocked? Could see a lot of trolls making unnecessary changes. Patriciogetsongettingridofhiswiki (talk) 22:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

New article for Ukrainian victory in the war

I've recently created an article for Hypothetical Ukrainian victory in the Russo-Ukrainian War. This has been a widely discussed topic and we have many reliable sources to talk about this. Still, the topic proved quite complex for my amateur geopolitical knowledge and I do not believe I've written a well-argumented and convincing article. Thus, I would appreciate help into writing page, but also linking it throughout other articles and giving it appropriate categories. This being a pretty unique page with few others to compare it to adds to me not having known how to handle this article. Super Ψ Dro 19:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Isn't that just WP:CRYSTALBALL?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

A deletion discussion is taking place here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hypothetical Ukrainian victory in the Russo-Ukrainian War.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 February 2023

Ukraine supported by NATO. Should be shown in the Belligerents section with NATO's flag. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_211740.htm#:~:text=NATO%20is%20stepping%20up%20support,meeting%20of%20NATO%20Defence%20Ministers. Yasarhossain07 (talk) 06:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. This has already been discussed at length, no consensus for inclusion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 22 February 2023

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. WP:SNOW closure, unanimous opposition and no chance consensus will develop for move. (non-admin closure) —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

---

Russo-Ukrainian War → War in Ukraine – Per WP:COMNAME as on Google ["Russo-Ukrainian War"] gives 'About 6,820,000 results' whereas ["War in Ukraine"] gives 'About 151,000,000 results'. --- Tbf69 P • T 19:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Strong oppose & snow close. The present war isn’t a primary topic for War in Ukraine, which redirects to the article on wars involving Ukraine. The present war is only the “War in Ukraine” per WP:Recentism. Estar8806 (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:PRECISE. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:PRECISE and WP:RECENT. Treetoes023 (talk) 03:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose move per above. O.N.R. ^(talk) 07:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. The War in Afghanistan was named like this because it involved many countries fighting. This war only has Russia and Ukraine fighting. TankDude2000 (talk) 07:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose and close. Per WP:GOOGLE, a search engine test is a first-pass heuristic or "rule of thumb". After eight odd years, there are good quality sources to tell us what the title should be - how it is titled in such sources. Even if it is also referred to in multiple ways as synonyms, these are not the same as titles. Others also refer to the proposal as WP:RECENTISM as it is the present war in Ukraine of many in history but WP:PRECISE, being the only war with Russia (the Russian Federation) that occupies this title. I don't see this going anywhere and there is a definite forecast for snow. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose per all of the above. BogLogs (talk) 10:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose it's about conflict between Russia and Ukraine - Jjpachano (talk) 13:28, 23 February 2023 (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.

When WW3? RfC to rename it?

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.

---

When are we going to rename it to WW3? It now to 1/6 of time WW2 was, and it has USA/UK/Germany tanks and 101 airborne of USA circling on it and many many USA/UK/Poland mercs inside Ukraine. It also has the India, China and Iran, maybe Turkey on Russian side as well as many of Africa, cause of Europe stealing their free russian corn. Considering Ukraine bombed Poland 5th article is already at play, so NATO is as good as activated. Why is it not WW3? For all purposes it is. 2A00:1370:8184:1CE9:5EF2:DEC1:E554:DAE3 (talk) 00:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

This is original research. The terms we use are whatever sources call it, and they by-and-large do not use this term. — Czello 00:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, they do. Everyone calls it that nowadays and you know it. Is it going to be called WW3 postmortem when historinas will write books about it? 2A00:1370:8184:1CE9:E784:E0E4:EA4B:73F6 (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

There is no confirmed military supplies to Russia by China, India, etc.; no NATO boots on the ground on the Ukrainian side; only one "theater"; thus no reason to call it WW3. CapLiber (talk) 16:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

When it become Ww3, and not before. Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2023 (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.

Change the article name

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.

---

Russia ukraine war begun after 2022. Pretty crazy how defensive wikipedia users are over this article for some reason, I’ve even seen them straight up use threats to report users lol. I think it’s a shame how wikipedia has got to this, this makes it a very unreliable source. 88.245.198.84 (talk) 21:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Please reread the article, it was started in the War in Donbas before full escalation of war. - Jjpachano (talk)

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.

Requested move 1 March 2023

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

The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED - per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) FOARP (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

---

Russo-Ukrainian War → Russo-Ukrainian conflict — No WP:CONSISTENT in regard to the Russo-Georgian War, since direct military confrontation between Russia and Ukraine, after all, began in February 2022. Before that it was sporadic confrontation between some Russian units and Ukrainians, with Russian military aid to the puppet states of DPR and LPR. That confrontation is already descibed in the article on the War in Donbas (2014–2022), and its intensity was falling down consistently until 2022. The invasion and subsequent annexation of Crimea, while no doubt a military aggression, met little to no resistance at the time, thus not provoking a war. In continuation of my proposals made on the talk page for the article on the current war, I'd suggest renaming this article, to then split the part of the latter one to Russo-Ukrainian War, leaving the phase from the start of the invasion until the March-April retreat from Kyiv and northern Ukraine to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, as it would describe the phase of the war when there was no certainty of Ukraine keeping its capital and thus turning the war into a guerilla warfare, and when there were chances of Russia successfuly depriving Ukraine of its sovereignty, government and the state overall, similarly to the articles on 2003 invasion of Iraq or Operation Barbarossa (from start of the war with the Soviet Union until 1942, where chances of relatively quick occupation of European part of Russia faded completely). The current title unfairly equalizes a large-scale war, with long period trench warfare, heavy bombings of cities all across the biggest European country, sporadic spillovers to neighbouring countries (including EU & NATO members), large military supplies by almost all nations of the so called "First World" and heavy (100K+) losses from both sides, to an almost bloodless, yet still agressive, military operation of one country on another country's soil, and a local war that kept slowly turning into a border conflict, similar to Transnistria conflict, Georgian-Ossetian, or Abkhaz-Georgian conflict. If all three changes are made, it would not deminish the scale of the current war, yet it would draw a distinct line, that is necessary to understand the basic nature of the described events. CapLiber (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to see some analysis of the use of the proposed title vs. current title in sources. A cursory Google Scholar search suggests that "Russo-Ukrainian War" enjoys clear common-name status over "Russo-Ukrainian conflict" up to 2022; careful analysis of the use of the titles since the beginning of the 2022 escalation is needed, as raw hit numbers don't convey any information about whether an article's subject is the broader fight since 2014 or the narrower escalation since 2022. The arguments related to the actual progress of war seem too OR-ish. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

What Rosguill is asking. We only get to make up titles for articles in very limited cases - when there is no name apparent from sources. We are otherwise constrained by how an event is named in sources (WP:COMMONNAME). The whole proposition, let alone the titles proposed, does seem a bit too OR-ish. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

In 2014-2022, the term "Russo-Ukrainian War" had been in use mostly in Ukrainian media and Ukrainian-language sources (e.g. UA Wiki), while the two main events of it (before the invasion obviously) were usually mentioned separately as "Takeover/annexation/occupation of Crimea" and "War/(military) conflict in Donbas(s)", and, if mentioned collectively, as "War in Ukraine". Since 2022, almost all of the Russian or Ukrainian-language sources call the current events a "war", similarly to how the Soviets used to call World War 2 "the war", as the main and/or only war for many generations of people. The renames of the articles to "Russo-Ukrainian War" in the russian or english wikipedia happened only after 2022 in support of a very debatable framing of these events. The reason for such confusion in terminology is that the war is ongoing and an established naming is yet to come, but the issues that are already occuring (e.g. the name of the article on the current war/invasion) is making us start coming up with it now. CapLiber (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

This analysis seems to rely on descriptions of sources that would be very prone to recentist pressures, coming as it were from the front lines of the conflict. I think the evidence that I'd find persuasive would be English-language RS (preferably written for an academic, rather than journalistic, audience) that make a clear direct distinction between "conflict" 2014-2022 and "war" 2022-present, using those terms precisely. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

A very cursory examination of Google Scholar articles for this year gives 2,670 results for Russian invasion of Ukraine and 269 results for Russo-Ukrainian War. Russo-Ukrainian conflict returns 281 results for this year but when limited to the exact phrase, there are only 43 results and 632 results for any time. Russo-Ukrainian War has 4,460 results for any time and 2,200 results for the exact phrase any time. Even though cursory in nature, these results are not indicating the change proposed. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

• The British Academy describing the events from 2022 and changes that it had brought (not the 2014 invasion of Crimea nor the War in Donbas) as "Russo-Ukrainian War": www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/events/british-academy-conferences/the-russo-ukrainian-war/
• The UK House of Commons' site bringing a "timeline of the conflict in Ukraine (2014-present)": commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9476/
• The UN Regional Information Centre for Western Europe counting the "war in Ukraine" from February 2022: unric.org/en/the-un-and-the-war-in-ukraine-key-information/
• Geprge C. Marshall European Center calling what has started in 2022 a "Russo-Ukrainian War" and "Russia's war of agression", while describing the previous events and the economic effect that has been there from before February 2022 "Ukraine conflict": unric.org/en/the-un-and-the-war-in-ukraine-key-information/
• Institute for the Study of War collecting data of "Ukraine conflict" since late 2021: www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/ukraine-conflict-updates
• Global Conflict Tracker summarizing the events from 2014 as "Conflict in Ukraine": www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/conflict-ukraine
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development calling its statement made hours after the invasion has started their "initial response" for the "war in Ukraine": www.oecd.org/ukraine-hub/en/

CapLiber (talk) 23:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

An event notice isn’t exactly a reliable source on definition of the war, but you’ve misrepresented it. Nothing in the British Academy announcement implies that it is referring exclusively to post February 2022. If you click through to the conference schedule, you’ll see that it explicitly includes events from 2014 on. Please try harder.  —Michael Z. 21:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Just because there are some sources that appear to support the premise of the RM doesn't mean it meets the standards of WP:AT. One needs to consider what all of the sources are calling these events. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

The renames of the articles to "Russo-Ukrainian War" in the russian or english wikipedia happened only after 2022 in support of a very debatable framing of these events

Uh, my guy, the current name of "Russo-Ukrainian War" has existed since at least 2020; I actually remember stumbling upon this article in mid to late 2020. Crusader1096 (message) 04:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

The ru wiki article had been created in 2022; in en wiki it was renamed to the current name in 2020, you're right, still a title change made very late into the conflict, while the invasion of Crimea had already happened and the war in Donbas was already a thing, which proves my point. CapLiber (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - the term Russo-Ukrainian War is clearly the primary name for the situation as a whole. We already have an article on the Donbass war and the term conflict is too vague when used to regard the actual events that have unfolded. Even before 2/24/2022, the term was used, as sated by @RGloucester in a previous 2020 RM. (eg. Non-State Actors in the Russo-Ukrainian War, The exploitation of cyber domain as part of warfare: Russo-Ukrainian war, and Virtual Warfare: Masculinity, Sexuality, and Propaganda in the Russo-Ukrainian War) Crusader1096 (message) 04:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'd argue that "War in Ukraine" is the COMMONNAME for the whole situation (see WaPo, The Economist, WSJ, Pew Research, NYT, Politico, Aljazeera, and even the United Nations, among others). DecafPotato (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:EUPHEMISM.  —Michael Z. 08:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:EUPHEMISM. Treetoes023 (talk) 13:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per crusader1096. -Senior Captain Thrawn (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, per Crusader1096. Current name seems to be the WP:COMMONNAME. HappyWith (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

The term "war", while being used in a roughly equal measure prior to 2022, is now searched overwhelmingly more frequent than "conflict": trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=2013-01-12+2023-03-03&q=russo-ukrainian+war%2Crusso-ukrainian+conflict CapLiber (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and the proposal directly suggests using the term "war" to refer to the post-2022 phase of the conflict/war/whatever. DecafPotato (talk) 03:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per all. Great Mercian (talk) 13:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per above.  // Timothy :: talk  13:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
• Is ther snow in the air? Cinderella157 (talk) 13:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose it makes no sense to change the name, when in the news they plainly use this name. Catfurball (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  They use it for a current war. Before 2022, it was used primarily in Ukrainian sources. CapLiber (talk) 17:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. No matter how much Vladimir Putin opposes the term "war" and wants it to be called "special military operation" or whatever, this has escalated into a full-scale war now. JIP | Talk 19:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose the real reason why they called Russo Ukrainian War rather than Russo Ukrainian conflict, is because the war of identity that Ukrainians want to be independent and to be part of the EU and the Western allies, while Vladimir Putin wanted to be part of Russia forcibility. The war started in Donbas where other Ukrainians separated from Ukraine and supported join Russia. For those who said that the war was started in 2022, that is a full escalation of war - Jjpachano (talk) 06:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

  WP:OR 95.12.119.35 (talk) 08:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

  per sources - Jjpachano (talk) 08:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - As other editors have mentioned the term conflict is vague and the sources clearly call it a war. BogLogs (talk) 09:08, 6 March 2023 (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.

NATO

Should NATO be listed in the infobox of the left side? GamerKlim9716 (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, NATO is now a very active participant of this war and shoudl be listed as one of the major players in this war. The US is now providing war intelligence and directly support the Ukrainian army with weapons, information and perhaps even directions on how to fight in each battle. NATO is now so heavily involved "remotely" and perhaps also on the ground as advisers. It does not make any sense to consider NATO as just a supporter of Ukraine. Dmaivn (talk) 10:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Because the alternative to being a supporter is being a belligerent, which NATO isn't. — Czello 10:50, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

They are not actively engaged in combat operations. Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

It absolutely should, since 1) NATO is recognized by one of the major belligerents, Russia, as a participant in the conflict (similar to how Belarus, officially neutral, is also considered by NATO as a Russian ally in the war), 2) NATO has arguably given more military support to Ukraine than Belarus has to Russia, yet the latter relationship is included in the infobar, 3) support from NATO members vastly outnumber the support given by non-NATO members like Japan or Taiwan. Unfortunately this has been discussed before and no consensus has been reached, for some reason that eludes me. Eliminating NATO's clear support role in this war is like removing the US/USSR from the Vietnam War top infobox. The Last Scholar (talk) 04:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

No, the infobox is for belligerents actually involved in the conflict. While both NATO and Belarus have provided support, the difference is that Belarus permitted Russia to invade Ukraine from its territory. No NATO country has been involved in that sort of way. Though, it already notes in the infobox that Ukraine has received foreign aid with a link to List of foreign aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War. That is an appropriate balance. Including NATO as a belligerent would not be. An appropriate comparison is Soviet–Afghan War which does not include western countries despite substantial western aid and arms being provided to Afghan fighters.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Is Kuwait one of the Belligerents of the 2003 Iraq war. Are Pakistan and Uzbekistan Belligerents in the US Afghan war? You're being very biased since Belarus didn't actually provide weapons for Russia but their land was used to launch the invasion. NATO themselves claim that they're stepping up support for Ukraine but you don't mention their support. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_211740.htm#:~:text=NATO%20is%20stepping%20up%20support,meeting%20of%20NATO%20Defence%20Ministers. Yasarhossain07 (talk) 07:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

No, NATO is not a belligerent. They are merely providing support. Belarus, by contrast, did provide territory. Andre🚐 07:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

What is exactly your definition of "belligerent" then? Just providing territory? This may lead to edit more than half of war-related pages in Wikipedia. Lironcareto (talk) 08:14, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

A belligerent by international law is a country actively involved in the conflict. Fighting. That is only Russia and Ukraine. Not any Russian controlled “DLNR,” not NATO which is not a sovereign state, not any other states which are not engaged in hostilities. Belarus is listed as supporter because it has committed the crime of aggression by providing its territory, airspace, and borders for attacks.  —Michael Z. 14:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

It should be structured exactly like the Vietnam War article, everything else does not correspond to the truth or completeness.

Someone should revise it. Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 13:26, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Propaganda title

Not a single source calls the conflict from 2014 to 2022 as the russia ukraine war, but rather the illegal and evil invasion since february 2022 as such. Naming this article russia ukraine war further proves russian bots’ points about ukraine constantly bombing donbas since 2014. And it is not even a correct name in the first place. I won’t even list the name of articles proving that russia ukraine war is used only for the post-february 2022 invasion since it’s common sense that you can google the name and see for yourself the sources . Wikiman92783 (talk) 14:04, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

No it does not, it reflects the fact it was and is a war. Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

That’s why there’s an article for it called War in Donbas (2014–2022). Any sources calling this russia ukraine war? Waiting Wikiman92783 (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Sure! Check out RGloucester's rationale from the RM that got it moved to the current title in 2020. It contains those sources you're asking for. HappyWith (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Is this a proposal to rename the article? If so, my vote would be to the Russo-Ukrainian Conflict. The current Russian Invasion of Ukraine article can be discussed as being renamed the Russo-Ukrainian War. RegalZ8790 (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed massively, this makes perfect sense TheBrodsterBoy (talk) 01:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

This is at the end of the day a de facto war. Whether or not russia is in the wrong is irrelevant. Attempting to juxtapose war and invasion is the exact sort of semantics WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS tells us to avoid. DarmaniLink (talk) 06:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I stongly agree with RegalZ8790! TankDude2000 (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Was discussed in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russo-Ukrainian_War&oldid=1145644136#Requested_move_1_March_2023 Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:BRD of DPR/LPR flags

Rationale for WP:BOLD given by editor: per MOS:WORDPRECEDENCE, MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. This is non-WP:NPOV because it elevates them to the level of sovereign states.

The cited MOS sections don't really provide guidance specific to the case, although they mention that military conflicts are one exception to the usual rules against overuse of flags.

In every instance I found offhand of insurgencies, secessions and civil wars, notable groups with their own flags, and certainly breakaway quasi-states, had their flags displayed in the infobox. So there appears to be strong consensus to do this, including in contentious topics.

The second statement could ironically itself be construed (although I don't go quite that far myself) as POV. Regardless, state sovereignty is, as I said, irrelevant to whether the flag should be displayed, as well as not being trivial to define. In this case, the DPR and LPR, although little better than Russian puppets, met the criteria for de facto sovereignty as well as the declarative theory of statehood.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Are there IS RS showing recognition of these flags as independent powers, or do sources show these are non-independent actors of another power? If sources show these are just creations of another power, then they should not be listed. Before the illegal annexations had any major outside power recognized them?  // Timothy :: talk  19:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Please read the second half of my statement again. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Except these are not separate groups. They were never legal combatants and thus not eligible for the legal status of belligerent under international law. They don’t represent any nationality. They were under the overall control of Russia from May 2014 (as determined by courts, meaning Russia is responsible for their war crimes), and openly joined Russia in September 2022, abandoning the pretence of independence. Their militias were commanded by Russian officers by September 2015.

This article’s context doesn’t resemble that described in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#In some military history contexts.  —Michael Z. 20:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

As I stated above, whether a group is a "legal belligerent" or a recognized state is irrelevant to military history infoboxes.

See, for example, Congo Crisis (a very strong example IMHO). Black September, Ethiopian Civil War, Lebanese Civil War, Somali Rebellion, Salvadoran Civil War, and Third Indochina War.

I think you get the picture.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

That WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn’t really an argument. I’m not familiar with those subjects, I don’t know whether those lists compare to the situation in this case, or whether they are appropriate there. A few examples is not the same as a convention.

In this article the distinction is perhaps more important, because the lie that these Russian-controlled groups were independent is a major propaganda line for one side of the conflict. It is unacceptable for us to take that POV.  —Michael Z. 21:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

If you want to add a line: Proxies: that's fine with me RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 22:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

If they are proxies, flags should be removed.  // Timothy :: talk  23:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

We seem to be going in circles. The main substance of my argument hasn't been directly addressed.

While I am usually glad that this article's changes history is chiller than the other one, and the talk page far less raucous, we ought to take the issue somewhere more visible where other editors can see and put in their two cents.

So I've removed the flags from the invasion infobox template. Let's see if I get reverted before I can switch to desktop and do it myself ;) RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is in the context of AfD, not determining style conventions.

I linked to the examples for a reason. For instance, the Congo Crisis involved a Belgian-sponsored and -incited breakaway region.

The numerous cases of insurgent groups sponsored by state actors would seem to be something of an a fortiori.

Wikipedia's purpose is to provide neutral, factual coverage in an encyclopedic tone. Let the facts speak for themselves.

It's also worth noting that although the events in 2014 only turned into a violent conflict due to Russian support, the proxy republics could never have been created, nor governed as a functioning entity, without tacit acceptance from the local population.

Essentially, I think you're (not with conscious intention) pushing the opposite narrative, that the proxy republics were nothing more than a collaborationist veneer for the Russian military-security apparatus. This narrative, in my view, is wishful thinking that is as much at odds with the facts on the ground as saying something like "the free people of the Donbass spontaneously revolted against the neo-Nazi fascist Kiev regime! Ura!" would be.

Per WP:LTRD, we don't need to, and shouldn't, specifically tell the reader not to believe propaganda. The reasons you articulated indicate a motivation, conscious or otherwise, that precludes an encyclopedic tone.

Furthermore, the procedure and mindset of treating the Russo-Ukrainian War as if it was just another war is, to me, highly advisable. This is an encyclopedia. All the wars that happened before Wikipedia existed were also contentious topics, after all. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

What is the opposite narrative editors may be unconsciously pushing? I don't think there is one.  // Timothy :: talk  23:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I stated it above. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I referred to the facts above. Plopping flags on these names to make them resemble real countries is not letting the facts speak for themselves nor letting the reader decide.  —Michael Z. 06:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Not swayed by OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, especially the Apples and oranges variety. Unless IS RS show these are independent actors and not puppet groups, including flags is misleading readers that they are separate belligerents instead of puppet groups of the aggressor.  // Timothy :: talk  22:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

There is no suggestion in the manner that the two flags are displayed that the DPR and LPR constitute sovereign states, indeed in being listed underneath Russia with indents they are implied to be subjects of that sovereign state. This matches the manner in which they are presented in the two articles (this one and the current invasion article) and in reliable sources (as Russia-backed separatist states). Mr rnddude (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Mr rnddude and note that we have articles for both DPR and LPR. The existence of the articles does not imply legitimacy of existence, only existence. The exception to MOS:INFOBOXFLAG for milhist articles is where the flag icons convey information of allegence across multiple sections of the infobox - ie leaders etc. While this is not presently done, it probably should be - eg for Denis Pushlin. That is the P&G reason for retaining the flags. I am seeing a lot of flag waving POV to argue for their removal. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Pushilin’s allegiance is with Russia. He is a Russian agent, led a Russian-controlled organization since 2014, presumably a Russian citizen since Russia issued hundreds of thousands of passports under his tenure, and now the governor of a Russian occupation (“federal subject” under “annexation”).  —Michael Z. 06:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Please show me the reliable sources that decorate these with flags. Almost none even use their names or list them as separate entities, rather lumping them together as “Russian-led separatists” or whatever before 2022. Now they aren’t even referred to at all, as their supposed territories are “Russian-occupied.”  —Michael Z. 06:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean, “reliable sources that decorate these with flags”? When do newspapers - or what have you - put flags next to any country’s name? HappyWith (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

What I mean is when Mr rnddude wrote “this matches the manner in which they are presented,” that is completely untrue. —Michael Z. 20:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The 'they' in that second sentence is DPR and LPR, not the flagicons. The DPR and LPR are presented in the infobox as subjects of Russia which matches the manner of presentation of the DPR and LPR in both articles and in reliable sources (as subjects of Russia).

I am not referring to the 'manner of presentation' of the infobox in reliable sources as they (meaning reliable sources) do not generally use Wikipedia style infoboxes. I used the word 'manner' (as in 'manner of presentation') in each sentence, but with different intentions.

To make the intended link explicit: [t]his matches the manner in which they are presented in the two articles (this one and the current invasion article) and in reliable sources (as Russia-backed separatist states) refers to ... indeed in being listed underneath Russia with indents they are implied to be subjects of that sovereign state which directly preceded it. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

This discussion is about the flags. They are not national flags. Their use here is not supported by any guideline. Assertions about the text of the article, accurate or not, are a distraction. The “DLNR” flags should be removed because they are unhelpful, non-NPOV, and potentially misleading.  —Michael Z. 13:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

And the legend (2014–2022) should also be removed. What is this supposed to mean? In September 2022 Russia claimed they became part of Russia. But Russia only maintained they were independent from February 2022. Courts have determined they were Russian-controlled since May 2014 and that did not end in 2022. What is supposed to be the significance of these dates? Wikipedia is implying some unspecified significance to them based on no source and that not even the Kremlin asserts.  —Michael Z. 13:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually Michael, their use is supported by guideline. See my previous herein. Cinderella157 (talk) 14:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

They aren't referred to at all because they were annexed by Russia last September. Russia didn't technically annex the Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts of Ukraine, they annexed the Luhansk and Donetsk People's Republics, independent states (according to Russia) that just so happen to claim the exact same area as the Ukrainian oblasts. DecafPotato (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 April 2023

Need to add Viktor Muzhenko to Ukrainian commanders. He was a Chief of the General Staff and Commander-in-Chief of Armed forces in 2014-2019 PaBro2906 (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Actualcpscm (talk) 23:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Here’s a source to his appointment as CoGS.[28]  —Michael Z. 23:33, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The inclusion is not supported by the body of the article. Furthermore, the number of commanders already exceeds the limit per template documentation. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Why Russo-Ukrainian War instead of Russian-Ukrainian War?

Why is the title of this article Russo-Ukrainian War instead of Russian-Ukrainian War? – Treetoes023 (talk) 22:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Both are in use,[29] so why not? Look at this talk page headers and archives for the details.  —Michael Z. 00:05, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Mzajac: I searched the archives and the term Russian-Ukrainian War only appears a few times, and when it does appear there is no reason given why this article isn't named Russian-Ukrainian War. It appears that Russian-Ukrainian War is the common name of this subject so should a move be requested? – Treetoes023 (talk) 00:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you find evidence that it is the single most commonly used name, or you probably won’t get much support. My Ngram search linked above seems to indicate it is not used significantly more than the current title. Unless there is a clear advantage to the move, it likely won’t fly. Review the previous move discussions listed in the last header at the top of this talk page to see how they work.  —Michael Z. 00:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Mzajac: I checked Google Books and Russo-Ukrainian War has more results than Russian-Ukrainian War, so the move is definitely a no-go. – Treetoes023 (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• Just to pile on here, Treetoes023, WP:CRITERIA says that, all other things being equal, we should prefer the shorter name. FOARP (talk) 08:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  @FOARP Russo-Japanese War but Anglo-Russian War (1807–1812) or Russian–Kumyk Wars. And Russo-Persian Wars. We have some inconsistency here both in terms used and even in alphabetical order. Might be worth doing some big RfC somewhere? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  I assume this is just a WP:COMMONNAME issue. FOARP (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 April 2023

I want to note the foreign support of Ukraine at the front of the page, in order to make it more user friendly and easier to note and realize ByzantineIsNotRoman (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lizthegrey (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Splitting proposal: 2014 war

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

---

I propose that the section about the first phase of the Russo-Ukrainian war (untill February 2015) be split into a separate page called first phase of the Russo-Ukrainian war or 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine or 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine or Russian invasion of Crimea adn Donbas or propose your name. See also [30]. These sections are large and well-sourced enough to make its own page.

This page is about the whole war from 2014 till now. We have an article about the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, but it was the second invasion of this war. The first was in 2014, and information about it is scattered between Russo-Ukrainian War, Timeline of the war in Donbas (2014), Timeline of the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation and others. Skovl (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

There are already subordinate articles to this one on three main subtopics: Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, War in Donbas (2014–2022), and Russian invasion of Ukraine. If a further subdivision makes sense, then it is to split or break down in summary style the War in Donbas article, although it could be broken down into three sections: the “New Russia” insurgency phase of May–August 2014, the Russian invasion of August 2014–February 2015 (especially battles of Ilovaisk and Debaltseve), and the conflict around the Minsk line of contact, February 2015–February 2022.  —Michael Z. 23:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose 2014 Russian invasion of Crimea and Donbas was already created by the nom and speedy deleted (WP:A10) noting: Articles exist for Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation and War in Donbas (2014–2022)‎. See here for notice. WP:A10 is an article that duplicates an existing topic. There is no reasonable reason to have an article 2014 Russian invasion of Crimea and Donbas when we have Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation and War in Donbas (2014–2022). Cinderella157 (talk) 00:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: Mainly because should be thought out. Here are some thoughts (some echo above):

• Eventually (sadly) the article will need to be trimmed down to accomodate new material (not saying when it should, just eventually), but a simple chronological spliting is not a good solution.
• A Summary-subtopic (parent-child) organization I think is better than a straight chronological split. This should remain the "top" level article and it should become a summary of each major "X" of the war. Then sub articles can be organized, then created and improved.
• We should keep in mind what would be the best experience for the reader. Right now it isn't optimal, but not bad.
• This all should be thought and planned out ahead of any changes, so that chaos and edit wars do not errupt.

This is one of the best covered events on Wikipedia, care should be taken not to diminish that.  // Timothy :: talk  01:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

One set of articles covers the general topic of assistance to a nation; however the articles are general, and do not 'spring to life' without a specific event to interest the reader, such as this article. For example, at the national government level, from the viewpoint of a head of state:

• The US State department takes the lead in assistance to a nation. See U.S. Overseas Loans and Grants (Greenbook).
• US Army Security Assistance Command, for general economic assistance of a nation, including humanitarian relief, but also (military) hardware which was sourced in the US.
• Security Force Assistance Command: Security Force Assistance Brigades deploy individual 12-man advisory teams for specific advice and training of a specific unit of a nation's military. Those nation's troops are intended to form a cadre, for training their own military in the future. The situations are very specific: for example Soviet-style armies neglect the non-commissioned officers, who would then need training by an advisory team.
• Because there are so many nations, the US National Guard forms individual State Partnership Programs between a US state and a foreign nation. These operations are low-key, but have existed for decades in some cases. For example, with Ukraine, and with other nations across the globe. (This posture actually saves money, because a failed nation becomes a liability, from the viewpoint of a head of state's international relations.)
• Canada has had such a relationship with Ukraine, using its Royal Prerogative
• The UK has similar initiatives. A search for "training of ukrainian soldiers after 2014" yielded The crash course turning Ukrainians into soldiers

-- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 10:53, 4 April 2023 (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.

Biased towards Ukraine

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

---

the general tone of the article is biased towards Ukraine 87.212.196.214 (talk) 09:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

In what way? Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

If anything the tone is restrained and mild.  // Timothy :: talk  01:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 April 2023 (2)

change A. Zakharchenko to A. Zakharchenko X Sergey Aksyonov (talk) 02:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Has been removed from infobox per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE - not mentioned in body of article. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 April 2023

change A. Zakharchenko
(2014–2018) to A. Zakharchenko †
(2014–2018) Sergey Aksyonov (talk) 01:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

He wasn’t killed in action. He was assassinated.  —Michael Z. 02:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 06:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 April 2023

it is also proved that Russian troops carried out the looting of world cultural property

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianbushard/2023/01/14/these-are-some-of-the-most-famous-ukrainian-works-of-art-looted-by-russia/?sh=323dfd989b77 Dmytro1888UAZOV1888 (talk) 07:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

•  Not done: it is unclear what you want done.  // Timothy :: talk  07:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Removing the Maidan Revolution image

Despite the war starting on the 20th of February, 2 days before the ousting of Yanukovych, the Revolution wasn’t part of the war. We should remove that image. TankDude2000 (talk) 08:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The image doesn’t picture part of the war and it wasn’t even shot during the war.

Replace it with an image of Girkin’s Russian irregulars storming government buildings in Sloviansk, which was the actual start of the war in Donbas.  —Michael Z. 15:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. HappyWith (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

and  Done by user Asarlaí. HappyWith (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

TTF Gas price chart should be updated.

The prices have recovered to pre-war levels. 90.156.66.120 (talk) 07:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 May 2023

Add Iran as supporter of Russia in belligerents section. There are already 5 sources in the "international relations" section confirming this. Hholdenday (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Being discussed above, and the answer has not changed. Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Being discussed above. Also, read the FAQ. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Wait where is the FAQ? I swear there was one... ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 May 2023

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

---

There are still debates on whether the invasion of Crimea (the start of the Russo-Ukrainian War) started on February 20 or 23, so I guess that we should replace February 20 with February 20/23. WikiManUser21 (talk) 17:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. — Czello ^(music) 17:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

 Note: Marking as answered. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:39, 10 May 2023 (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.

Russia-NATO edits

Hi RadioactiveBoulevardier, could you explain the issues you have with this edit?

• In his speech justifying the invasion of Ukraine, Putin falsely claimed that NATO military infrastructure was being built up inside Ukraine and was a threat to Russia. - This is in line with the sources and is surely an important thing to mention, as it was one of Putin's main excuses for invading.
• Lavrov's claim that NATO started a proxy war against Russia had been left with no rebuttal, so I added one: NATO says it is not at war with Russia; its official policy is that it does not seek confrontation with Russia, but rather its members support Ukraine in "its right to self-defense, as enshrined in the UN Charter". If one party is accusing another of starting a war, I think it's important to mention what the other party has to say about that. My wording closely follows what the source says.
• Russian leaders described this expansion as a violation of Western powers' informal assurances that NATO would not expand eastward → Putin claimed Western powers broke promises that NATO would not let any Eastern European countries join - This is more in line with the sources. Also "NATO expansion" is a term used in Russian propaganda to imply military expansion/conquest. The more neutral term is enlargement.

Thanks. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 08:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi!

I was about to go to bed when I saw this notification, so I’ll give you the quick(er) version.

I don’t have an issue with every single change in that edit, but there were a large number of changes, and some of them seemed…imperfect. Two or three rewordings I remember being slightly concerned by.

Also worth pointing out, this is a C-class article as of this writing. There are a lot of issues running the gamut from the usual technical issues to the broad and subjective questions of layout.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 09:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

RadioactiveBoulevardier, when you have time, let me know which changes you have concerns about. Thanks. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 09:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Notorious anti-Russian Media Outfits

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.

---

Due to the lack of independent reporters on the ground - or first-hand reports from the battlefield - perhaps Wikipedia could/should question some of the more notorious Washington-backed media outfits and much of their wilder/more outrageous claims of anti-Russian human rights abuses? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.2.24 (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

You do understand that US media is not state-controlled? Or that we do not solely rely on US media? Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

But do you not people understand that, while US media might not be DIRECTLY state controlled - it does tend the follow the Govt/corporate line? Given that this line in strongly anti-Russian, is it little suprise that nation/corporate media outlets tend to reflect this line in their 'reporting'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.2.24 (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Does it? Evidence? And (again) we do not only use US media. Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

But does not that miss the point that, here in the UK, most media outlets take their lead from the US corporate media and Govt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.2.24 (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

What? No it does not miss the point, its that you do not have one that is valid. Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Again, any sources for the wild conspiracy theory and allegations? We can read RT but it's not a reliable source. How about Al Jazeera? Andre🚐 17:55, 21 May 2023 (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.

Wikipedia has just become leftist propaganda

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.

---

"Ukrainian forces have also been accused of committing various war crimes, including mistreatment of detainees, though on a much smaller scale than Russian forces." ? 151.36.12.52 (talk) 12:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes? What is wrong with this? Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

What a breath of fresh air, usually driveby IPs are claiming that this article is right-wing propaganda. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Cited with notorious commie outfits AP and OHCHR.  —Michael Z. 00:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Intense discussion. For everyone who knows. And who organized the transpost, buses.

For +/- 5,000,000 refugees from Ukraine ? President of Ukraine? Ministry of Ukraine  ?

Organized refugee ( and accommodation ) in the European Union , USA and Canada . For ... 50,000,000 .

Claims from the Ukrainians would have decreased. :)91.183.159.198 (talk) 09:39, 22 May 2023 (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 23 May 2023

Change "the Euromaidan protests" to "the far-right U.S.-backed Euromaidan protests" [31] Chances last a finite time (talk) 13:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Based upon 1 source? Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Jacobin is approved on the Wikipedia list of reliable sources. Chances last a finite time (talk) 13:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

So, it is still only one source, and read its wp:rsp entry to see why this edit can't be down. Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

It says it is reliable and that it is sometimes biased, but bias is not a problem if it is reliable. Chances last a finite time (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

It also says " Editors should take care to adhere to the neutral point of view policy when using Jacobin as a source in articles, for example by quoting and attributing statements that present its authors' opinions, and ensuring that due weight is given to their perspective amongst others'.", or (as I said above) this is just one source saying this. Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

But if it is reliable, then it is factual, and we should report facts. Chances last a finite time (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Changing the label to something so contentious based on one source is WP:UNDUE. — Czello ^(music) 14:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Get consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

That is conflation. Jacobin was determined to be avowedly partisan with a focus on political commentary and opinion rather than on news report[ing] in this discussion. Hence, the warning on WP:RSP to consider both NPOV and due weight when using the source. This is even more a concern when considering applying contentious labels which should be avoided without a wide consensus between sources and even then be applied with in-text attribution, rather than in wikivoice. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

But that says that it has "a reputation for fact-checking", and this is about facts. I opened a discussion on the source discussion forum about this. Chances last a finite time (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

It also says Editors should take care to adhere to the neutral point of view policy when using Jacobin as a source in articles, for example by quoting and attributing statements that present its authors' opinions, and ensuring that due weight is given to their perspective amongst others'. Including a contentious statement based on a partisan source is not due weight. — Czello ^(music) 14:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

If a reliable source says it, it cannot be "contentious". Jacobin "meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering". Chances last a finite time (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

"If a reliable source says it, it cannot be "contentious"." just not true. On wikipedia all contentious content has to have been published in a reliable source by definition. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

It is not like Fox News. The bias there is a form of hate and leads to fake news. Jacobin's bias does not make it tell lies. Chances last a finite time (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

It can be contentious when it's a very radical label not given by the majority of sources, and instead only comes from a source known for being partisan (one whose statements should normally be attributed). — Czello ^(music) 14:41, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

It is not just Jacobin that says this. [32] "the far right Svoboda party was the most active collective agent in conventional and confrontational Maidan protest events, while the Right Sector was the most active collective agent in violent protest events". Chances last a finite time (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

And how do you get from that to "the far-right U.S.-backed Euromaidan protests"? Because what you just quoted is very different from the text you're trying to use it to support. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back [33] "A US-Backed, Far Right–Led Revolution in Ukraine Helped Bring Us to the Brink of War", "There’s no doubt US officials backed and exploited Euromaidan for their own ends", "The same far right that had led the charge in toppling Yanukovych, including Parubiy, found themselves with plum roles in the interim government that followed". Chances last a finite time (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Our sourcing standards exclude titles. The NBC piece appears to be largely opinion/analysis and to be marked as such. You've still got the problem that far-right led =/= far right. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

So I should write "far-right led, U.S.-backed protests" instead? Chances last a finite time (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Branko Marcetic is an outspoken partisan political editorialist, not a reporter in Ukraine nor an expert on recent Ukrainian history. He didn’t consult any fact-checkers when he wrote that Ukrainian Nazis toppled Yanukovych (in fact it was the Verkhovna Rada, where Yanukovych’s own party members held the controlling votes). This is pure POV pushing.  —Michael Z. 19:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@Mzajac You say that "He didn’t consult any fact-checkers when he wrote that Ukrainian Nazis toppled Yanukovych", but Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 351#Rfc: Jacobin (magazine) says "Jacobin meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering". I opened a discussion at the reliable source forum Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea, but I do not understand why you make this claim. Chances last a finite time (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

It’s an editorial. What you tout as Marcetic’s “facts” are contradicted by numerous more reliable and more recent sources used in articles on related subjects.  —Michael Z. 20:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea "Yet for most Western observers, many of its basic, well-documented facts have been either excised to push a simplistic, black-and-white narrative, or cast as misinformation and propaganda, like the crucial role of the far right in the revolution." There is propaganda that tries to wash this away, but Jacobin's reporting is strong and reliable. Chances last a finite time (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

And the article linked to with the words “crucial role.” What does it actually say on the subject?  —Michael Z. 20:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Given that information contained within this article points to American meddling in the internal affairs of the Ukraine, is it not reasonable to mention how the "US-Backed, Far Right–Led Revolution in Ukraine Helped Bring Us to the Brink of War"? For while the "American agents of influence would prefer different language to describe their activities — democratic assistance, demooocracy promotion, civil society support, etc", are there not indications that their (dirty) work, however labeled, "seeks to influence political change in Ukraine"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.2.85 (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Add Iran to Belligerents on Russian side

Based on the amount of drone, microchips and body armour that have been donated from Iran to Russia, and even the fact that they have sent actual troops to help with drone operation. I think it would be justified to add Iran to the "Supported by" section in the belligerents on the russian side

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/iran-sent-troops-ukraine-help-russia-use-iranian-made-drones-biden-adm-rcna53277#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20has%20evidence%20that,Biden%20administration%20officials%20said%20Thursday. Source for Iranian troops sent to the war Hholdenday (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

No. Belarus is a belligerent because it was used as a staging ground for the invasion. Arms suppliers and technical support do not qualify as belligerents. If they did, there would be dozens of countries to add. Mr rnddude (talk)

Do we need to add Iran to the FQ about belligerent? Slatersteven (talk) 09:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Iranian personnel deploying in theater to assist with technology transfer doesn't even qualify as "supported by" according to consensus. Consider that British and possibly other personnel also have deployed in theater for similar purposes. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

oh but if Iran, a country which is yet to be proven to be involved in this war, is added to that list, then so should the US, the rest of NATO and any other country that has sent heavy military Aid and equipment to Ukraine 41.116.40.211 (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but as no one has agreed to it this is irrelevant. Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that war started in 2014

Basically completely wrong page there were no russian war against ukraine. You can say easily that the war was USA vs Ukraine because usa trained a lot of ukraine militaries during this time. Why it’s not saying anything about massacre in Donetsk ? Bombing civil houses by ukranian army and killing a lot of civil people in donetsk and Luhansk ? Navi86 (talk) 07:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

2014 was when Russia invaded and annexed Crimea. Most sources call this the start of the war. — Czello ^(music) 07:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

what kind of resources ? Why noone was saying about a war in 2014 ? Stop spreading one point of view 91.205.170.238 (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Independent Ukraine, a loaded term

Since people do not tend to talk about an 'Independent' France, Germany or USA, why are is this word being used in relation to the Ukraine? If the article is to be considered natural, should it not avoid questionable or loaded terms? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.2.120 (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it's only used in the background section to contrast the newly independent Ukraine with the previous period, so I don't see much of an issue here. Alaexis_¿question? 19:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

This is true, but it still reflects a bias, because no one ever refers to “independent Russia” after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The contrasting usage falsely implies that the Soviet Union became Russia, while other republics had been its chattel.  —Michael Z. 22:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

It seems biased on your part to skip the entire history of forced Russification suffered by the republics of the USSR, where Russia played a central and controlling role towards the other republics. 189.219.230.116 (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you know nationality of many ussr leaders ? Stop saying bullshit that russia was controlling. One of the leaders of ussr was ukranian and many others(like Khrushchev) Navi86 (talk) 07:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

And yet the Russification of other nations happened. This is well documented historically. The fact that the leaders themselves were Russified doesn't change that. — Czello ^(music) 07:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

It’s saying about multicultural, so basically you are spreading false information. Can you say evidence about your statement ? 91.205.170.238 (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Moreover, regarding independence, that it very boased becayse why noone talking about independence of Czech Republic or Slovakia in the same way? 91.205.170.238 (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 May 2023

correct the start of the Russian and Ukrainian war, separating Crimea annexation as it misleads making people think the war started back in 2014. 84.65.90.61 (talk) 15:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

It did, per RS. Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

An you show evidence that it started in 2014 ? Base on all source and if you take a look to all article back in 2014 there were no war between ukraine and russia Navi86 (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

answered=no Navi86 (talk) 20:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Here are some sources: https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2023/02/19/for-ukraine-the-war-started-in-2014-not-in-2022_6016441_4.html

https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/02/12/the-other-ukraine-war-crimea-invasion-2014-putin/ HappyWith (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Counter-productive attacks on Russia

Can something be said about the possible impact of the drone attacks on Moscow? For, together with German panzers being sent to the Eastern Front, such attacks can only prove to the Russian people that their their country is in real danger. That said, how are people world-wide to view such attacks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.2.82 (talk) 11:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I don’t really think ordinary Muscovites have been emotionally affected much by the drone attacks. They’re very depoliticized, to the point that they’ll look away from almost anything, even this. There isn’t much media coverage of Russian civilian reactions, and the coverage that I have seen is pretty bad. If editors can find better sources on this, we could totally add the information, thought. HappyWith (talk) 20:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Russia-Ukraine War started in 2022, not 2014

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 article is also overly protected by admins who add original-research information to this website. Like since when has the period from 2014 until 2022 been referred to as the Russo ukrainian war? There was 0 fighting between russia and ukraine during that whole period aside from clashes which killed only 500 RUSSIANS during the whole 8 year period. Literally all media sources use this article’s name for the post-2022 invasion (not gonna include sources, i think you can use common sense and go google that name and see the sources for yourself). This is a huge problem, because pro-putinists sometimes use the argument that ukraine has been bombing ethnic russians since 2014 and this article and its naming could be used to support their argument. It should be renamed back to “Russian involvement in the War in Donbass (2014–2022)” or, Ukraine crisis (2014–2015 or 2022) (BTW, this article is just a copy and paste of War in Donbass (2014–2022) except other not very related events were put together into one so called “war”. If this huge war somehow begun all the way back in 2014 then i must’ve had a lobotomy done on me without me knowing. 88.245.197.160 (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

This article has existed since 2014. It has been titled 'Russo-Ukrainian War' since 2014. Sources from 2014 on-wards have referred to this as the Russo-Ukrainian War. Notice the spike for the term starting in 2014. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

No, the international war started when Russia first invaded Ukraine and occupied its territory in February 2014. The Kremlin denied its invasion and claimed there was only a “civil war” in eastern Ukraine. Countless sources support this.  —Michael Z. 23:26, 1 June 2023 (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 The US and NATO to the Belligerents on the Ukraine side.

since Ukraine is obviously supported by these countries and some of their military equipment, those of the United States in particular, are used by Anti-Putin groups; in the spirit of unbiasness & accurate reporting isn't this a fair move? 41.116.40.211 (talk) 13:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

See FAQ. Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

This talk page doesn't have the FAQ, only Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine has it. In brief, supply of military equipment does not qualify as belligerency. There is no consensus to include nations that have supplied arms into the infobox. NATO is also not an arms supplier and could not be included in any case. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to the OP, you are correct. We do not list arms suppliers, as belligerent means party to the conflict. Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

You are saying that war started in 2014 simply saying that russia supported Donbass people, base on it that means thar was is against NATO 85.249.163.121 (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2014.  —Michael Z. 19:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 June 2023

Should the Freedom of Russia Legion be added to the belligerents? TheCalmEAK (talk) 07:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Not as such, but maybe Russian dissidents. Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Support – Also write the Belarusian opposition. Parham wiki (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: No consensus or source -Lemonaka‎ 17:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Russian public opinion

'Russian public opinion...

...According to some sources, a reason many Russians supported the "special military operation" has to do with the propaganda and disinformation'.

So it would seem that the only 'propaganda and disinformation' is that put out by Moscow, and that Washington would hardly ever use media outlets push an anti-Russian agenda? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.199 (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

"According to some sources", we do not say it is a fact, we say it is an opinion. However, it can be pointed out that out of the two nations, only Russia has passed laws relating to freedom of speech over this conflict (and acted upon them). Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Let’s not forget the oppression. Beatings and arrests of protestors, threat of lengthy jail sentences for vaguely defined criminal offences like “discrediting the armed forces,” mistreatment of prisoners of concience, &c.  —Michael Z. 19:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Let’s not forger what happening right now in ukraine, all priests under pressure , moreover it’s better not to speak in russian. Why it’s not mentioned it? 85.249.160.72 (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Soruces? Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Remove Bogus Statement on Legality of Russia's Activity

The Russian invasion of Ukraine violated international law (including the Charter of the United Nations).

This sentence is supported by nothing but newspaper editorials. No international body has formally investigated and determined that a breach of statute has occurred. This statement certainly does not follow NPOV, and it may be defamatory as well. I would remove it myself, but (surprise surprise) pro-Ukrainian and pro-US Wikipedia editors have locked the article. 2600:1700:6730:F090:58C2:70AD:C99F:2ADA (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

See wp:npa and wp:soap. Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I will say that the sentence is overcited (7 sources bundled in one cite with a further 3 citations tacked on after that). I'd propose to remove all the news sources and the sole non-English source. I don't know whether the Stanford Law School Blogs citation passes as an RS, as we're usually averse to citing WP:BLOGS unless it's being written by a known expert. If it does here, leave it. Three reputable sources is usually adequate even for controversial statements. I'm not inclined to rehashing the extensive debate held on the other article last year on whether the statement is an opinion or a fact. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Russo

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.

---

Russo is not a country name, please change name or delete article 85.249.163.121 (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Previous discussions about the name are listed at the top under “Deletion Discussions, Moves, Merges, Press, etc.”  —Michael Z. 19:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

No, its an abbreviation of one. Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Abbreviations is not a formal name. Please rename it 85.249.171.208 (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Or add that is fiction artivle because there is no country with name “Russo” 85.249.160.72 (talk) 17:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Russo-Swedish War (1495–1497) Russo-Kazan War (1505–1507) Russo-Turkish War (1735–1739), its a common name. Other examples of abbreviations used in war Franco-Prussian War, and wars that use alternative names Anglo-Mughal War (1686–1690). Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Please consult a dictionary.[34][35][36] Russo- is not exactly an abbreviation but a combining form meaning “Russia, or Russian (and).” Russo-Ukrainian War is an exact synonym for Russia–Ukraine War, and I suppose Russian–Ukrainian War.  —Michael Z. 01:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

The OP seems to be based on a lack of understanding of English and appropriate prefix demonyms in compounded words such as this title. WP:CIR applies. Explanation has bee given. I don't see any point in keeping this discussion open. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

[Removed offensive anonymous comment] —Michael Z. 20:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

OK I am out, if the IP wants to use racist slurs that sums it up. No we should not change the name to an insult. Slatersteven (talk) 09:17, 12 June 2023 (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.

Minsk agreement

Why there is no information about minks agreement and request from russia to protect people in donents es and lughansk in 2014-2022? Minsk agreements 62.217.186.162 (talk) 12:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

There is, in the lede for a start.Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

You can simply add link to agreement and point that russia asked several times to send european military to protect people of donetsk and lughansk. Navi86 (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, as the reader can then go there and read about it in full (or they can read the rest of this article). Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

War started in 2022

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

---

War started in 2022,if you think differnt than please provide link from 2014-2021 where any sources saying that war started between ukraine and russian before 02.2022 62.217.186.162 (talk) 12:34, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Being discussed above. Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Moreover, previos discussion was closed by saying that i broke sam rule which i didn’t do. I was simply saying that why noone was trying to get point of view crimean people? You saying about annexion but forgetting why albanina people were able to vote for independence and why crimean people are not able to do it as well ? 62.217.186.162 (talk) 12:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Previous discussion is not closed, it is still open, comment there. Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 17 June 2023 (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.

Russo

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.

---

That abbreviation is spreading hate and my suggestion to rename to khohol was considered as racists. However, russo is racist slang for russian speakers as well. If you think that russo is common abbreviation that provide link to russian sources when russian people talk about themselves as russo. moreover russo means Russo (surname) 62.217.186.162 (talk) 12:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Was discussed above with no consensus for change. and "khohol" is not an abbreviation of Ukraine, in fact half the letters are not even in Ukraine. Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Wny there is no consensus? Who is saying that russia is russo? I put link what russo means. Moreover, if i follow your point so “russo” is not even in russian. 62.217.186.162 (talk) 12:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

There was no consensus as Russo (as was pointed out) is a common abbreviation of Russia, used it more or less all articles about wars Russia has been involved in (with no controversy). And no Russo is not in Russian, and more than "russian" is as this is not the Russian language Wikipedia, it is the English language one. This needs closing and you need to wp:dropthestick. I will not be replying anymore. Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I am russian speaker and russo is a hate for me. I am asking you to rename to formal country name. 62.217.186.162 (talk) 13:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

"Russo" is a very common term relating to Russia: https://www.etymonline.com/word/russo-#:~:text=word%2Dforming%20element%20meaning%20%22pertaining,Russians%22%20(see%20Russia). — Czello ^(music) 13:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

First of all, you were saying that “khohol” not even ukranian word, so i said that nether “russo”, but than you saying about that page is english. Please, make your point clear in the future.

Secondly, “russo” is not common abbreviation of Russia, don’t give me link to other vikipedia pages, provide me link to official sites where “russo” is using currently regarding Russia.

thirdly, your are providing link to online dictionary that simply who can trust? Why are not willing to rename country name to official one? Why don’t you use non official ukranian name as “khohol” than if you wanna use non formal name for Russia? Navi86 (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The same way Austria morphs to Austro- in Austro-Hungarian Empire, Anglia to Anglo- in Anglo-Saxon people, Greece (rather Græcia) to Graeco- in Graeco-Roman period, or France (rather Francia/Frankia) to Franco- in Franco-Prussian war, Russia morphs to Russo- in Russo-Ukrainian war. This is a feature of the borrowed from Latin -ia suffix. It is not an abbreviation. It is a linking vowel that is particularly common in ethnonyms in English and has its roots in Ancient Greek. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

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

War started in 2022

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

---

War started in 2022, if you think it started in 2014 then add official resources 85.249.163.121 (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Mentioned above, in #Russia-Ukraine War started in 2022, not 2014.  —Michael Z. 19:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

it's here:

• Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation
• 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine
• War in Donbas (2014–2022)

Parham wiki (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Not according to RS. Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Then rename article to NATO vs Russia, because NATO support Ukraine since 2014 as Russia supported Donbas since 2014 85.249.160.72 (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Crimea, why it’s not mentioned that people were voted to join russia ? Why also it’s not mention that crimea was joined to ukraine SSR in 1960-x when ukraine was soviet union ? 85.249.160.72 (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

NATO is not a formal combatant, nor is it even an informal one. Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

NATO isn't at war with Russia, so no. — Czello ^(music) 14:03, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

So russia was not on the war with ukraine in 2014-2022. So update the war time 85.249.168.173 (talk) 08:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

There was a war during this period. The article details this. — Czello ^(music) 09:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Between 2014 and 2022, Russia annexed Crimea and participated in the War in Donbas, so Russia has been at war with Ukraine since 2014. Read these:

• War in Donbas (2014–2022)#Russian involvement
• Combatants of the war in Donbas#Russian forces

Parham wiki (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Russia didn’t participated in Donbass 2014-2022, Crimes was joined by vote(Crimeas was part of Russia all history).

if you have official data that Russia participated in war in Donbass than add proof article about it. 62.217.186.162 (talk) 12:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The Crimea joined Russia after a vote, after Russia invaded it. Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

May you share proof that russia invaded Crimea before vote? Have you spoke with people from crimea? 62.217.186.162 (talk) 12:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Well Ukraine did not invite them in, and Ukraine was the government. Thus Russia invaded [[37]] [[38]]. Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Annexia means taking territory against desire, Crimean people voted to join Russia(as did Albanian people to separate from Serbia). If you ever spoke with crimean people, so you can not follow western agenda. 62.217.186.162 (talk) 12:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Read wp:npa. Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I have not broken any rule, i am saying that who is ever was trying to get interview of crimean people? The point is that albanian people were able to get independence but why it’s not allowed for crimean people?

so point about annexian is the beginner of war between ukraine and russia is false. Moreover, there is no any source in 2014-02.2022 saying that there is war between ukraine and russia in 2014-02.2022 62.217.186.162 (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Who annexed Albania? Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Who annexed crimea ? Crimean people voted to join other country base on desire crimean people(you can speak with them) Navi86 (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Either you're a troll or you're particularly susceptible to Russian propaganda. — Czello ^(music) 13:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I am simply asking proper question. I know people from crimea. But looks like you are following propaganda and don’t have any proof to give an answer to my questions. So please update war dates. Navi86 (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

No, as our sources predominately say the war started in 2014. And yes, Russia did invade Crimea: see Little green men (Russo-Ukrainian War) — Czello ^(music) 13:34, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Which sources? Could you give me the link to sources that were talking about crimean situation in 2014? Navi86 (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

OK then, allow me to rephrase it, who invaded Albania before the vote? Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I am asking the same question who invaded crimea before votes? Could give proof of it? Moreover, i am pointig out that noone was saying that war started between ukraine and russia in 2014. Literally there is no article that was published before 2022. So i am kindly ask you to update war date on this page Navi86 (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you really saying that Russia did not invade Crimea in 2014? You want more here is a western one [[39]] [[40]] [[41]]. Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

That article was created after 02.2022. I am repeating my question, do you have any article that dates 2014?

article that was created after 2022 simply shows western propaganda Navi86 (talk) 13:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

If you don’t have any article dated 2014 that shows that war between russia and ukraine started in 2014 then plase iodate the date of war to 2022. Thanks Navi86 (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

First, the referendum was not held without bloodshed and with the permission of the Ukrainian government (six people were killed), but with the intervention of the armed forces of the Russian Federation and the Wagner group. Second, official data? What do you mean by official data? Parham wiki (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I misspelled what I meant, I meant that these events together with the invasion constitute the Russo-Ukrainian War. Parham wiki (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2023/02/19/for-ukraine-the-war-started-in-2014-not-in-2022_6016441_4.html

https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/02/12/the-other-ukraine-war-crimea-invasion-2014-putin/ Parham wiki (talk) 18:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Sources 2014

[[42]] [[43]] [[44]]

Sources 2015

[[45]]

This needs closing. Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2023 (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.

Shouldn't Wagner, the Freedom Russian Legion and other militias alike be included in the belligerents at this point?

The comment could be made that Wagner and other private militias on the Russian side are not acting independently and are just part of Russia. However, the Freedom Russian Legion and the Russian Volunteer Corps are taking part in the war, while being independent from any of the armies. 84.125.94.214 (talk) 06:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

No. Those are not independent actors. Andre🚐 07:10, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Agred. Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Given the revolt by Wagner in the last 24 hours, should Wagner be included in the belligerents list now? How has Wikipedia previously handled other mercenary revolts throughtout history? 2001:56A:7130:8700:FD4A:AD7E:689D:B682 (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Well given the only one I can think of is the Indian Mutiny, no I do not think they are now belligerents in this war, rather they are belligerents in another. Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

And not even that, now. Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Let's wait for RS to describe them as such. Since the mutiny lasted less than a day and had (so far) no discernible effect on the war I wouldn't hurry with including them. Alaexis_¿question? 18:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Russian opposition

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.

---

Why is the Russian opposition not written in this Infobox even though it is written as hostile in other articles in Infobox? Parham wiki (talk) 11:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

internal opposition to wars are not normally listed as parties. Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

But in the articles 2022-2023 Belarusian and Russian partisan movement and 2023 Belgorod Oblast incursions it is written as hostile. Parham wiki (talk) 11:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Then I would say they are wrong. Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 11 July 2023 (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 16 July 2023

Add Russian opposition (from 2022) to infobox, Russian opposition due to 2022–2023 Belarusian and Russian partisan movement Including the 2023 Belgorod Oblast incursions, the Wagner Group rebellion (In the article Opposition to Vladimir Putin in Russia#2023 Wagner rebellion, the Wagner Group rebellion is part of the Russian opposition.), and the Anti-war protests in Russia (2022–present) should be added as hostile. Parham wiki (talk) 09:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Xan747 (talk) 23:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it should be added to the infobox as proposed. First, the Opposition to Vladimir Putin in Russia (the article you link to) consists of many different fractions and while pretty much all of them are against the war, only very few can be considered belligerents, which is what the infobox is supposed to contain. And lumping Wagner together with the liberal opposition would be pretty far-fetched.

I'd go with what RS say here. If they describe the Freedom of Russia Legion as a significant belligerent, then we can definitely add them to the infobox, similar to the way DNR and LNR are there. Alaexis_¿question? 11:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Good catch. DLNR are not treated as belligerents by current sources, since late 2021. What used to be labelled “occupied by Russian-backed separatists” on maps is now labelled “Russian occupied before February 24, 2022,” for example.  —Michael Z. 19:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. Wouldn't consider the protest groups etc "belligerents"- and the Wagner conflict was unrelated. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 23:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Edward-Woodrow: Demonstrations are in support of Ukraine, and anti-war groups are not supposed to be added to the infobox. Parham wiki (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Xan747: Does that mean I have to open an RfC? Parham wiki (talk) 00:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

No, just start a disucssion here. WP:RFCs are more of a last ditch attempt to reach consensus by drawing more editors in. Since this talk page has 852 watchers, it's probably unnecessary. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 00:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done Parham wiki (talk) 00:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 July 2023

I want to add casuality numbers released for Russian side as cited below.

https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/how-many-russians-died-in-ukraine-data-points-out-what-moscow-hides/article67065514.ece

Two independent Russian media outlets, Mediazona and Meduza, working with a data scientist from Germany’s Tübingen University. APT141 (talk) 12:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 12:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Lukashenko in the infobox

Belarus only supported the invasion so remove Lukashenko in the infobox. Parham wiki (talk) 11:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Lukashenka is the leader directly responsible for the crime of aggression (Rome Statute 2(f) “The action of a State in allowing its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State”).  —Michael Z. 15:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

It is true that Lukashenko is a criminal, but the field of commanders is for those who lead the conflict, NOT THOSE WHO COMMIT THE CRIME OF AGGRESSION! Parham wiki (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Mzajac I think I've mentioned to you before that, although it hasn't yet occurred to anyone that it'd be necessary to mention it at WP:NOT (although I’m sure consensus there could be found)…

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a court of international law.

Editors are, obviously, perfectly free to expound on such issues at length in the relevant articles and sections (citing RS and following policies and guidelines, yada yada).

So habitually invoking alleged or actual points of international law instead of addressing the actual substance of issues raised in TP threads is, in my personal opinion, not particularly productive, and might even be sometimes potentially liable to be construed as tending toward WP:FORUM behavior.

While I haven’t by any means read every single TP post you’ve made in the topic area, I’m seeing a pattern of repeatedly answering legitimate infobox-related queries in this topic area with appeals to points of international law. While you, personally, may believe that these are valid reasons, this seems to be a highly creative excuse (even if it’s an unconscious one) to impose a POV on what’s supposed to be a bland overview of a military conflict. In the past, if I remember correctly, you’ve used similar arguments to oppose what you feel might draw moral equivalencies between Belarus and Western supporters of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The reader can easily see for themselves the plain facts of everything that Russia (and Belarus) have done. So partisanship against them is not only superfluous, but runs the risk of gradually undermining the credibility of WP’s coverage (particularly in the vast outer swathes of the English-reading world that have a different and more nuanced POV than most of the editing community) and setting disturbing precedents for future controversies.

(Also, since you brought it up, Belarus isn’t a party to the Rome Statute. So the point is not only not answering to OP’s question, but probably entirely irrelevant, even without going into the thorny complexities of the precise parameters of the crime of aggression.)

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Lukashenka is complicit in the invasion. I was explaining why, in case it’s not obvious. There’s no rationale for removing him given.

Aggression is one of the core crimes in international law, and does not depend solely on the Rome statute.

Try to comment on the subject and resist the urge to stereotype your peers and analyze their train of thought or motivation, in the interest of productive discussion.  —Michael Z. 03:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I am not aware of any precedent or consensus for adding the leader of a supporting country or faction to an infobox.

If I understand what you’re saying correctly, you’re arguing that “complicity” means that Lukashenka is an active participant in the conflict for the purposes of the infobox.

Unless I’m very much mistaken, this is essentially arguing to circumvent the usual criteria and include infobox information based on legal, moral, journalistic, or other unencyclopedic methods of assessment. This argument, along with similar ones, has, I believe (and by all means show me otherwise if it hasn’t), been generally discredited by multiple other editors at Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine and elsewhere.

I have indeed been commenting on the subject. Any analysis of my peers’ train of thought or motivation was merely giving them the benefit of the doubt per WP:AGF. Would you prefer that I instead accuse my peers of POV pushing, failure to get the point, or other actions counter to P&G? Patient adherence to WP:AGF is clearly in the interest of productive discussion. Addressing, in detail, others’ arguments is also in the interest of productive discussion.

There’s no rationale for adding/keeping him given, other than that he is allegedly complicit in the crime of aggression. I’ve explained above why this argument doesn’t hold water.

And please, let’s not get sucked into debating the crime of aggression, which, in both definition and application, is way more complex than you make it out to be. Suffice it to say that the actual liability of Russia (let alone Belarus, since there is zero precedent in customary law to hold providers of basing and transit accountable) under the crime of aggression (as opposed to various grave breaches they’ve since committed against innocent civilians, of course) is not completely clear since it would probably revolve around the events of 2014 rather than of 2022.

(Ironically, it was the Russians/Soviets who were, once upon a time, responsible for creating much of the current concept of the crime of aggression. Isn’t history wonderful?)

Regardless, as I said in my edit summary removing Lukashenka, the point is more or less moot since per template docs, information subject to controversy is to be avoided and there is a presumption not to put him in even without the substantive merits (or lack thereof). If you can demonstrate a clear consensus to include Lukashenka, feel free to revert me. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:17, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing in the body of the article that would explain who Lukashenka is and why they might be placed in the infobox as a significant or notable commander. There inclusion is therefore contrary to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and of absolutely no benefit to a reader. Note: an article must stand alone, independent of linking. There are also way too many entries under the commanders parameter per the template documentation. While other commanders listed may not be supported by the body of the article, we can still improve the article by increments. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Hyphen/dash

Should we keep the hyphen in the title or change it to a dash? WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

it should be a dash per MOS:DASH—blindlynx 21:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done good catch—blindlynx 21:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted your rather premature move. This has been discussed in the past. "Russo-Ukrainian" is a single adjective, not two nouns joined by a dash. See MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES. (The shortcut refers to "nationalities" but the section is broader than that.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

my mistake, sorry—blindlynx 22:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

First sentence

Should we change Ukrainian crisis in the first sentence to Ukraine crisis? I mean, that’s how most sources reffered to it in the beginning. WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 12:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Name

We should change this page to War in Ukraine. It’s the most common title (most sources use it) and it’s also neutral (Ukraine reffers it to “Russo-Ukrainian War”, while Russia reffers it to “Special Military Operation in Ukraine” or something like that.) WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

It is a Russo-Ukrainian war. “SMO” is a propaganda name meant to obscure the nature of the largest land invasion in Europe since WWII, and it is enforced in Russia with criminal laws against “disinformation” about the “SMO.” Russians risk serious jail time for calling it a war. A compromise between the truth and a lie is usually not the truth, and it is not neutral but a false balance.

(Per WP:GS/RUSUKR, non-extended-confirmed users aren’t permitted to edit in internal project discussions, including requested moves.) —Michael Z. 20:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

That’s a bit authoritarian to be honest. I didn’t request a move. Just making a statement. WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 21:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Fair, but I don’t think we should begin a huge discussion or vote on this unless it’s endorsed by EC editors.  —Michael Z. 21:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing authoritarian about notifying users of rules. --2001:8003:1C20:8C00:1C52:5565:BE68:538D (talk) 09:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I’m reffering to the rule, not about notifying users of rules. WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 11:17, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Ukraine does not say Russo-Ukrainian War says: Russia's armed aggression against Ukraine Parham wiki (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, since Putin never bothered to declare war on the Ukraine, then technically it's an invasion of the Ukraine by the Russian military (and lately by a group of thugs led by a doughnut vendor). So, yes, it should be changed, and the title Ukraine uses pretty much nails it. 59Frogeye (talk) 04:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Add the Russian opposition

I think the Russian opposition (from 2022) should be added to infobox, Russian opposition due to 2022–2023 Belarusian and Russian partisan movement Including the 2023 Belgorod Oblast incursions, the Wagner Group rebellion (In the article Opposition to Vladimir Putin in Russia#2023 Wagner rebellion, the Wagner Group rebellion is part of the Russian opposition.), and the Anti-war protests in Russia (2022–present) should be added as hostile. Parham wiki (talk) 00:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Where? Under the "Belligerents" heading? Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 00:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Edward-Woodrow: I mean write this in the infobox (it shouldn't be in "supported by:" like Belarus): Ukraine
Russian opposition (from 2022) Parham wiki (talk) 07:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Assuming that this will be the thread to discuss this, I'll copy-paste my response here.

I'm not sure that it should be added to the infobox as proposed. First, the Opposition to Vladimir Putin in Russia (the article you link to) consists of many different fractions and while pretty much all of them are against the war, only very few can be considered belligerents, which is what the infobox is supposed to contain. And lumping Wagner together with the liberal opposition would be pretty far-fetched.

I'd go with what RS say here. If they describe the Freedom of Russia Legion as a significant belligerent, then we can definitely add them to the infobox, similar to the way DNR and LNR are there. Alaexis_¿question? 11:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

None of them belong under “Belligerents,” IMO. They are not sovereign state actors nor independent parties to the conflict. The Russian opposition comprises disparate dissident groups in Russia and Russians that have joined Ukraine’s foreign legion. The DLNR were under overall control of the Kremlin from at least May 2014, and current sources now label part of the Donbas territory “Russian occupied before February 22, 2022.”  —Michael Z. 16:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

NATO and United States military response

This heading suggests that the USA is separate from NATO.It is an integral part of the alliance and the heading should reflect that by stating just NATO. The contribution of each ally can turn be detailed in the body of the article. 2A00:23C7:D38A:8B01:25BB:A435:E33A:A6F6 (talk) 10:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

There has been no NATO military response, I think it just reads badly. Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

This section is a stub of uncertain encyclopedic intent, and the heading doesn’t really make sense. It doesn’t describe a military response, for one thing. It kind of alludes to a different defence posture by states, among other things, but that varies among 31 member states (most especially Turkey and Hungary). And what about responses by non-NATO states? Finland and Sweden gave up neutrality. Switzerland has debated its neutrality so it might be able to sell more ammunition while it keeps handling Russian money. Belarus said it allowed nuclear weapons to be brought into its territory. Armenia is caught in a standoff in Azerbaijan because of Russia’s waning influence. Etcetera.  —Michael Z. 17:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I believe ru-wiki has an article titled “Geopolitical consequences of the Russian invasion of Ukraine” or something like that. I don’t read fluently enough to get through a whole article in a reasonable time frame, but it might be worth making a new article from scratch on the topic. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 13:07, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 August 2023

Add North Korea to the belligerents on Russia’s side. They have officially joined the war in Ukraine. 82.132.186.20 (talk) 21:35, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: They have not officially joined the war in Ukraine. — Czello ^(music) 21:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Kyiv Bans Import of Russian Books

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.

---

Kyiv Bans Import of Russian Books

As reported by REUTERS - and highlighted in todays I newspaper - the Ukrainian President has just signed a new law banning the import of books from Russia. Together with reports of the banning of Russian in Ukrainian schools, the negative effects of such laws must be of real concern. For what next, the Burning of the (Russia) Books? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.130 (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you want to suggest an edit, as this is not a wp:forum. Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay, while Wikipedia is not a Talking Shop, is not the Banning of the Books an issue of some concern? Given this, might not the full impact of such laws on the Russians living within the Ukraine be highlighted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.153 (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

If reliable sources consider it a human rights violation, it can be added to the Russo-Ukrainian_War#Human_rights_violations section of this article. I would also add it to the Russian language in Ukraine article. Alaexis_¿question? 20:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Seems to me that the Russian campaign to Russify education in the occupied territories of Ukraine, the banning of Ukrainian-language books, the imposition of Moscow’s curriculum by force on Ukrainian teachers by threats and the use of re-education camps, the mass kidnapping of Ukrainian children, and other potentially genocidal measures would warrant quite a bit more WP:DUEWEIGHT in this article.

If we’re going to get into domestic policies, then we could cover the longstanding suppression of Ukrainian language and education in Russia first, too.  —Michael Z. 21:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

By the way, does Russia allow the import of Ukrainian books?  —Michael Z. 21:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any restrictions on Ukrainian-language books or books published in Ukraine but if they exist they should be mentioned in relevant articles.

I agree that the Russification of education should be covered - even if it's largely a fast-forward mirror image of the Ukrainisation campaign of the previous decades (changing language of instruction from Ru to Ukr, removing the status of Ru as a regional language, changing the curriculum, etc). Probably you find the latter legitimate and the former illegitimate but both are relevant. Alaexis_¿question? 06:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Alaexis, as WP editors we should always rely on reliable, secondary sources, preferably academic ones. We should also let those sources inform our judgment on what is relevant or irrelevant. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Of course, this is what I wrote in my first comment in this thread. Alaexis_¿question? 09:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Hm. Do you not see a substantive difference between language protection laws that many states have, and a violent campaign of of language suppression imposed during a military occupation that has been explicitly linked with incitement to genocide, a risk that genocide is occuring, and the indictment of a head of state on charges in an international court’s investigation of war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide? Well we do.  —Michael Z. 13:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Russia has eliminated Ukrainian-language education for Ukrainians in its own borders and in occupied territories of Ukraine, and is imposing anti-Ukrainian reeducation on Ukrainian children. It has removed references to Ukraine and Kyiv in its history curriculum. It shut down the Ukrainian library in Moscow after the 2014 invasion, and prosecuted its chief librarian for extremism and spreading ethnic hate. The campaign is connected to dehumanizing anti-Ukrainian rhetoric by Russia’s head of state and media which which explicitly refer to conspiracy theories and language suppression practiced by Moscow authorities since the seventeenth century.  —Michael Z. 13:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Then again, if Wikipedia is to avoid pushing a one-sided point or view, should it not highlight reports that the Ukraine Govt is eliminating Russian-language education for Russians, and is imposing anti-Russian re-education on Ukrainian children? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.130 (talk) 09:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

banning the import of books is not the same as banning a language after all these books come from a country that has invaded them. So of course they are not going to buy stuff form them. Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Actually it’s Russia that long ago eliminated Ukrainian-language education for millions of Ukrainians in Russia, and has now invaded Ukraine to forcibly eliminate Ukrainian-language education and impose anti-Ukrainian brainwashing on Ukrainians, and forcibly deport millions to Russia while encouraging colonial settlement by Russians. This seems more notable than anon’s misinterpretation of Ukrainian language-protection laws which, although a bit controversial, are a result of Ukraine’s own democratic self-government.

Per WP:GS/RUSUKR, non-EC users are not permitted to edit this talk page except for non-disruptive constructive comments and edit requests.  —Michael Z. 14:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Bans/Banning:

the gays from Admiral Kostyukov. Banned. Discussion about the war in Ukraine. In German . For example . Support the Topic: "It is not necessary to morganize (assert - an absolute necessity) Ukraine". Support / Discussionis not possible.

(Schader, aber, a?)

In this sense, in this context.

Role . to the gays from sir Admiral. In conflict. Increasing, a ?

Damage to weapons supplied to Ukraine.

Support in the assimilation of refugees.

Ukrainian nationality. Exile, persecution! On refugees of Russian nationality. ...91.183.159.198 (talk) 15:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

What? Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

What? HappyWith (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Allegedly.

A Russia - German ( so-called Aussidler ). Shows displeasure. Good to see. Misunderstanding. Chancellor's Politician. Germany. Regarding Ukraine. The policy of the Federal Chancellor, Mr. Holz. directed. First . Improving/increasing the well-being of the population, citizen's. The German State.

Although, of course! The Role of Personalities. In interstate relations. Can not. Be overestimated. i wanted to tell you

Ideology of War in Ukraine. The rulers of Ukraine.

It for she .

Gives little opportunity. To engage, to promote.

Simultaneously . Maskov's ideology of war in Ukraine. Clearly. lame. "Nоги разные."

Friends of Ukraine - Anglophones. Perhaps . Might subsidize. For popularizing the topic: the quick end of the war in Ukraine. e.g. and also . On the pages of Wikipedia. It is not expensive! (Not 60,000,000,000 euros, yes ?)

Russian State Administration. Unlike Ukraine. Just like the friends of Ukraine. Pay, sponsor. popularizing their “ideology”. To improve Ukraine.

Here  ! gave me an e-cigarette. There's still a lot left in there.

Promised. One more bon-bon , - "Красный богатырь".

Well , I 'm trying to - remedy Wi ki pin123 (talk) 11:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

What? Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 27 July 2023 (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.

WMD

I’ve started a discussion about coverage of WMD in the conflict at Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#WMD.  —Michael Z. 17:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Image caption: "Russian proxy forces during the Donbas war"

The related image appears in the collage in the infobox.

• Orchastrattor changed the caption to Russian-backed forces during the Donbas war with the edit summary: "NPOV: "Proxy" makes for a very loaded descriptor, doesn't make sense to use it in the captions when the rest of the lead seems pretty consistent with "pro-Russian" as the preferred term instead"[46]
• Mzajac reverted with the edit summmary: "not “loaded,” since courts have found these forces were under overall control of Russia since May 2014"[47]
• I reveret to Orchastrattor's edit with the edit summary: "Make the point in the body of the article, not in the caption to an image. Furthermore, the "claim" of "proxy" is not supported by the body of the article. "Proxy" is mentioned twice in the body of the article and not in a way that supports its use in the caption."[48]
• Rsk6400 reinstared the original version with the edit summary: "returning to status quo. NPOV doesn't mean neutrality between RS and Russian propaganda."[49]
• Alaexis reinstates to Orchastrattor's edit with the edit summary: "per Cinderella's points, need to be supported in the article body"[50]
• Lute88 reverted to the status quo with the edit summary: "Reverted good faith edits by Alaexis (talk): WP:CONSENSUS"[51]

There are a number of reasons why the use of proxy in the caption Russian proxy forces during the Donbas war is inappropriate.

1. It is indeed a bit of a loaded term. NPOV/weight does not preclude such terms but they shouldn't be used in a Wiki voice and certainly not used without support from the body of the article.
2. While I might disagree with the semantics of Mzajac's edit summary, the essence, that the separatist forces were controlled by Russia is not being disputed. However, there have also been Russian forces present - either covertly and/or overtly. A proxy is one that acts for and in the absence of another. Therefore, the description of the separatists as proxies does not appear to be correct.
3. The assertion of what courts have found (per Mzajac) does not appear to be in the present iteration of the article and from what I recall, I doubt that the term "proxy" was used by the courts. Regardless, claims made by an article must be supported by the article and sources cited therein.
4. Within the body of the article, "proxy" is only used several times in one paragraph and these references are unrelated to "Russian-backed forces". The status quo caption is not supported by the body of the article.
5. No matter which way you dice it "Russian proxy forces" is ambiguous. Are they Russians that are proxy forces or "Russians proxies" - meaning Russians that are proxies? This ambiguity is not resolved by hyphenation in either of the two possible positions. We are not here to show off our command of English (or the lack of it). Per WP:MOS: articles should be written in easily understood language (ie plain English and, per WP:TONE: the article should not be written using argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon.
6. The lead (not part of the body of the article) does use the term "Russian proxies". While not ambiguous (Russian proxies are acting for Russia), this would appear to be inaccurate (per above), as a passing statement lacks clarity as to who are acting as these proxies and does not appear to be supported by the body of the article.

The caption should be changed to "Russian-backed forces during the Donbas war". The lead should be change as follows:

• "The Donbas war settled into a violent but static conflict between Ukraine and Russian proxies, with many brief ceasefires but no lasting peace and few changes in territorial control."

Per the body of the article, In 2015, Russian separatist forces were estimated to number around 36,000 troops (compared to 34,000 Ukrainian), of whom 8,500–10,000 were Russian soldiers. Additionally, around 1,000 GRU troops were operating in the area.[158] Another 2015 estimate held that Ukrainian forces outnumbered Russian forces 40,000 to 20,000.[159] In 2017, on average one Ukrainian soldier died in combat every three days,[160] with an estimated 6,000 Russian and 40,000 separatist troops in the region. [Line of conflict stabilizes (2015–2021) section] It is clear that Ukraine continued to face both Russian and separist forces in the Donbas. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok thanks for pinging me, I hadn't checked back since the first revert and was kinda planning to contest it myself but didn't really find the energy.

Just to elaborate on my initial reasoning, describing one group as a "proxy" for another implies the former to not have any legitimacy or goals beyond said function as proxy, which I think really papers over the nuance of the conflict in question; Even if a group acts overwhelmingly in Russian interests there can still be an argument to be made for them to be treated as a separate force, which Cinderella's reading of the sources presented above seems to support in this case. This is particularly important here as from my superficial reading both pro-Western and pro-Russian sources describe Novorossiya as a confederation of at least theoretically separate factions rather than a single centralized force, another aspect of the conflict the reader is discouraged from exploring further by the blanket statement of "proxy force."

I'll admit this whole side of the encyclopedia is sort of outside of my comfort zone and I never really intended to defend my edit beyond the initial summary so I welcome any further information that can be provided to clarify the issue. Orchastrattor (talk) 02:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Cinderella157’s reading above seems to support the opposite.

You should understand that “new Russia” (Novorossiia) failed to get any local support in the spring and summer of 2014, and was shut down by the Kremlin. That’s why Russia recalled its irregulars including Girkin, assassinated the ones that refused to return to Russia, and sent in mechanized formations to prevent Ukraine from mopping up the separatists from August 2014.  —Michael Z. 05:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

You are aware that Novorossiya is a separate political and cultural identity that goes back to the 1700s, correct? Again I am by no means an expert on the nuts and bolts of the situation but you seem to have brought up the literal translation of the name as something other than almost entirely incidental to the group's relationship to the Russian government, which would be incorrect.Orchastrattor (talk) 17:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

No it’s not. Politically, New Russia was a colonial administrative unit that was declared and then dissolved a couple of times by arbitrary decrees of some emperors before 1802, and an idea of Putin’s aide Surkov that theoretically was promoted for a year in 2014–15, but in practice failed to get any traction among any of your “New Russians," forcing Putin to send in regular mechanized formations in August 2014 to stop Ukrainian forces from clearing the Russians out of Ukraine. There is no “New Russian” identity. No one ever declared themselves “New Russians” in any census anywhere.  —Michael Z. 18:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Now you're just assuming bad faith while trying to be funny with hyperlinks. If a person is an ethnic Russian in Eastern Ukraine specifically descended from Novorossiyan colonists, Novorossiya as a term having continued to be in use right up until the founding of the current Ukrainian polity in 1919, it is entirely reasonable to classify them separately from both ethnic Ukrainians and more recent Russian immigrants, but that's getting off topic.

If anything my proposal for the article is even more anti-Kremlin than Alaexis's, since I'm trying to put the Russian-aligned goals of the group front and center, I just think that the acknowledgement (or lack thereof) of the confederation as a separate entity should be consistent between the caption and the lead. Orchastrattor (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Or even just consistent with the rest of the infobox, actually, "Belligerents" just puts them as a Russian-backed faction rather than the full-on false flag operation you are insisting them to be. Orchastrattor (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I am not assuming bad faith. There is no collective New Russian identity that in any way affects our decision here (if there are individuals who claim seventeenth-century Russian colonist ancestry, I do not see it in this article). The DLNR were Russian proxies from 2014, not independent actors. The parts of the article that reflect the noncommittal 2014 position of much of the press are the ones that should be adjusted to reflect the clear academic and journalistic consensus of 2023.  —Michael Z. 19:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Cinderella157. The usual objection to the use of “proxy” for the so-called separatists has been that they were supposedly independent. Here it is factually supported that they were not proxies of Russia because a substantial proportion of them were actually Russian forces. This represents a positive sea change in the debate.  —Michael Z. 05:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Let's look at what sources say. Mark Galeotti in his Armies of Russia's War in Ukraine named the chapter about the anti-Ukrainian but not-explicitly-Russian combatants "The Rebels" which is a good NPOV term we can use as well. He also writes (on pp. 19-20) that some of these groups arose independently while other were created by Russian intelligence services, and eventually all of them were brought under control of DNR/LNR people's militias which were in turn dominated by Russia.

Since we just don't know whether the guys depicted there (or their commanders) are locals or Russian soldiers, but we do know that they fought under the DPR flag, I would suggest a different option: "DPR forces during the Donbas war" Alaexis_¿question? 12:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

The photo is from May 2015. Courts have ruled that the DLNR were under overall control of Russia from April or May 2014.

Galeotti 2019:17 says “2014 saw Russia increasingly mixing its own soldiers and even whole units in with the insurgent militias . . . This was not enough, however . . . Moscow was forced to escalate, sending more of its own troops into the field. The period of a so-called ‘hybrid war’ . . . was virtually over. Instead this was looking much more like a conventional (even if undeclared) war.” 19: “Russia’s forces – and the proxy armies they have raised, equipped and supported – remain in the disputed region”

Also p. 19: “The bulk of anti-government forces in the Donbas are proxies: local militias (in some cases, essentially organized criminal gangs given official status), volunteers, defectors from government forces, Cossacks, and mercenaries. Some formed in early 2014 out of genuine hostility to the new government in Kyiv, but many were also created by Russian FSB or GRU operatives, and even those which emerged independently have been brought under the control of the Russian-dominated DNR and LNR ‘People’s Militias.’”

The NPOV view is that they are Russian-controlled proxies since 2014.  —Michael Z. 15:46, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

That's still only the majority rather than 100%, there just isn't anything to tie the specific DPR forces in question to the Russian government exclusively without skirting much too close to WP:Synthesis to comfortably include in an article on an ongoing event.

There is also still a lot of nuance not covered by the term "proxy", as the Confederation still functioned at one point or another as an separate proto-state, namely one with its own de jure claims that both independent and proxy forces presumably rely on for legitimacy. "Pro-Russian" or "Russian-backed" remain the most reasonable descriptors. Orchastrattor (talk) 17:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Balderdash. Sources say DLNR were Russian controlled proxies. “The Confederation” was thought up by Surkov in the Kremlin and created by Putin’s thugs in Ukraine. There were no independent forces.

We’ve cited the sources that say so.  —Michael Z. 18:10, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

The court rulings are not the absolute truth, these are just primary sources which we can use but they don't override everything else. Also, while he does use the word "proxies" he also uses the words "rebels" (even more prominently).

My suggestion to write "DPR forces" sidesteps the issue. The reader will understand from the article that DPR was to a large degree controlled by Russia and we don't need to explain all the details in the image caption. Alaexis_¿question? 17:57, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

They are un-contradicted legal facts.

Yes, Galeotti uses “rebels” as a convenient label, and even refers to “Russian and rebel forces.” As I quoted above, he explicitly explains that the rebels are Russian-controlled proxies.

But no, having reviewed the above, and having no information about what unit is pictured, explicitly labelling them “DPR” as if we could somehow ascertain that they are not Russian forces with DNR and some other flag on their armoured vehicles does not sidestep the issue. In fact they are “Russian forces and/or Russian-controlled proxy forces.” There actually is no way to distinguish Russian from Russian proxy forces in this photo.  —Michael Z. 18:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

The DLNR’s lack of independence is consensus in three different realms: 1) the legal, as determined in multiple court findings that they were under overall control of Russia and therefore Russia is responsible for their war crimes, which was reported by numerous secondary sources,[52][53] and 2) in the academic, as stated in Prof. Galeotti’s book, in Plokhy’s The Russo-Ukrainian War (2023), among many others, and 3) in current journalism, where, for example, the maps of the war which up to two or three years ago bore a legend like “controlled by Russian-backed separatists” (and extremely rarely as separate “DNR” and “LNR” entities), now say “Russian occupied before February 24, 2022,” and the DLNR entities themselves are almost never mentioned, except when referring to specific military units or statements by specific Russian civil-military occupation authorities.  —Michael Z. 20:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

The primary issue here is the use of proxy in the subject caption. The main issue is that it is ambiguously used but also, it is neither supported nor explained by this iteration of the article in the body of the article. We should be using WP:PLAINENGLISH - that is unambiguous and readily understood. Russian-backed separatist forces or Russian-controlled separatist forces are descriptions that are unambiguous and readily understood. Consequently, the caption should be replaced. A second issue arises from the use of proxies in the lead where the normal meaning of this is one that acts for and in the absence of another. The Russians have been present since near the start of the war. The term is not being used consistent with its usual meaning. While some sources may use the term to describe the separatists as proxies, there is nuance to how and why they use this description which is neither supported by nor explained in this iteration of the body of the article. Again, we should be using plain English. While I do not dispute that sources would describe the separatists as Russian controlled, it is again, something that is neither supported by nor explained in this iteration of the body of the article - as far as I can see. An article must be contained within itself. If we are to say this, then the article needs to be modified. At the very least, we would need a citation to a good quality source where it is stated - this is, after all, a claim that could be seen as exceptional. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:36, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Do current sources still call them separatist forces? They certainly aren’t separatists now, and that is confusing without explaining their perceived status then, our understanding of it now, and their integration with RAF after the “annexations.” And the term is problematic as their Russian bosses goals were not exactly separating. We need a single term with currency.  —Michael Z. 14:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

What if they were referred to as “Russian and separatist forces”?  —Michael Z. 15:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

One can still reasonably say of the present, they are separatists that have been integrated into the RAF. I don't see anything particularly confusing. The lead explains that they were separatists and that theses regions have now been annexed. Their Russian bosses goals were to have them separate from Ukraine and be integrated into Russia. What is problematic. They were not Russian forces (RAF) at the time of the photo and what the photo depicts. Applying some term for the present to the past is an anachronism. The KISS principle applies. Not saying mine is the best solution but I don't think "Russian and separatist forces" is a good solution. An alternative is to remove the image and remove the issue. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:18, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Out of the 6 images in the infobox, 5 of them are related to russia

Shouldn't at least 1 other show something WP:DUEly relevant to Ukraine? Maybe them defending inside a building or something? It seems like too much of a focus on one party in a war for an infobox, I think it would be better to add two images than replace one DarmaniLink (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

It is lacking any image from the last nine months.  —Michael Z. 13:59, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Pro-Ukrainian Wikipedia editors should be careful here. For might not such images be useful in highlighting UN reports about the way Ukrainian forces have used civilian building as fire bases? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.182 (talk) 14:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Support and Backing for a Proxy War

While keen to keep its' troops out of harms way, the US is willing to spend billions on arms, training and other aid to maintain the conflict in the Ukraine. Given this, might there not be a section called: 'US Support for a Proxy War'?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.75.83 (talk • contribs)

Has been discussed multiple times before. In short, reliable sources do not widely describe this as a proxy conflict. — Czello ^(music) 09:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Broadly that's the case, but I'd add one small but significant caveat to what Czello said. Because once you consider RS from India, Anglophone Africa, etc. there is probably enough for one or two lines under WP:DUE.

That being said, I have little interest in debating that point at the moment. I suppose one could get four RS or so and boldly add the sentence, and it would have a 50/50 chance of avoiding the BRD cycle. Myself, I have other stuff on my mind right now. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 10:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

No, as the US did not arm Ukraine till after Russia invaded, this is not a Proxy war. As best we might have one line that says "and some have claimed this is a proxy war". Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The Donbas War was a Russian proxy war in the sense that Russians working for the Kremlin came to Ukraine and started it, the Kremlin had overall control of its forces there from April or May 2014, and its “New Russia” project had too little local support to continue fighting using solely its irregular cadrés and local proxies, so was forced to send in mechanized formations from August 2014 to February 2015 to keep from watching them get pushed to the Russian border.

Since February 2022, it is not a proxy war in this sense, that it exists only due to a foreign power’s influence, at all. Russia openly invaded, is integrating the “DLNR” forces into its own (using them up in meatwaves and bulking them up with mobiks), and is forcibly changing the demographic composition of the territories it occupied before and since the invasion (accused of genocide, and its head of state a fugitive rom justice).

Ukrainians led by their elected government stopped the Russian invasion before they were provided anything more than insurgency weapons, and many sources predict they would have and still would continue fighting with no foreign support at all.

It might be considered a proxy war by some reliable sources in the sense that 70 states are aiding Ukraine against an adversary. This is a weaker and less clear sense of the word, and it is not what Russian, anti-Ukrainian, “anti-globalist,” and US isolationist propaganda mean when they use this word. I suspect it’s not used this way by many of them, because of its wide misuse, and because it means radically different things when referring to Russian proxy forces and the Ukrainians, and its use risks confusing issues and playing into the hands of Kremlin propagandists and their fellow travellers.

Because the term is loaded and ambiguous, it should probably be glossed on first use, especially when used to refer to aid to Ukraine. I think this article needs to address this question head-on by explaining changing views on the Russian role (e.g., what RS used to label “occupied by Russian-backed separatists” on maps is now labelled “Russian occupied before February 24, 2022.”. —Michael Z. 23:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

With respect, this is semantic quibbling and not in line with the definition at Proxy war or examples such as Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict.

Obviously OP’s proposal is not a viable one. That being said, aspects of the overall trends and tendencies in RS coverage of support are not precisely in line with our current revision’s coverage. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 02:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

RadioactiveBoulevardier, sorry, but you are wrong on both of your points. Michael Z.'s explanation of the meaning of "proxy war" was exactly in line with our article's definition (at the instigation or on behalf of). A Kenyan, Nigerian or Indian newspaper might be a highly reliable source for events in that respective country, but still not fit for use in this article, see WP:RSCONTEXT and the following sections. Also, we have far better sources than just news. I personally recommend Andreas Kappeler, Serhii Plokhy, and Timothy Snyder, all of them high-profile historians who cover the war in their recent publications, demonstrating that Ukraine is fighting for its existence as a nation, and not at the instigation or on behalf of anybody else. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, I was not suggesting that the Ukrainians are fighting because they are Western proxies, but rather that a major, or even perhaps the primary, purpose of some supporters in their continued provision of support (training, intel sharing, etc. in addition to munitions and other matériel) is arguably to engage in proxy warfare with Russia, and that this is borne out by (specifically, Western blue-chip periodical) RS.

The mention of Global South publications was in the context that in many parts of the world the conflict is widely viewed as a frontline of great power competition rather than simply Goliath invading David’s territory. This viewpoint should of course be given due weight, since a nontrivial fraction of the world’s population live in these countries.

Also, WP:RSCONTEXT doesn’t fully support your statement in general. Dismissing Indian newspapers’, in particular, reporting about world events (apparently, if I understand you correctly, because they allegedly don’t engage in the same rigorous practices that newspapers in other countries are thought to follow) is a very problematic suggestion that reeks of WP:BIAS in my view.

I mentioned the Global South because, as I’ve more or less said before, I see this, a major ongoing topic area in a time when WP is supposed to be self-aware about these things, as something of a test case for whether WP is serious about representing a worldwide (or even Anglophone world-wide) perspective, or whether countervailing processes will win the day. Refusing to recognize even the possibility that there might exist valid viewpoints besides the one(s) commonly held by the EC editing community is essentially large-scale groupthink; such a systemic weakness in Wikipedia’s system could be existential.

In addition, this topic area is illustrative of a wide variety of other pitfalls. Wp is supposed to be encyclopedic; numerous lead sections in the topic area, such as Russian invasion of Ukraine and several incidents during the invasion, have a blatantly journalistic tone and layout. A careful examination of the archives at Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine and other threads elsewhere reveals some quite fascinating trends and patterns. And last but definitely not least, new content additions frequently require extensive copy editing, from basic proofreading to layout and cohesion issues. (at one point, a major contributor mispel’d Bakhmut multiple times despite it already appearing a few lines above; and don’t get me started on List of aircraft losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War, which would be even worse without the help of your friendly neighborhood WikiDee).

Anyway, I’m not sure how familiar you are with the history of discussions in the topic area, so perhaps one or two things I mentioned were new to you. I didn’t really start drafting with the intention of writing a frank critique of various editing behaviors I’ve seen here; it just sort of…happened. At least it’s nominally germane to the topic, and hopefully it will be helpful for these points to have been aired.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 13:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

perhaps the primary, purpose of some supporters . . . is arguably to engage in proxy warfare with Russia — what does that actually mean? Doublespeak. That doesn’t make Russia’s war in Ukraine a ”proxy war.” The UN Charter VII.51 recognizes states’ “inherent right of collective or individual self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations.” No one is waging any kind of war against Russia. They are engaging in self-defence. Russia can stop the war this morning just by ceasing its illegal invasion of Ukraine.

This viewpoint should of course be given due weight, since a nontrivial fraction of the world’s population — so the communist South China Morning Post is the weightiest most reliable source because of its large potential readership? Nonsense.  —Michael Z. 15:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Again, arguing against the wrong target isn’t going to move the discussion forward. Why the heck would I support such an amateurish move as adding a a section called: 'US Support for a Proxy War', as Essex IP had suggested?

The statement of mine you referred to means exactly what it says. And for the future, using the term “doublespeak” in this topic area could be construed as a dog-whistle personal attack given Moscow’s elevation of it to an art form (no examples necessary 😏).

And by the way, after a quick search for “are we in a proxy war with russia” (the last three words were the top suggestion after the first part) I found this RS from The Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/04/18/russia-ukraine-war-us-involvement-leaked-documents/

To my knowledge, the US at least has not formally invoked any right of collective self-defense at any point.

As for your counterexample of a supposedly sussy non-Western source, please see WP:SCMP. And please don’t throw around labels. Is Le Figaro “neo-colonialist” now?

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 04:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:SCMP is based on a 2020 RfC. After the implementation of the Hong Kong national security law, there is no freedom of the press left in Hongkong. Common sense should tell you that SCMP is no longer reliable on issues the Chinese government is interested in. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

The RfC appears to postdate the new laws. And regardless, I haven’t seen any reason to believe that Ukraine falls in the category of topics subject to coerced self-censorship, as you suggested. Much the opposite; a quick perusal looks just fine, with bonus points for a high news-to-opinion piece ratio.

You could always start a new RfC since consensus can change.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 05:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The decline in Hong Kong's ranking on the Press Freedom Index published annually by Reporters Without Borders has been vertiginous: it stood at 148th in 2022, having dropped 68 places from the year prior; it ranked 71st place in 2015, from our article on Censorship in Hong Kong. Please note that the RfC pre-dates the drop. A quick perusal normally is not enough for judging the quality of a paper. The people who control the Chinese media are often quite intelligent and know the tricks, like selecting those news that seem to support their ideology and suppressing the other ones, even adding some news that seem to contradict their normal views to gain credibility, and so on. The Chinese government is a close ally of Russia, so they are taking active interest in Ukraine, and they certainly don't like the idea that a revolution could topple an authoritarian regime and lead to a democracy. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

You misinterpret the UN Charter statement. Ukraine has the right to self-defence. The US and any other state has the right to intervene by the use of force to aid in Ukraine’s self-defence against Russia’s illegal war of aggression (collective self-defence), but none has, so it is only individual self-defence that is taking place.

No one is waging any kind of warfare with Russia. Ukraine is engaging in self-defence as is its right.

I apologize if I implied your assertions are in bad faith by the term “doublespeak.” To say someone else’s primary purpose is waging war against Russia, by supplying Ukraine’s individual self-defence, is very wrong, whyever it’s said.  —Michael Z. 03:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Then again, within Washington, does there not remain a number of would-be Rambows that cannot admit the cold war is over? For they retain an interest in waging any kind of warfare, or using any tactics, to undermine Russia (or any other national that stands in their way). While not willing to allow American troops to kill and be killed, are not these latter-day Dr Strange Loves more than wiling to let the Ukrainians die for their aims? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.182 (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

RadioactiveBoulevardier, if I understand you correctly, because they allegedly ... Wrong again. What I wanted to point out is that we don't count reliable sources, but that we carefully weigh "[E]ach source ... to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made", see WP:RSCONTEXT. A high-profile scholar is better than a newspaper and a newspaper with expertise on Ukraine is better than one without. If you have good (i.e. as good as the scholars I mentioned or better) sources calling the war a "proxy war", feel free to present them. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Can you link to publications by the historians you mentioned that specifically analyze the purpose of various countries’ support? Paywall is usually fine because of WP-library 😉

As I already said above, I’m not suggesting that Ukraine is engaging in proxy warfare (judging by the official rhetoric, they see the struggle as a second Great Patriotic War), but that some of the countries providing support do so primarily within a geopolitical context.

In fact, although it’s certainly debatable, I would tentatively take the position that WP’s current framing of the war primarily as an existential ethnic conflict, as the Ukrainian government has done, without giving due weight to the geopolitical context (which btw would still permit the depiction of Putin as a Machiavellian aggressor), might well constitute POV in and of itself. Some editors have in the past specifically insisted on downplaying this.

In terms of historians and current conflicts, sound historiography entails demonstrating theses. The analytical methodology being applied is usually the main thing; in general, I would be somewhat skeptical of opaque final products. In addition, being “high-profile” outside one’s field can be for…a variety of reasons.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 03:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Being not young any more, I am also somewhat old-fashioned: I like to read complete books, Serhii Plokhy's The Gates of Europe and The Russo-Ukrainian War and Andreas Kappeler's Kleine Geschichte der Ukraine. They are not available online as far as I know. Snyder's 23 lectures on Ukraine have been recorded and are available for free here. Both Kappeler and Plokhy are perfectly inside their field (specialists for (Russian and) Ukrainian history), and Snyder at least dedicated a whole course to Ukraine. I don't see that Ukraine's government is framing the war as an "ethnic conflict". From Ukraine's perspective it's a nation fighting for its survival against another nation that has for centuries undertaken to colonize it. Supporters of Ukraine have - of course - different motives, but none of them has been actively challenging Russia over Ukraine. It is Russia that's openly talking of a "New World Order" (e.g. on RT) and demanding that their non-existent right to control countries outside their borders be respected. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

"This viewpoint should of course be given due weight, since a nontrivial fraction of the world’s population live in these countries." - we write articles based on what experts in RS say, not on what random people think. It also presupposes that a publication can be representative of what any given country's population thinks, which makes no sense. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Note it does not matter if we can find definitions of proxy war that fit this, we need RS saying it is a proxy war, not our wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Somewhere above I linked an article that discusses it at length from The Washington Post. I’m sure others could be found.

But I definitely appreciate your caution against WP:SYNTH and will take it to heart, because it seems to be a perennial bane. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Which does not say it is a Proxy war, it says it has been called one. As I said in my OP in this thread we have eon ugh to say "and has been called a proxy war", not enough to say it is one. 11:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)

And then, we would also need to explain why they have called it a proxy war. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Chechen Volunteers in the side of ukraine

There are chechen groups in ukraine fighting against the russians , so you can guys add "Chechen volunteers" in the interface? Jaztie não é árabe (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, only the most important facts shall be added there. Single events that seem to show the existence of something are not enough to make it important. Rsk6400 (talk) 04:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#RfC on Belarus in the infobox

Please provide input at the subject discussion. The question arises because supported by is now deprecated. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 August 2023

Due to the 2023 Tver plane crash in which Yevgeny Prigozhin is presumed dead, the infobox should be updated to reflect that. I assume this would be done by adding a {{PKIA}} right after his name in on the Commanders section, or whatever classification is applicable as I cannot find any documentation for what to use in a situation like this. CondenserCoil 17:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Was he KIA? Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

If he was killed, it’s considered likely to be an assassination ordered by his own C-in-C or the Russian MoD. Not killed in action. Just murdered.  —Michael Z. 12:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

A dagger character should be added next to his name, similar to other page infoboxes indicating leaders killed during their respective wars. KennethHampton (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

How does WP:BLP apply to this? The main article currently says “presumed dead.” I think a dagger means just “dead.”  —Michael Z. 23:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 12:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Analysis on cause of conflict?

It isn’t a proposition for edits, but I want to ask people’s opinions on what exactly happened here. Like what is it the largest factor leading to Russia invading Ukraine. I am of the opinion that NATO expansion is the largest factor, but I don’t want to get stuck in an echo chamber. Velockies (talk) 13:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Please read wp:forum, this is not what this talk page is for. Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 27 September 2023

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. According to WP:GS/RUSUKR only extended-confirmed users may start this kind of discussion. (non-admin closure) Rsk6400 (talk) 16:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

---

Russo-Ukrainian War → Russo–Ukrainian War – Relation is indicated with an en dash (e.g. Soviet–Afghan War), not a hyphen. ―  Ö S M A N  (talk · contribs) 13:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES (i thought this was the rule too up until recently)—blindlynx 14:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Russia–Ukraine would use a dash, but Russo-Ukraiinian uses a hyphen. Prefixes like "Sino-", "Russo-", "Franco-" etc use a hyphen. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Ukrainian Recruitment Problems

At the same time as President Volodymyr Zelensky sacks "every regional head of recruitment", BBC News reports that the Ukraine "constantly needs to replace the tens of thousands who've been killed or injured in the war."

However, while some men don't want to fight, thousands "have left the country, sometimes after bribing officials, and others are finding ways of dodging recruitment officers."

Give this latest news, have Wikipedia any plans for a section on Ukrainian causality and recruitment problems?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.181 (talk • contribs)

This is likely not appropriate for this main article unless it becomes more serious and significant. However, you’re welcome to make the request at Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine or Talk:2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Invasion rather than 'conflict'

The word 'conflict' in the very first words of this great article imply that we don't talk about the reality: an invasion', an 'agression', an 'unprovoked attack' 2A02:A03F:6159:7500:413B:7639:F85E:B4BF (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

In encompasses more than just the invasion, though. The war has been going since 2014, which has included periods of low-intensity conflict that can't accurately be defined as an invasion. — Czello ^(music) 22:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Russia did invade Crimea in February 2014, and eastern Ukraine with irregulars in April 2014, and with regular forces in August 2014, and hasn’t left since. It’s all unprovoked aggression.  —Michael Z. 23:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

What about calling it a Conflict on Russia's Doorstep? For, despite promises not to, NATO continues to move it's bases ever-closer to Russia. With such an hostile move, is it any wonder that the Russians view the actions of NATO with more than a little concern? Consider how the US reacted then the USSR placed missiles is Cuba. For are we saying/admitting that it is okay for the US to have Areas of National Interest around the globe - but no one else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.232 (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

No, no we are not. Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Yevgeny Prigozhin

@RadioactiveBoulevardier: The third thing I forgot to mention was that Yevgeny Prigozhin removed the Wagner group from Ukraine before his death. Such a procedure was implemented for John F. Kennedy in the Bay of Pigs invasion and Template was not used. Parham wiki (talk) 11:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that's an appropriate analogy. Prigozhin's death is universally considered to have been due to the war, if indirectly.

If you want to remove the mark, I won't contest it for now, since it's still a bit recent and RS are still looking at it through the framework of recent events.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

alongside Russian-backed separatists

@Cinderella157 reverted[54] my edit to the lead with the edit summary “what does that really mean?,” where I had changed the definition of one side in the conflict from #1 to #2:

1. Russia alongside Russian-backed separatists
2. Russia exerting de-facto control over Russian-backed separatists

The problem with #1 is that Russia hasn’t been fighting alongside anyone for the duration of this conflict, and to say so represents an extremely non-neutral POV.

The article states “By April 2014, Russian citizens had taken control of the separatist movement, supported by volunteers and materiel from Russia, including Chechen and Cossack fighters.” Recent sources describe the non-government-controlled territory as “Russian-occupied before February 2022” or similar. The Dutch court found that the Russian-led militants were under “overall control” of Russia by mid May of 2014. Plokhy 2023, The Russo-Ukrainian War, says:

• “The relative ease with which Russian mercenaries, supported by local separatist forces, were able to capture and hold hostage the inhabitants of the Ukrainian Donbas, most of whom wanted to stay in Ukraine, has a number of explanations.” (p 124)
• “Backed by Russian money and instructed and directed by the Russian intelligence services, the Russian nationalists and Eurasianists soon took control of the newly proclaimed republics.” (125)
• “Russia’s annexation of the Crimea and de facto takeover of the Donbas . . . ” (126)
• May 26 First Battle of Donetsk Airport: “The separatists suffered major losses, with dozens killed; most of the dead turned out to be mercenaries from Russia” (127)

The source then describes how Russia started using Tornado rocket launchers July 13, started shooting down Ukrainian aviation with heavy AD missiles July 14, etcetera.

Russia wasn’t “alongside” any militants: it controlled them, and fought directly in Ukraine with its own mechanized forces, early on. The lead should reflect the reality.  —Michael Z. 02:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

This is the first sentence of the lead. With only minor superficial changes, it has had consensus for over 12 months. What you would add increases the complexity of the sentence and decreases the readabilty accordingly. Your edit summary making the change would state: “Alongside separatists” is incorrect. Were there both Russians and Russian-backed separatists [from Ukraine] fighting against Ukrainians? The answer is yes. The statement is accurate. What does exerting de-facto control over mean? De-facto would be redundant and the conclusions you would be citing do not find that the separatists were always under Russian control. There is a net defecit to readability by the edit with no mitigating benefit. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The militias were always under Russian control, and the statement is about the present. Russia is not fighting Ukraine alongside any “separatists.” The DLNR “people’s militias” – 1st Army Corps (Russia) and 2nd Army Corps (Russia) – have been openly, de facto, and de jure part of the Russian Armed Forces for over a year now, they have always been under Kremlin control for 9-1/2 years, and separatism is criminal under Russian law. It’s misleading.

So let’s improve the wording, because it is currently a net deficit to the article and must go.  —Michael Z. 04:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Simplest and most WP:DUE solution is to just remove mention of the people’s militias from that sentence altogether.  —Michael Z. 04:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I did just that, then I came here in order to explain myself and found that I unwittingly followed your idea. The separatists are just not important enough to be mentioned in the first sentence. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I can live with this. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Is it too soon to now discuss rephrasing “and supported pro-Russian separatists fighting the Ukrainian military”? This makes it sound like Ukrainian separatists started a war and Russia sent them money and Amazon deliveries. But Russians started the shooting war, Russia soon controlled the militants, Russian mercenaries and mechanized formations of the RAF fought in it. It was exclusively an international conflict, and not a civil war or both. —Michael Z. 17:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

What would you propose it to read? Cinderella157 (talk) 02:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Minor grammar typo correction

Can someone with edit permissions, in section History > War in the Donbas > Mariupol offensive and first Minsk ceasefire, change the sentence:

"On 4 September 2014, a NATO officer said that several thousand regular Russian forces operating in Ukraine."

to

"On 4 September 2014, a NATO officer said that several thousand regular Russian forces wereoperating in Ukraine."

98.207.204.157 (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Parham wiki (talk) 16:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

"… resulted in 'tens of thousands' of deaths"?

Considering Russian military losses are almost 300,000, Ukraine's not much less, and all the civilian casualties, isn't it time to revise the absurdity that is 'tens of thousands' of deaths resulting from this hideous war?

There were 'tens of thousands' of deaths just in-and-around Mariupol last year. 2A02:2378:102E:78D5:F5E0:C158:5A3B:C0CF (talk) 18:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

It should say that some estimates are in the hundreds of thousands.  —Michael Z. 23:29, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Belligerents → Main belligerents

I suggest changing Belligerents to Main belligerents in infobox because Iran, Belarus (some argue that Belarus is a belligerent and cited a source), Wagner group, Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, Black Brigade Bridge and many partisan groups are not in infobox. Parham wiki (talk) 20:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Manyareasexpert: @Mzajac: @Rsk6400: @Cinderella157: @Slatersteven: @Super Dromaeosaurus: Parham wiki (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

We can just use RS [55] [56] and add Belarus. Other than that - as soon as sources are provided. Manyareasexpert (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

No.

Belarus is a special case: it is not a legal belligerent, but it has chosen to involve its territory, airspace, and borders in a war of aggression and therefore is a legal aggressor, it uses the threat of invasion with its forces to pin Ukrainian forces along its 1,000-km mutual border, and it has participated in war crimes (forcible deportation of Ukrainian children).

Iran is not a belligerent. It has only sent some people to help the Russians operate drones.

Wagner, Chechen forces (Kadyrovites and definitely not Ichkeria), and dozens of others are Russian forces subordinate to the Kremlin, and not sovereign actors (dunno what Black Brigade is).  —Michael Z. 21:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mzajac The Chechen Republic of Ichkeria (Chechen government in exile) and the Black Brigade are enemies of the Kremlin.[57] Parham wiki (talk) 21:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The Wagner Group had rebelled against the government. Parham wiki (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mzajac: I apologize for the mistake Parham wiki (talk) 22:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Parham wiki, nothing to apologize for. Just giving you my view of how these things relate to the way the contents of the infobox field is defined. I think the field is for sovereign state actors in international wars like this one, or for groups claiming to be such in civil wars. (DLNR do not belong there at all, because they were always Kremlin controlled Kremlin creations: the DNR People’s Militia/1st Army Corps and LNR People’s Militia/2nd Army Corps always were military formations under direct command of Russian officers.)

Chechens on Ukraine’s side fight as part of Ukrainian forces (I think their status is similar to the foreign legions). If Black Brigade means the anti-Kremlin Russians, then same.

Wagner never claimed to rebel against the Kremlin, only acted to apply political pressure for Putin to change the military command. It may be considered a belligerent in the Wagner Group rebellion article, within the scope of that one-day “conflict.”  —Michael Z. 00:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Now I see that the Black Brigade (Black Bridge?) are Russians in political opposition who have committed sabotage. In my opinion they do not rate as an actor on the scale of this international war to enter as a key fact (per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE) into the infobox.  —Michael Z. 00:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't mean that they should be added to the infobox, I mean that it should be like this. Parham wiki (talk) 10:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I view this as a solution looking for a problem - ie not needed. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: What will be the problem? The reader understands that other parties are involved in the war. Parham wiki (talk) 10:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The change is begging a question and not helpful. This page is not like WW2 that does use Main belligerents because it is helpful. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

What question? Parham wiki (talk) 10:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

If these are the main ones, who are the others? As I read the consensus here, those you would list are not considered belligerents in the context of the infobox parameter for this article. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I do not think that individual units should be in the info box as belligerents. As to nations, see FAQ, nothing has changed. Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I don't mean that they should be added to the infobox, I mean that it should be like this. Parham wiki (talk) 11:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I see no separate units listed there. Nor do I think we need links to other articles in the info box, which should be a summery of the summery of the article. Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The only thing that is added is that they are not the only parties involved in the war. Parham wiki (talk) 12:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Russia and Ukraine are the only parties that can be called "belligerents" in any meaningful sense. For the rest, agreeing with Cinderella157. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh I see, only changing the header[58] to not imply that these are the only ones. Well, I think the difference is too subtle for it to carry meaning, and there’s no consensus that these aren’t the only belligerents at least by a certain definition. I’m opposed to the change that’s insufficiently justified, although it’s so insignificant that I won’t bother arguing against it any further.  —Michael Z. 14:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Spillover into Sudan

@Slatersteven: What is your concern? Parham wiki (talk) 13:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I do not see how this is related, care to actually make a case? Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: RS clearly says this. Parham wiki (talk) 14:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe, but the infobox is (in a sense) a summary of a summary. It is meant to summarise the most important and significant parts of OUR article (not anyone else's). I do not think that an (unsubstantiated) allegation meets that criteria. Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I have added information about Sudan to the article and will expand it soon. Also This is not baseless. The Chief of the Main Directorate of Intelligence of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine did not rule out the expansion of the war to Sudan and said that they will punish Russian war criminals anywhere in the world. Citing videos and experts, CNN found evidence of Ukraine's involvement in Sudan. Ukrainian website Babel published new videos from Ukrainian intelligence sources confirming it. The word "probably" solves the problem that it is an allegation. Parham wiki (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

According to MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE the infobox is for the key facts from the article. Also: There are many spillovers. If a Russian child starts a fight with a Ukrainian child on e.g. a German school yard, that may be reported in the local newspaper, but still is not relevant enough for this article. Parham wiki, there are things that are relevant and things that are not. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Rsk6400:

1. So I will write information about it in the article.
2. Targeting the Wagner Group in a place that is being used to finance the war and divert attention from the invasion is like two children fighting?!

Parham wiki (talk) 14:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Per Rsk6400, I don't see that it is a key fact for inclusion in the infobox. With qualifying terms like possible and likely, I'm not so certain it even has a place in the article per WP:VNOT and WP:ONUS. One drone attack is just a footnote to the greater events that have/are happening. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

We do have articles on drone tracks, but this looks like it is more than that.[59]  —Michael Z. 04:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Background: Crimean History?

Crimea's history as a territory of pre-Soviet Russia, as well as it's short-lived post-Soviet independence from either Russia or Ukraine that ended in 1994, I would say are an essential and fundamental part of understanding Russia's claim and attitude towards Crimea. I believe there should be at least one paragraph covering this under "Background," preceding all that is already written there. Isz Chepewéssin (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

This can be added iff reliable sources discussing the article subject delve into Crimea's history. Otherwise such material is non-compliant with OR. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what 'OR' is? Isz Chepewéssin (talk) 05:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

It is shorthand for the no original research policy. Wikipedia prohibits the inclusion of original (meaning editor created) material, including any analysis or synthesis of sources. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Alright, thank you Isz Chepewéssin (talk) 05:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Biased language

"Ukrainian forces have also been accused of committing various war crimes, including mistreatment of detainees, though on a much smaller scale than Russian forces" in the Human Rights Violations section, though sourced, goes against the guideline of maintaining a neutral stance. According to the source they gave, this is true. However Ukraine's human rights abuses are widely documented, including by the US State Department, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International. 50.247.119.46 (talk) 09:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

No it does not, we go by what RS say, please read wp:falsbalance. Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 February 2024

This original text: “…Russia had no plans to occupy the country. Russian forces invaded Ukraine. The invasion was…”

Should be changed to: “…Russia had no plans to occupy the country. Russian forces subsequently invaded Ukraine. The invasion was…”

The addition of “subsequently” improves the flow of the text. Miaguy13 (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 February 2024

I would like to suggest the addition to the article in the section of "Human rights violations" a mention of the deliberate targeting of health care, which will likely top 1500 incidents in the extremely near future, or perhaps a small note about this, with a link to the article i maintain - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_strikes_on_hospitals_during_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine Kevin3452 (talk) 21:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

You need to propose a specific wording and the sources to cite with it Kevin3452. As is in the instructions of the template. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, the article you are maintaining is one you are prohibited from editing directly per WP:GSRUSUKR: Only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area. The talk namespace is the only area you may edit in, and without engaging in project internal discussions. This isn't your fault, an EC page lock hasn't been placed on the page, and I don't see the edits presently made as being disruptive, but you should be notified of the restriction nonetheless. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, how about adding after the section

"as well as sexual violence, including cases of rape, sexual assault and gang rape, and deliberate killing of Ukrainian civilians by Russian forces."

"Russia has also systematic attacked Ukrainian medical infrastructure on an unprecedented scale, with the World Health Organization reporting 1422 attacks on healthcare as of 21 December 2023.[60]"

I don't have any particular attachment to the wording, it's just odd that the article does not mention the words "hospital" or "healthcare" while it does have a section that mentions the attacks on the Ukrainian Power grid twice (Perhaps it would fit here better?). I felt as though the page i largely maintain is not really needed as much if it were part of a larger article, but it might be better to just mention it in passing and direct them away from the larger article for more details if desired. Kevin3452 (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• Now done: With the specific information added this would now appear to be a reasonable request. I did a copy edit on the wording, mainly to remove the editorialising (on an unprecedented scale) and used the bibliographic info for the citation as done in the linked article. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

"2014 Ukraine crisis" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 2014 Ukraine crisis has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 21 § 2014 Ukraine crisis until a consensus is reached. Yorkporter (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 February 2024

Adding Romania to the spill-overs, like Poland, as dozens of drones and missiles hit the Romanian territory. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66727788 Mariusx12 (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done Mr. Lechkar (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, if you kindly can add it to the location too (in the infobox) as i initially intended this. Thank you. Mariusx12 (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 February 2024

Adding "Romania" to the locations in the infobox, after Poland and before Moldova as i told before but i explained it wrong, thank you for the understanding. Sources: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66727788

https://www.politico.eu/article/nato-romania-accuses-russia-of-irresponsible-escalation-over-drone-crash/ Mariusx12 (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

 Already done Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 18:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Ukrainians in Sudan

https://www.wsj.com/world/ukraine-is-now-fighting-russia-in-sudan-87caf1d8

WSJ reports Ukrainian forces combatting Russian Contractors in Sudan. This is corroborated by videos and media released by Ukraine. Could this mean Sudan gets added to the ‘Location’ section? Maxttck (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Invasion, agression, attack, unprovoqued war...

Not conflict. Children are bombarded also. Women, families. It is unfair. Thanks for correcting your title. Youth will remember you for a very long time. Pottier2023 (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

None of the sides, Ukraine including, has officially declared or recognized it as a war. This is the reason Ukraine still doing some business with Russia, for example, by pumping gas to Moldova through Ukrainian territory. But yes, it is a war. Of course. My very best wishes (talk) 17:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

It is a conflict, because every war is a conflict. But it is more specifically a war, the worst type of conflict, and it should be called a war. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

The date of the war…

This war started in 2022, not 2014. Donbas war ignited from 2014-15 and afterwards there was a frozen conflict involving russian-armed rebels with ceasefire violations in which only a few hundred russian soldiers died which does not even constitute a war but rather a small scale direct russian intervention. The real full-scale war started after 2022 and every single source says this, i don’t even need to provide sources as it is common sense 78.174.190.122 (talk) 08:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I’ve seen countless number of people complain about this too and some mods would resort to removing the talk instead of following wikipedia guidelines 78.174.190.122 (talk) 08:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Russia invaded Ukraine (Crimea) in 2014. Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Using that logic the iraq war begin in 1991 after america attacked during that year. 78.174.190.122 (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Then make a case there is you think that is the case. Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I believe that the "common name" principle should mean that "Russo-Ukrainian War" refers to the invasion from 2022, and the broader events since 2014 should be called a "Russia-Ukraine conflict" or similar. Note that Wikipedia uses "Israel-Hamas war" to refer to the war that started on October 7, and the broader tensions since 2005 are called the "Gaza-Israel Conflict". 2A02:A31D:E140:2300:5D88:D17B:45C3:5CA5 (talk) 09:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Even the article itself describes a conflict very similar to the pre-October 7th Israeli conflicts with Hamas, which are not listed as one continuous war but rather a large set of conflicts, with the Israel-Hamas war within them. In accordance with this, it would make more sense for this article to be the “Russo-Ukrainian Conflict,” and for the pages to be the “Crimean War,” “Donbas War,” and “Russo-Ukrainian War.” This would make more sense to the average reader, which per Wikipedia guidelines is how the article should be titled. 2600:1002:B02F:FE93:E140:B88C:E1AD:CEE0 (talk) 04:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Do RS say they are separate wars, followed by periods of peace? Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment: There is no consensus that War in Donbas (where Russia is already regarded as a belligerent against Ukraine) ended on 24 February 2022 (see: Talk:War in Donbas#End date). Nevertheless, the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine (since 24 February 2022) partly is a continuation of War in Donbas. Broadly speaking War in Donbas + Russian invasion of Ukraine = Russo-Ukrainian War (this article is broader). The Russo-Ukrainian War has clearly started in 2014 and continues (this is the point of view of Ukrainians and even Putin declared the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine to "end" War in Donbas). Moreover, do not forget that Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine in 2014 by sending its regular army forces (yet again Russia is regarded as a belligerent against Ukraine in Crimea events). Even French media acknowledges that the Russo-Ukrainian War started in 2014 (e.g. see this article). -- Pofka (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, true. This is all correctly described on our pages. As of note, this all started from Russian special forces occupying the legislature building in Crimea in February 2014. That was similar to the takeover of Afghan government buildings during the beginning of Afghanistan war, except that the takeover by Soviet special forces was a lot more bloody. No one dare to resist in Crimea. My very best wishes (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)