Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

RfC on Belarus in the infobox

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.

---

Whether Belarus should continue to be reported in the infobox as supporting (or like) Russia. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

This RfC is opened in light of a recent RfC that specifically deprecates the use of supported by under the belligerent field of Template:Infobox military conflict and because the reporting of Belarus in the infobox as supporting Russia has now been directly challenged by others, directly citing that supported by is now deprecated. As a note, the addition of other countries in support of either Russia or Ukraine is a well settled matter in that there have been several RfCs affirming that other counties and/or NATO should not be recorded. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

In most other contexts this would be mere quibbling, but I would like it to be recorded that (in your own words above) All RfCs were closed with "no consensus". followed by a consensus to postpone further rounds of review is not precisely the same thing as a well settled matter in that there have been several RfCs affirming that other counties and/or NATO should not be recorded.

Regardless, I agree with you that there is no compelling reason to have any instances of "Supported by:" on this page.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 14:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry RadioactiveBoulevardier but I only just noticed this. Your comment of the previous closes is an adequate note. I proposed this RfC to resolve this issue in the light of the RfC that deprecates the usage of "supported by". You will note that I haven't expressed an opinion on the question of this RfC, even if I might have commented on some particular issues otherwise. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Notified at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history and Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Archiving bot reverted pending further discussion or a closure. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

This was archived again without closure, if there is nothing else to add it is probably good to close and have a resolution. BogLogs (talk) 01:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Belarus provided direct military assistance in the form of basing, and transit. Russia even launched missile attacks from its soil. This is rather more than just "support" and raised (to my mind) to the level of belligerent status. Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

It think your justification above is the reason why Belarus is in the infobox at all (while e.g. US, Poland etcetera are not even if they provide weapons to Ukraine). For belligerent the Belarus army should have been engaged in military contact with Ukraine (in my view), that is actual fighting by Belarus armed personnel. There does not seem to be any reports on that. Arnoutf (talk) 13:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Well I am not alone [[1]]. Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what point you want to make with that source, the only Belarusian fighting described there is of Belarusian volunteers fighting on the side of Ukraine. Arnoutf (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Not to mention it’s a POV think tank source with a polemical tone. Seems to be rendering Belarusian ангельцы / Russian англичане as "Englishmen" rather than a more usual near-synonym for effect. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Out of all third parties, Belarus is by far the most involved one; of course it should stay in the "supported by" section. Marcelus (talk) 20:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• The recent RfC specifically deprecated the use of "supported by". To be a belligerent means to engage in the fighting. Supplying weapons to one side or the other or both does not count. Allowing one side or the other to transit your territory or use it as a base area does not count. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Belarus should be remain in the infobox as a substantial contributor to the war on Russia’s side and violator of international laws against aggression, threat of force, crimes against war-affected civilians, and genocide.

Belarus’s involvement is short of participation in armed conflict, but it is concrete and goes beyond rhetorical political support, and it goes beyond the activities of trade and donations, including provision of financial, and humanitarian aid, training, dual-use and military equipment, and weapons. All of those things routinely take place in peacetime and none of them create a state of armed conflict. All of these things are the right of Ukraine and its allies according to the UN Charter art. 51.

Belarus’s involvement includes crimes that can only be a part of war:

• Allowing the use of its airspace, soil, and 1,100-km border to invade Ukraine, to launch strikes, and conduct infiltrations against Ukraine over 18 months, and to threaten further invasion and attacks, pinning Ukrainian troops to prevent them from participating in the counteroffensive, and forcing Ukrainian air-defence to cover a much larger region. This is a violation of international law that falls under the UN’s definition of aggression (art. 3f).[2]
• Participating in Russia’s nuclear threats against Ukraine by claiming that Russian nuclear weapons are being moved to Belarusian soil and would be used in a conflict.[3] This is while Russian nuclear bombers launch strikes from Belarusian airspace against civilian targets all over Ukraine. This is a violation of international law.
• Participating in the war crime of kidnapping Ukrainian children,[4][5][6][7] a genocidal act according to the Genocide Convention and reliable sources.[8][9] This is a violation of international humanitarian law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.

But not under the extremely broad write-in heading of “Supported by.” For example, Plokhy 2023, The Russo-Ukrainian War:xiv–xv has a map with the legend “Supports Russia” indicating Belarus, Cuba, Iran, Myanmar, Nicaragua, North Korea, and Venezuela, where the phrase refers to political support. As a state subject to Russian coercion and not fully free and independent[10][11][12] (ISW has called Belarus de-facto occupied since its 2022 constitutional amendment),[13][14] it should be nested under Russia along with the DLNR puppet states. —Michael Z. 17:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [edited.]

• I agree with Slatersteven and Mzajac, while Belarus may not be directly engaged in the fighting its role is far beyond that of a mere supporter of Russia's invasion. Mztourist (talk) 06:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
  • I agree Belarus' role is larger than that of e.g. Iran (supporting Russia) or Poland (supporting Ukraine). That is why Belarus is mentioned at all, and those (dozens of) other countries that support either party are not.
  • For the proposed status belligerent however, the question remains (and is unanswered) whether Belarus is actually a belligerent. I would say no as the Belarus army does not fight it fulfils the definition of being a Non-belligerent. Of course I am open to people providing secondary legal sources that argue Belarus actually is a belligerent under the definition of international law, to change my opinion. But no such sources have been provide here. Arnoutf (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
• As others above have noted, Belarus has supported Russia, but, in my view hasn't really actively engaged enough to be counted as a "belligerent". Ideally, it would be listed as a "supporter" in the infobox, but apparently that just got deprecated. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 16:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• To clarify, the use of 'supported by' is deprecated, but not prohibited. The closer noted that there are ... some circumstances the inclusion of such information in an infobox would be warranted, though that these are rare instances and that ... inclusion would require an affirmative consensus at the article. The question here is whether or not this is one of those times. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  One of the main reasons cited to remove is that the continued inclusion of Belarus while various other countries, who have provided copious amounts of intelligence, mass "donations" of weaponry, and large-scale specialized training, are omitted is sketchy in terms of NPOV, and contrary to general practice prior to deprecation. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 04:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the central argument of your response seems to be equating wrongness/illegality with the material facts of support. The obvious corollary would be that the purpose of the infobox and the broader article is to publicize Russia's illegal aggression. WP is not a platform for information warfare, no matter how righteous the cause.

Besides, as we all know, almost all of the facts are on Ukraine's side so why the **** can't we just present the facts in an unvarnished, encyclopedic manner?

While I have to admire your honesty, this is part of a long-standing and apparently intractable pattern and the scale of it gives rise to such serious concerns that alternate routes toward an attempted solution of these concerns might be called for.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 04:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

You’re wrong. The central argument is that Belarus’s actions are integrally tied into the war. If you’re committing war crimes against Ukraine you’re involved in the war on Ukraine. If you’re committing war crimes in Belarus, then the war is in Belarus, not only in Ukraine, in Russia, and in the international waters of the Black Sea.

Please assume good faith. Or if you must, then better to conduct character assassination at ANI than here.  —Michael Z. 14:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Tied to the war can still be support, not being belligerent. I really think we need a reliable secondary source for any claims that Belarus is actually at war (in which case I would agree with their belligerence classification). Arnoutf (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

NATO's involvement includes legitimate acts that can only be a part of war, as well. If, hypothetically, the partnerships were flipped, I think you would be making essentially the same arguments. And as I’ve said, we are concerned with material acts and material facts, not questions of legality.

As for your response regarding conduct… AGF is hardly relevant. I and others have raised these and similar concerns repeatedly and taken together, many of your actions could be construed as disruptive. And as you know, the drama board would be a last resort; there are plenty of intermediate possibilities and nobody wants a mess. All I'm asking, really, is that you chill a bit and think twice or even thrice before initiating things that could potentially end up affecting NPOV. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you chill, take a break from your drama board, and concentrate on the subject instead of me.  —Michael Z. 00:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• As other editors have noted Belarus is not actively engaged in fighting and thus is cannot be considered as a belligerent. As the "supported by" section of military info boxes is being deprecated it should be removed from this info box as well. Of course, readers can learn about the nuances of supporters in the article text. BogLogs (talk) 13:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  Well, that’s not even true as stated. True, Belarusian forces are not engaged in fighting. But the territory of the state, Belarus, is actively engaged in fighting as belligerent forces cross its border in attacks and withdrawals, and are positioned on its territory to pin Ukrainian forces, and as long-range weapons are launched from and cross its territory and borders.  —Michael Z. 19:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  You've made your point, and you've been told that's not enough. Drop the stick. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  For those interested in the legal issues, see Schaller, Christian (21 August 2023). "When aid or assistance in the use of force turns into an indirect use of force". Journal on the Use of Force and International Law. doi:10.1080/20531702.2023.2249347. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think Hawkeye7 has already given you the response that your repeated claims have earned. However if you can provide any good sources that directly call Belarus a belligerent in the conflict they can be considered. Also not to be mean or anything but I think you should really think about what RadioactiveBoulevardier was saying to you, it will probably help you and your role on wikipedia in the long run. BogLogs (talk) 00:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  I thought I was making a subtly different point. Sorry.  —Michael Z. 19:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

• Yes Belarus should stay in the infobox, its direct involvement in the invasion is unprecedented compared to any other country through free use of its land for transport and missile launches into Ukraine, not to mention less direct but still significant aspects such as allowing itself to be a host for Russian nuclear weapons, hosting of Wagner etc. Whatever wonder decision the editors who spend their time on template guidelines came up with, this is an instance where it's highly appropriate. --TylerBurden (talk) 23:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
• I would keep them as a supporter, but not (yet) as a belligerent. Belarus has mostly played a supporting role in the conflict with minimal involvement. If they join Russia in the invasion though by sending a larger chunk of their army into there, I would support belligerent status. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
• I would support the current version in the infobox - as it is. Not only it has supported Russia, but it provided its territory to attack Ukraine, which does qualify it as a co-belligerent according to international criteria. This is also consistent with Belarus being a part of the Union State with Russia. My very best wishes (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  Can you provide a source for your claim that at state allowing its territory to be used qualifies it as a co-belligerent according to international criteria? This would affect a lot of other infoboxes, making Japan a belligerent in the Korean War, Greece a belligerent in the Gallipoli campaign, and Iran, Iceland and Portugal belligerents in World War II. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

This is something complex and highly debatable. See this, this and links provided in these sources. They make a difference between "neutrality" and "qualified neutrality". For example, a country (like USA) that provides weapons for a purpose of self-defense to a victim of unjustified aggression may consider itself neutral in the "qualified sense". My very best wishes (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

So are you suggesting that legal status is the definition of "supported by"? RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, I would not be against keeping Belarus and mentioning that in a note (depending on the wording), provided that "qualified neutral" supporters of Ukraine are also listed as such. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

What does that mean?

After Belarus, the most involved state would be Iran, shipping drones and sending technical advisors into occupied territory, to attack Ukrainians in Ukraine with long-range loitering munitions. I suppose “qualified neutral” would be North Korea, shipping ammunition while Russia is attacking Ukrainians in Ukraine in defiance of international sanctions, but this is really normal trade. Then maybe Armenia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkey and other states that bust sanctions over the aggressive of invasion of Ukraine. States shipping weapons to Ukraine with restrictions on use outside Ukrainian territory are actually less than neutral, and should not be added at all.  —Michael Z. 23:29, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

States imposing sanction on Russia are "qualified neutral"; neutrality would require that they impose sanctions on Ukraine as well. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

This thread is about Belarus. Per 2 sources linked above, this country is not neutral (qualified or not) and must be included. Some other countries - this is something debatable (I personally think that USA is not neutral and involved, again per sources above), but this thread is about Belarus. My very best wishes (talk) 00:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Fully agree. While the usage of sanctions and training in favor of Ukraine or arms supplies to Russia and Ukraine by different countries creates a discussion about qualified neutrality, Belarus' uniqueness in being the location where the bulk of Russian forces launched the full-scale invasion, along with the permanent presence of Russian troops in Belarus [15].

Arguing about Belarus's importance to be infobox-worthy also negates the point of the infobox: "of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content." Belarus is notably much more involved in supporting Russia by a long shot than any other Russian allies or supporters, and excluding it from the infobox doesn't give a precise overlook of the belligerents in the war. Jebiguess (talk) 00:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Actually, judging by the available numbers, the "bulk of Russian forces" were not in Belarus. The exact numbers depend how you measure, but it definitely wasn’t the majority of total forces committed to the overall invasion. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Straw man. For example, Belarus’s aggression fixes Ukrainian troops and diverts Ukrainian air defences across an additional 1,000-km front. You might recall a Ukrainian AD missile landed in Poland because Russian strikes were targeting all the way by the Belarus/Poland/Ukraine border confluence. —Michael Z. 17:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Russia is sanctioned for the crime of aggression (among other things). Ukraine is rightfully defending itself according to the UN Charter art. 51. Please provide sources if you make seemingly outlandish statements about punishing the victim.  —Michael Z. 02:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

This not an accurate representation of what Hawkeye7 said. It is a fallacious straw man argument. Misrepresenting what others have said is also inherently WP:UNCIVIL. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Please explain how I misrepresented what they said, because I don’t know what you mean.  —Michael Z. 03:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

For one thing, which states are these neutral ones that have sanctioned Ukraine?  —Michael Z. 03:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 made no outlandish statements about punishing the victim (seemingly or otherwise). They simply pointed out that to be a true neutral, a state that imposed sanctions of Russia would also need to apply sanctions of Ukraine. The corollary of this, is that any state imposing sanctions on Russia alone is a qualified neutral. To assert (seemingly or otherwise) that they made outlandish statements about punishing the victim is a clear misrepresentation and a straw man argument. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Can you share the source of the definition of these categories “true neutral” and “qualified neutral,” or are they made up? Are there any states that have sanctioned both Ukraine and Russia out of neutrality? It seems that the following declared neutral states are on Russia’s “unfriendly countries” list, mainly because they participated in sanctions against Russia and/or Belarus: Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Marino, Singapore, and Switzerland. Other neutral states have also sanctioned Russia, including Ireland, Malta, and Moldova. If none of these are “true neutral,” then who is?  —Michael Z. 18:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

See "Strict" versus "Qualified" Neutrality for the definition and doctrine of qualified neutrality. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Apropos of the restrictions on use outside Ukraine, I’d just like to point out more explicitly than before that donating weapons gratis is generally not considered “less than neutral”. On the fairly rare occasions that such transfers take place in peacetime, the security of the recipient is always of specific interest of the donor (e.g. many Cold War cases), which would qualify as support. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

So, depending on the situation, providing weapons, geo-fenced weapons, ammunition, counterbattery radar, vehicles, helmets, blankets, and first aid kits is like providing food, digging machinery, and water purifiers. Okay. None of those things make a state a legal belligerent in either peacetime or war. There is already a broader consensus not to put this under “Belligerents” in the infobox.  —Michael Z. 14:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The legal concept of (co-)belligerency is clearly distinct from jus ad bellum and related concepts of qualified neutrality. As the article linked below states:

Co-belligerency is a different legal question than compliance with neutrality law and is determined by a different body of law, international humanitarian law (IHL). Although the same action by a State may bear on both questions, it is essential not to conflate the two.

Now, the precise extent of Belarus' support is clear and fairly well documented. It seems, in fact, that it turns out to be clearly less substantial in an absolute sense than Western support.

While hunting for sources I came across an interesting article here: [16] The article as a whole primarily discusses the compatibility of arms trading amd donation with neutrality obligations, and concludes that grounds exist for there being no real issue.

But the relevant part I want to point out is this:

However, at a certain point, support to a belligerent will make the supporting State a party to the conflict. […] [S]ome situations are obvious, such as when a supporting State is involved in joint planning of, and provides assistance essential to, another State’s combat operation that would trigger an IAC if conducted alone by the supporting State.

So, for our purposes here, matters such as extensive intelligence sharing are presumably more significant. For example, a range of flagship (pun intended) RS have reported that the sinking of the Moskva was assisted by US intelligence: [17] Additionally, it has been even more widely reported that frequent strikes on Russian command posts are often thanks to Western intelligence locating them and passing the coordinates in a timely manner. Not to mention that US, French, and even jointly operated NATO recon aircraft constantly patrol over the Black Sea, which although international waters, is undeniably a zone of active and continuous conflict.

Additionally, @Mzajac’s assertions about the training of Ukrainian troops being "normal peacetime activity" fall apart on close inspection. These aren’t joint exercises, or even routine security force assistance measures. The UK and others are comprehensively training several full brigades for the clear purpose of preparing them for combat in an ongoing conflict, and even adjusting the training programs frequently in response to changes in the tactical environment of the said conflict (I couldn’t find a link for this last assertion in thirty seconds, but it’s definitely out there somewhere). Sounds an awful lot like support to me. (In fact, it seems that involved intelligence assets of "qualified neutrals" would be protected only inasmuch as the entire war is deemed unjust.)

So yes, Belarus' provision of basing etc. has in fact been widely deemed illegal as support for aggression, even though it is comparatively minor involvement from an IHL perspective. That’s not really relevant for the purpose of determining belligerency, or for determining who is supporting whom.

(And while we’re at it, the narrow scope within which the international community has consented to give validity and force to the concept of the crime of aggression would make it almost impossible to convict anyone in Belarus, so statements like "Belarus is guilty of the crime of aggression", besides for it technically being inapplicable to states themselves, rest largely on political declarations rather than legal grounds.)

Defining Belarusian involvement as "support" or even "co-belligerency", while manifestly refusing to apply a similar, comparatively low threshold, to other States' involvement, amounts to POV, pure and simple.

The tenor of multiple editors' previous statements often seem to boil down to "different analytical standards are justified by moral judgments of the subjects' behavior", which is obviously a significant, if somewhat concealed, breach of WP policies and guidelines.

I sincerely hope that any editors who choose to invest considerable time and effort into the topic area decide to take the time to read through this step by step.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 10:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

The argument above boils down to: “sources state that thresholds exist. My opinion is that Belarus has not crossed them but the West has crossed them in many ways. Your statements on this are POV but mine are not.”

(The argument also touches on a separate sticky question. The foregone assumption that legal opinions count, but political ones, moral ones, and other academic or intellectual evaluations that are less clearly categorized do not. But we determine what are Russia–Ukraine borders in the political realm, by international recognition and bilateral agreements. And we do state in the article Nazism that “It is widely regarded as immoral and evil, with only a few fringe racist groups, usually referred to as neo-Nazis, describing themselves as followers of National Socialism.” So other things count for something.)  —Michael Z. 15:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I extensively delved into the legal aspects because in the past you, in particular, have repeatedly appealed to legal grounds such as "guilty of the crime of aggression" (leafing through the archives, it looks like you’ve said at least twice that Belarus is not a belligerent).

My view has always been that "supported by" is pretty much an empirical determination. You have emphatically and repeatedly argued that it isn’t, for longer than I’ve even been actively involved with this topic area.

Appeals to the political opinions of certain Powers that don’t necessarily represent the Anglosphere or world (and lest you misinterpret, I am referring to specific responses to the war, not to the recognized de jure borders of Ukraine which you mentioned) are not suitable for Wikivoice statements. And the way you couched your reductio ad Hitlerum doesn’t seem particularly consistent with NPOV policy and its attendant guidelines and explanatory essays. Besides for which, you seem to be indicating that you believe that there is a near-universal worldwide consensus in line with your views, when this is not borne out by RS. Sources like the "communist" (yet endorsed by consensus) WP:SCMP, flagship dailies of countries from Bangladesh to Uganda and many more, anything like that is automatically a pro-Russian shill.

Perhaps I’m being a little broad and impressionistic myself here, but this is what I’ve seen you say.

But the most problematic thing is the deliberate framing, particularly the first paragraph. It seems to be a fairly characteristic pattern, actually…

In short, none of this is new. For the love of Jimbo, can you not see that it has to end somewhere? RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I have previously argued on legal grounds because that can be the least controversial in these forums. But there are many cases where arguments rest on the assertion that only the legal realm is significant, when good sources actually discuss the significance of legal, political, academic, including philosophical, and even moral issues on a subject (this has come up elsewhere in questions of the definitions of genocide, for example).

As I vaguely recall, SCMP came up at least once when someone suggested a view from the paper subject to dictatorial censorship should carry more weight because it somehow represents 1.4B people (I believe I saw the argument as un-ironically appealing to democratic values).

And thank you for acknowledging that Belarus’s war support distingushes itself by being considered a crime (while Ukraine has the right to defend itself).  —Michael Z. 18:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

European Parliament just passed a resolution about Belarus’s involvement in the war.

• Ivan Borysenko, “Lukashenko must answer for aggression against Ukraine alongside Putin — EU parliament,” NV (MSN).

 —Michael Z. 23:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Full text of the resolution: “European Parliament resolution of 13 September 2023 on relations with Belarus.”

This means that there is more international recognition, jointly by 27 EU members, of Belarus’s involvement in the war and resulting legal culpability for “the crime of aggression, war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes of genocide committed against Ukraine,” and an increased impetus and enabling to take measures to prosecute these crimes on the parts of governments and the International Criminal Court.  —Michael Z. 15:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

The Institute for the Study of War said on October 11, 2022, “Belarus remains a co-belligerent in Russia’s war against Ukraine, nonetheless. Belarus materially supports Russian offensives in Ukraine and provides Russian forces with havens from which to attack Ukraine with precision munitions.”[18] On December 11 it wrote “The Belarusian regime’s support for the Russian invasion has made Belarus a cobelligerent in the war in Ukraine. Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko offered Belarusian territory to Russian forces for the initial staging of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Belarusian territory offered critical ground lines of communication (GLOCs) to the Russian Armed Forces in their failed drive on Kyiv and their subsequent withdrawal from northern Ukraine. ISW has previously assessed that Belarus materially supports Russian offensives in Ukraine and provides Russian forces with secure territory and airspace from which to attack Ukraine with high-precision weapons.”[19] Today it wrote “ISW continues to assess that Belarus is a co-belligerent in the war and is involved in the deportation of Ukrainian children.”[20] —Michael Z. 05:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

ISW, as has been discussed previously at various points, is, for all its usefulness, a POV Washington think tank that openly has a clear policy agenda. Its statements generally must be evaluated accordingly. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

What sources disagree with it on this?  —Michael Z. 23:32, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

It’s not really necessary to find any, merely to note that discussion in those terms has been limited to rhetoric in lay pro-Ukraine sources rather than academic blogs and other RS. Please don’t try to unduly shift the burden of proof.

But since you ask, here’s an OSCE report explicitly contradicting that: [21]

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I would give the OSCE source more weight than that of an independent think tank. The OSCE source seems to give a fair analysis (in my view) stating that while Belarus is non-neutral (which could be considered support), it is not an (active) partner in the conflict (i.e. not a co-belligerent). Hence in my view this source support the current status quo (which the discussion seems to gravitate towards again and again). Arnoutf (talk) 10:20, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Is this discussion ready for closure? It seems to have slowed down, no new comments in a week. HappyWith (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Provided the closure is by an uninvolved admin, I’m not aware of further debate. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Actually…

I just want to point out for the record that the discussion largely passed over the technical issue of deprecation. It seems to me that that consensus there might require explicitly asserting a sui generis instance here, which needs to be justified accordingly.

I, for one, would prefer to see that point discussed by three or so editors besides myself, Michael Z., and Cinderella157. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Given the RfC deprecating the use of "Supported by" in infoboxes, Belarus should be removed unless and until a clear consensus emerges backed by RS that it is a belligerent (and thus be listed as such without the Supported by subfield). Sources and editors currently disagree about whether Belarus is a belligerent, and as such the infobox shouldn't feature it, as doing so makes an assertion on the issue in Wiki voice.

Personally, I'm of the view that the infoboxes lose valuable information with the deprecation of the Supported by subcategory, and that Belarus, the United States, and perhaps other countries, have played such major roles in the conflict that an at-a-glance summary of it is incomplete without a Supported by subcategory on both sides. But, since it's deprecated, it shouldn't be on either, and only unambiguous belligerents should be listed.

If a special exception is made for this article to allow a Supported by subfield (and to maintain the status quo here is to make a special exception), such a special exception should be justified, must not be made on arbitrary grounds that violate NPOV, and the criteria for inclusion should be very clearly spelled out. entropyandvodka | talk 04:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Technically, Belarus is in the rare category of being a co-aggressor but not legal belligerent. Any serious argument for removing it must be able to acknowledge this and explain why it should be left out. The current consensus is to consider it exceptional, so the pragmatic onus is on editors that argue for change to justify it and convince others.  —Michael Z. 14:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

There are two separate issues at play: whether the article should make an exception to use the "Supported by" subfield in the infobox, given that it has been deprecated, and whether Belarus should be removed from the infobox, given that it is not a legal belligerent.

On the second issue, we are in agreement that Belarus isn't a belligerent in this conflict, so the rest hinges on the first issue. If the consensus is to make an exception for this article to use the "Supported by" subfield, then future arguments about the inclusion of other states (ie the United States) in a "Supported by" subfield cannot be rejected on the grounds that the use of "Supported by" has been deprecated. entropyandvodka | talk 18:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

We agree that Belarus isn’t a legal belligerent according to certain definitions. But there isn’t necessarily a consensus that only that belongs in the combatantX fields in the template:

the parties participating in the conflict. This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding. When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article.

And, like I said, there is a consensus for this exception. IMO it belongs because is has participated in the crime of aggression and war crimes against civilians in Russia’s war against Ukraine. And no, Canada, Colombia, South Korea, Turkey, the USA, and five dozen or more other supporters have not. Maybe the label should simply be clarified as “Co-aggressors.”  —Michael Z. 19:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

A survey of this discussion does not show such a consensus. Your argument that inclusion should be based on criminal culpability has been addressed earlier in the thread by RadioactiveBoulevardier and others, and it's the kind of thing I was referring to when I talked about arbitrarily selected criteria. This portion of the infobox is about improving reader understanding about which parties are participating in the conflict, not a soapbox for adjudication. entropyandvodka | talk 20:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Belarus has been listed there for 1 year, 7 months, 2 weeks and 2 days by consensus. If you’re claiming that consensus has changed to remove it, you are premature.  —Michael Z. 04:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

... by consensus is false. Belarus was incorporated into the infobox without discussion on the day this article was created. It did not, at that time, require a discussion to be included because 'supported by' sections in the infobox were not deprecated. There is an affirmative consensus to broadly deprecate those sections. As a consequence, this RfC was opened to assess whether an affirmative consensus to include Belarus exists. No-consensus here would default to removal, because the extant broader consensus is that inclusion would require an affirmative consensus at the article, which doesn't presently exist. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:10, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation. I guess we may find out who’s right when there’s a decision on this RFC.  —Michael Z. 22:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment on a no consensus close The RfC close at Template talk:Infobox military conflict#RfC on "supported by" being used with the belligerent parameter (see here) would give us clear guidance on such a situation: in some circumstances the inclusion of such information in an infobox [could] be warranted. However, these circumstances would be rare, and considering the clear consensus in this discussion the status quo should be removal; inclusion would require an affirmative consensus at the article. The purpose of this RfC was to determine if an affirmative consensus could be achieve for retaining Belarus. If it is not, the the status quo should be removal. The guidance we receive from the close and the broader community consensus leaves no doubt as to the consequence of a finding of no consensus here. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:41, 11 October 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.

Andriivka counterattacks

We could write about it how russians attacked, and what losses there are on that front Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 11:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Sources? Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I was just teling the idea, im not a good source finder Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 12:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Add Template:Current to the top?

This is a current event, so I think the template Template:Current should be put in, like the Israel war. Waylon111 (talk) 18:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I believe such templates are more used in "breaking news" scenarios, and was probably present in this article too at the beginning of its existence. TylerBurden (talk) 20:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The template should have been removed from the Israel-Hamas war article a month ago. The template is a warning to readers that 'breaking news' stories are replete with inaccuracies as news organizations rush to cover them immediately, instead of waiting for information to settle. In most cases, it should be removed within 24 hours of the event's occurence. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

typo

The word "Russian" is misspelled in the following sentence "Russiah missile attacks at the end of April destroyed runways in Odesa." WikiEnjoyer123 (talk) 16:16, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Done, thanks – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 16:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Title is totally wrong

There is already a section in the Russo-Ukrainian War article called August 2014 Russian invasion, and rightfully so. This here is the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, or better: the 2022 full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, a term used for instance by The Telegraph. There was a covert 2014 Russian invasion of Crimea, an open 2014 Russian invasion of eastern Ukraine, and since early 2022 there's been a Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine, targeting the very existence of the state of Ukraine.

The article name must be changed, a) to reflect reality, and b) to at least keep some semblance of consistency with other section headings of the "Russo-Ukrainian War" article. Arminden (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Disagree. Primarily because it is simply more sensible for people to locate and you have to consider that the year will be linked to the article in such a strange way that implies the invasion, all of it, happened in 2022, not just the start. In common parlance this is the invasion of Ukraine. What happened in 2014 was also technically, but it wasn't targeted at all of the country. Adonnus (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

At what point do we start to include casualties in the infobox?

Having read a great many war articles over the past decade or so on here, there is very often a wide gulf between minimum and maximum claimed losses for any given side. Historical consensus for such things even decades after the fact is often elusive. I will quote some examples to show directly what I'm talking about here:

"The fighting involved millions of Axis and Soviet troops along the broadest land front in military history. It was by far the deadliest single theatre of the European portion of World War II with up to 8.7 to 10 million military deaths on the Soviet side."

There is a pretty big gulf between 8.7 and 10 million; more than have been (according to every estimate) killed in this war in total on both sides. The Eastern Front of WW2 article however does not shy away from putting this information in the infobox. Let's take another battle with conflicting estimates.

"German estimated: 174,194 KIA, WIA, MIA (see §7) Soviet estimated: 581,000 killed, missing, wounded and captured." - From the Battle of Moscow article.

There is a very wide gulf here between German estimates of their own casualties and Soviet estimates of German casualties. From Orwell's diary on the 22nd May 1942, "I wish I could spare a week to go through the Russian and German broadcasts of the past year and tot up their various claims. I should say the Germans would have killed 10 million men and the Russians would have advanced to somewhere well out in the Atlantic Ocean.". Nevertheless, it is still included in the infobox. Adonnus (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

When we know what the final figures are, Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Did you not read 90% of what I wrote? The point is, we will quite possible never know what the final figures are. Adonnus (talk) 01:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but the Battle of Moscow article does not report that the Germans killed 10 million men or that the Russians that the Russians advanced well out into the Atlantic ocean. Cinderella157 (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

You missed the point. That was an exaggeration by Orwell, called hyperbole. The actual claims are in the infobox. Adonnus (talk) 01:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I really don't think that I missed anything and one really should WP:AVOIDYOU. Battles such as that for Moscow are no longer ongoing, with casualties mounting daily, and the casualties resulting from such battles have been reviewed and analysed in good quality sources. In some cases, even these sources have been subject to subsequent analysis by academic writers. None of this is the case here. What information we do have is subject to much the same vagaries that Orwell is describing (just in case my point wasn't clear) and in any case, it is immediately out of date. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Any comment from those with edit permissions? Adonnus (talk) 18:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

2023 Israel–Hamas war has casualties in infobox and it's not clear who's the source of those numbers. This article can at least include UN-confirmed civilian casualties count. Manyareasexpert (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 November 2023

change punctuation (capitalize first letter) in Battlespaces/Missile attacks and aerial warfare: "Aerial warfare began the first day of the invasion. dozens of missile attacks were reported [...]" to "Aerial warfare began the first day of the invasion. Dozens of missile attacks [...]" SamPro910 (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done Cinderella157 (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

NATO supporting Ukraine

Why not list NATO or NATO countries as supporting Ukraine? You guys have Belarus supporting Russia why can’t you add NATO or NATO countries under supporting Ukraine? It’s been obvious they are, especially when now there is talk of war support fatigue.

Add Nato as supporting Ukraine and call it a day, what’s the issue?

2603:9001:7500:3242:3C31:3BFA:3431:FF2 (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

See talk page archive on the tons of threads we have had about this for your answer. Slatersteven (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

can’t find it, post url link please.

2603:9001:2B09:9A93:DD29:A17C:D757:5E14 (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

One https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_3#NATO_as_a_belligerent Slatersteven (talk) 19:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

See the FAQ: Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine/FAQ.  —Michael Z. 19:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Don’t see anything on there, can’t find it, post url link please.

2603:9001:2B09:9A93:DD29:A17C:D757:5E14 (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Q4: Can you add X country to the infobox because it is sending weapons to Ukraine? Why isn't NATO in the infobox?

A4: A discussion took place to decide whether countries supplying arms should be listed in the infobox, and the outcome was 'No Consensus'.

Please do not add individual countries without discussing here first. While consensus can change, please review the closed discussion, and try to bring forward novel arguments. Slatersteven (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Consensus must happen or else wikipedia’s credibility will be at stake regarding this, if it already isn’t.

2603:9001:7500:3242:FC6C:7145:822E:F1DA (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Consensus has happened, to not say it, you, and you have added no new arguments to change that. Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Whats the point of even adding Belarus or any supporter if you’re not going to add NATO as supporting Ukraine? Essentially you’re saying a whole lot of nothing.

2603:9001:2B09:9A93:348B:16E7:8DB7:601E (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Because Belarus has allowed Russia forces to attack from it's territory, thus making it a direct belligerent. NATO so far has just sent weapons and equipment. Think of it this way, we don't add Sweden to the WW2 infoboxes (on both sides in this case) because it produced the most popular AA gun on both sides now do we? --1.157.36.244 (talk) 03:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Use of "supported by" in the infobox has been deprecated though a recent RfC. Here though, there was consensus through RfC to retain Belarus. Per WP:GSRUSUKR and WP:ECR, non-ECP users are restricted to edit request. This OP was not made as an edit request in the format change X to Y. Nonetheless, it has been answered. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Bakhmut#Request for comment on first sentence of lead and scope

Please see subject discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Why not include countries invaded by Russia?

At the top of the article is suggested similar articles (This article is about the invasion that began in 2022. For other invasions, see List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine and List of wars involving Ukraine.)

Why isn't there a list of other countries invaded by Russia? 2603:8000:2942:4A00:61E6:FD41:DDDC:6CC (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Done, under "See also". Arminden (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, when I said at the top of the article, what I meant was at the beginning of the article. My apologies.2603:8000:2942:4A00:793A:541F:D795:ED18 (talk) 05:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Done, per WP:NOTSEEALSO we don't put disambiguation links in see alsos, except at disambiguation pages. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

This is a poor use of disambiguation, and so I have undone it. Per the editing guidelines at WP:DABLINK and WP:HATNOTE, the hatnote is generally used to redirect readers to other articles they may be searching for under the same title. Russia has repeatedly invaded Ukraine over the course of its history (in 1919 and the in 2014 for examples), and thus there is an arguable inherent ambiguity in any article titled 'Russian invasion of Ukraine' concerning which invasion is meant and which invasion the reader may be seeking to read about.

Considering their purpose, I'm inclined to propose that the second link be removed as a very poor disambiguator because nobody searching for the other aforementioned articles will find list of wars involving Ukraine particularly helpful in finding them. The list of invasions and occupations of Ukraine is fine given its relative brevity. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Excellent! Now all we need is a link to list of other countries invaded by Russia at the top. Thank you all for your help.2603:8000:2942:4A00:D74:C04F:CE81:B94F (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Except we don't, because that doesn't disambiguate the article. The sole purpose of a hatnote is ... to help readers locate a different article if the one they are at is not the one they're looking for. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Except we do. The name of this article starts with "Russian invasion", I am suggesting that a link to other articles that also start with "Russian invasion" be added to the hatnote instead of the other ones that are currently there which do not start with "Russian invasion". Those other links can be added to see also.2603:8000:2942:4A00:40DA:6EF7:A43C:B34 (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Readers arrive here by a search for Russian invasion of Ukraine. The invasion in 2022 is the primary topic for this name but they may be looking for other invasions of Ukraine by Russia. WP:DABLINK and WP:HATNOTE tell us it is appropriate to provide a hatnote to these other invasions by Russia. A person searching for Russian invasion|s more generally should use just that term (ie not add a specific country) and arrive at Russian invasion directly. The guidance at WP:DABLINK and WP:HATNOTE is quite clear that we would not provide a hatnote to Russian invasion here. It is not sufficiently similar. This page is subject to WP:GS/RUSUKR and WP:ECR applies. The adding of a hatnote to Russian invasion per this discussion is garnering no traction because it is clearly contrary to the WP:P&G. Refusing to WP:DROPTHESTICK in such a case will likely be considered WP:DISRUPTIVE. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

People may be searching for other Russian invasions of Ukraine as well as other Russian invasions. No one can read their minds, which is why Russian_invasion (the list of other Russian invasions) should also be at the top of the article. The implication that invading Ukraine is normal while ignoring the many invasions of many other countries by Russia can be considered propaganda. BTW, I arrived here by googling "Russian invasion"70.93.165.6 (talk) 04:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not list every invasion a sovereign nation has committed in the hatnotes of invasion articles. There is no comprehensive list of US invasions linked at the top of 2003 invasion of Iraq (the top search result of 'US invasion' on Google), or of German invasions at the top of Invasion of Poland (the second search result for 'German invasion' on Google), or of Chinese invasions at the top of Ming invasion of Vietnam, etc, etc. This can be considered propaganda because it implies that invading [Poland] is normal. The aspersion cast is absurd even by the standards of this talk page where it is a regular contribution.

The remainder of the argument rests on mind-reading grounds. It is theoretically possible that someone opening the Invasion (2021 TV series) article after googling 'invasion' was looking instead for Russian invasion of Ukraine. The argument has it that this article should be linked in the hatnote of that article. No, it is not a disambiguator for the article title, which it needs to be per the guidelines linked: [d]isambiguation hatnotes are not article content—they are associated with the title, rather than any article topic content. The hatnote resolves ambiguities arising from specifically the article title. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

To simplify: a hatnote should link to any article that may reasonably be titled 'Russian invasion of Ukraine' only (or to a disambiguating page with that title). The current first link in the hatnote is where Russian invasion of Ukraine (disambiguation) directs the reader. However, it is a redirect, and there is a preference for direct links. The latter link in the current hatnote is a poor disambiguator that contains hundred(s) of entries 99% of which could not be titled as this article is. If/when Russian invasion of Ukraine (disambiguation) becomes a standalone page it should replace the current link(s) in the hatnote. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

To Mr rnddude re: "Wikipedia does not list every invasion a sovereign nation has committed in the hatnotes of invasion articles." No, Wikipedia does not. And neither was I asking that every invasion be listed in the hatnote. What I'm trying to understand is why a link to Russian invasion is not added? The name of the article is "Russian invasion of Ukraine". There is a link for other invasions of Ukraine, but none for other Russian invasions. There are two countries involved here. One is being invaded, the other is doing the invading. By only linking to previous invasions of the attacked country, Wikipedia is ignoring the history of invasions of the country doing the attacking.2603:8000:2942:4A00:49E:30D1:9A79:C8EA (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Click the following link: Russian invasion of Ukraine (disambiguation). That is the only page that should be in the hatnote of this article. It is in the hatnote of this article.

I've removed the second link from the hatnote per the reasoning provided in previous posts. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I do not agree that Russia invasion does not belong in the hatnote, but are you saying that Russia invasion does not belong in the article at all!? Is it Wikipedia standard to link only to the history of one of the countries involved while ignoring the other? Remember, it was Russia that chose to do the invading. This article wouldn't exist if they hadn't attacked.2603:8000:2942:4A00:5C37:CCA3:3867:705E (talk) 16:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Kherson — Future GAN

I am currently working to get the battle of Kherson to good article status. I think all the necessary information is in the article (could use another editor to confirm that though), so I put a request in at the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors for a copy-edit. I am still waiting for that request though. After a copy/edit, I think the article is ready for GAN. If someone would like to check that out and/or assist in getting ready for a GAN, it would be much appreciated. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up! I'm not a reviewer, but I'll leave some suggestions and comments on the talk page of the article, since I think there's still a lot to be improved. HappyWith (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Question that I don’t think falls under Q5 in the FAQ.

Why is the Ukrainian civilian death count in estimated casualties of confirmed casualties when there is a separate infobox for confirmed casualties? Why not put that as a secondary source in confirmed casualties since estimated casualties are much higher? MountainDew20 (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I didn't deal with the infobox, but probably because there really is no such thing as confirmed civilian casualty numbers at this point. The margin of error...well. I don't want to start stuff, but put it this way -- a high-end estimate for Mariupol alone is many times the low-end number for the entire country. I did a lot of research and verification, then there was a whole lot of discussion about due weight, if you want to go look at how the number we are using got arrived at. Elinruby (talk) 00:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think they mean the infobox at the top of the article, they seem to be referring to the 'estimated and claimed casualties' table in the casualties section which has the line 10,749 killed (confirmed). Their question is: Why is a confirmed number in the 'estimated and claimed casualties' table instead of the 'confirmed casualties' table immediately above it? Mr rnddude (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Ah. Well, answering for myself only, I didn't mess with the "confirmed" numbers because the true totals are clearly many times higher. I suspect whatever process produces those numbers has stalled. I asked a couple of times if there was value in numbers from May 2022 or whatever -- maybe some sort of trend analysis? People didn't seem sure, so I concentrated on more realistic estimates. I think they went into the text above that box, and we should archive that box imho.

After that I had had enough horror for a while and disengaged, That is all I know. Other editors may have other answers. Elinruby (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

The second table is headed "Estimated and claimed casualties". Theses are casualties claimed by Ukraine as confirmed. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn’t it at least be made clear that there are higher estimates by putting them in the table (what I was referring incorrectly to as the infobox)? The section of the page above the table, and the page for the Siege of Mariupol gives estimates between 25,000 and 75,000 civilian deaths in Mariupol alone while the table itself has the highest estimate at 10,749 civilian deaths in all of Ukraine. Couldn’t that mislead readers about the amount of people who are thought to have died by not making the other estimates more visible? The United Nations has a similar figure of confirmed deaths as the one given by the Ukrainian government in the estimated and claimed casualties table and says that the actual deaths are likely much higher than confirmed deaths. (Sources https://www.statista.com/statistics/1293492/ukraine-war-casualties/

https://www.rferl.org/amp/ukraine-war-civilian-deaths-russia-invasion/32358863.html) MountainDew20 (talk) 05:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

The tables are for reports of casualties for Ukraine as a whole. Tables generally lack a capacity to capture nuance - certainly not in the same way as prose. That is why an article is written in prose. Some of this comes down to WP:WEIGHT and detailed discussions here. The short answer is, if someone only wants to read headlines, they will only get half a story. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

PS I know that parts of the first table don't make sense on that basis. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Counter offensive progression

Someone needs to look at the source saying the counter offensive was unsuccessful for 2023, considering it is ongoing. A suggested change would be Zelensky has admitted he laments the slow progress made thus far. Also the article listed as a source is spurious. A better article would be https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ukraine-russia-war-zelenskyy-counteroffensive-results-ap-interview/ ForWikiCont (talk) 10:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

There's a big article out in the NY Times today describing the counteroffensive as "failed", I wonder if we should incorporate this into the lead. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/11/us/politics/us-ukraine-war-strategy.html Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 23:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Why the lede? Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Your past wiki submission/edit history would suggest that your advice not be followed. ForWikiCont (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Clarify position

From the article: "NATO refused to offer Ukraine and Georgia membership, but Jaap de Hoop Scheffer also issued a statement that they would join one day"

Perhaps add the title of Secretary General to that sentence? Otherwise he is just some random Dutch guy at a NATO conference. 147.161.149.100 (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Cinderella157 (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Putin claims 617,000 troops

Putin said during a recent q/a Russia has over 600k troops in Ukraine. I ddidn't just add this considering it may be controvercial. So should we add this figure to the war template? Kennet.mattfolk (talk) 15:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

The HUR says he’s lying and it’s actually 450k.[22]  —Michael Z. 02:46, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Ukraine war siege of Novomykhailivka

Ukraine war siege of Novomykhailivka Russia vs Ukraine 180.83.154.226 (talk) 01:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes? What do you want us to do? Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Seems there is History Revisionism toward a Western Slant

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 recall the news of the time... Russia pulled back from Kiev as a good will gesture as part of preliminary peace negotiations, not because they were repulsed; detail around the Minsk Accords ignore the duplicity of Holland and Merkel. A number of other "revisions of history" as well, but these are two of the notable ones 64.66.218.49 (talk) 08:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

No, Russia did not pull back as a good will gesture. They said that to save face when confronted with their inability to take Kyiv. This article reflects what the majority of sources say. — Czello ^(music) 08:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

sadly, the pullback did happen exactly at the time that negotiations were being proposed, and right before they began.... Seems majority of ur sources also have a Western slant, imo 64.66.218.49 (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

also, no rebuttal on my Merkel claim? Then why doesn't the article get updated to reflect the Merkel claim? 64.66.218.49 (talk) 00:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the Merkel claim refers to exactly, but again we go by what sources say. If you feel sources are not reliable for having a western slant, you can raise that at WP:RSN – but as long as they're considered reliable we continue to include them. — Czello ^(music) 10:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

If you wish to make an edit request, please do so in the format change X text to Y text. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Backed by RS, and not (for example) sources that are legally not even allowed to call it a war. Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

'On the face of it, authoritarian Russia cannot be trusted with the facts, let alone the truth about the war, while the liberal West inspires greater credibility as it allows for a free and independent inquiry. But in reality, as Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu said, “all warfare is based on deception”. Neither side could or should be trusted to reduce the fog of war, because both are fully engaged in psychological warfare, which is key to winning the overall war in Ukraine. is at the heart of all warfare.'

Western Media and the War on Truth in Ukraine. Marwan Bishara, Senior political analyst at Al Jazeera. 4 Aug 2022 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.209 (talk) 09:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Sadly, "western medias" as ypou call them are almost the only ones who are not controlled by their gvt, Russian medias or even Al Jazeera are all but reliable.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

And what about the state-funded BBC? Also, while our media have had years to put over the impression of being free and 'independent', does not history show that they should not be trusted in time of war? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.209 (talk) 09:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

BBC is from UK, a democratic country, one cannot compare UK with Russia when it comes to democracy, freedom of speech etc ... this is a no brainer.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Its not history yet. Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 21 December 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.

Merge discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to keep part of the content (part of subsection 2 and most of subsection 3) on the prelude article, while merging the remaining content to other articles (primarily Russian Kyiv convoy and Battle of Kyiv (2022)). Note: closed by nominator. Cheers, Dan the Animator 04:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

---

Propose merging the entirety of the Invasion analysis section of the Prelude to the Russian invasion of Ukraine into Russian invasion of Ukraine. As part of a GAN review of the Prelude article, I've been trying to trim down on the size of that article and User:Cerebellum suggested removing the entirety of this content from the article altogether given it seems to fall outside the scope of the article (it discusses the Russian war strategy in the early days of the war (e.g. "taking Kyiv in three days")).

After reviewing it though and making a few minor edits, I think it might make sense to add it to the main invasion article given that's what its about. That said, the content in question isn't completely post-invasion (1/3 of it refers to pre-invasion statements by Barroso/Poroshenko, another 1/3 includes analyses/statements from the first invasion week in March 2022, and the last 1/3 discusses a Ukrainian military report published in December 2022). While I'm open to to separating and selectively merging the content (e.g. keep the pre-invasion stuff on the prelude article and the post-invasion stuff on the invasion article), given that all the content is highly interconnected and complementary, I don't see this as particularly favorable. Another option would be to create a separate new article from scratch called Russian strategy during the invasion of Ukraine or Taking Kyiv in three days but I'm not sure whether there's enough additional content to justify a new page.

If this proposed merger were to be accepted, I was planning on adding it as a separate section much like it is currently in the prelude article. Alternatively, I can also see the content being split up within the invasion article itself (the "Putin's three postponements..." subsection could be added into the end of the "Putin's invasion announcement" section for better context; the "Early invasion planning..." subsection could be added just underneath the "Initial invasion of Ukraine (24 February – 7 April)" section header, where there's only a few sentences anyways and would make a good addition; and the "Pre-invasion statements" could be added entirely into the "Ukrainian revolution, Russian intervention in Crimea and Donbas" section without much work).

Let me know y'all's thoughts with the above and feel free to propose any new ideas/suggestions as well! Best, Dan the Animator 21:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ukraine, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wars, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Current events, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Europe. ~~~~

@ErnestKrause, Elinruby, Benjamin112, Cdjp1, Keepcalmandchill, Dhoru 21, Tobby72, HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith, RafaelTLS, Professor Penguino, PenangLion, P1221, Mindaur, EcheveriaJ, and Nederlandse Leeuw: Pinging top ten editors by authorship of each article. Best, Dan the Animator 22:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

The 'pre-invasion statements' section is a composition of original research through the use of sources unrelated to, and without comment on, the article topic: To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support[b] the material being presented. None of that should be transferred here, and all of it should be removed from the prelude article. Do not base whole sections of an article on sources that do not and can not comment on the article topic.

The remaining two sections should be carefully checked for redundancy and relevance before any merger. The second section, for example, seems to discuss only the Russian strategy in the battle for Kyiv. The mainframe of that discussion should be hosted at the Battle of Kyiv (2022) article and only a summary of it presented here. That section is also quite repetitive. You don't need two paragraphs of commentary on 'capturing Kyiv in three days'. Condense that before moving it. The third section may be fine to merge as is. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:58, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: Thanks for the comments! See below for my reply:

• For the pre-invasion statements subsection, I didn't add it or significantly modify it (regarding your Do not base [...] article topic comment above). In any case, while I'm not responsible for that content, I appreciate you pointing out the WP:OR issue and will duly note it. I have to disagree though on the remedy: given the content itself is sourced and perfectly encyclopedic (a simple Google search uncovers a bunch of WP:RS discussing the specific "two weeks" comments made by Putin, thus fulfilling WP:GNG), this content should not be eliminated entirely from the English Wikipedia (there's no other mention of this "phone call controversy" on any other English wiki article apparently). I took some time looking back on the Russo-Ukrainian topic articles to see if there's any particularly good place for the content and it seems like International reactions to the war in Donbas (2014–2022) is probably the best place for it (in a separate new section titled Barroso-Putin phone call or something similar). The last sentence of that subsection that has content from a 2016 article by Sazonov I'll merge with the content of the other subsection "Early invasion planning assessments" (in the Prelude article) unless there's any objections.
• For the Early invasion planning assessments subsection, I agree that Battle of Kyiv (2022) is likely a good article to host a somewhat condensed version of the content (probably in the article's existing Aftermath section). I also noticed though that the Russian Kyiv convoy article has its own section about the same topic in heavy need of expansion. Given the redundancy concerns, it may make sense to split some of the excess content into that article (or vice versa: put the greater amount of content in the convoy article and the leftovers in the battle article). Alternatively, I could rewrite the content into two separate "paragraphs", with one going into the battle article and the other going to the convoy article. In both cases, there would be some rewriting for quality and relevancy but taking into consideration the convoy article will make it easier with avoiding the need to eliminate fairly decent (but repetitive) content. I'll add a brief sentence to this article about the "taking Kyiv in 3 days" analysis per your point if there's no objection (probably will add it in somewhere in the Kyiv and northern front subsection).
• For the Putin's three postponements of the invasion subsection, if it's alright with you, I'd prefer if another editor comment here before I merge this subsection to the article considering this is a major contentious topic article.

Feel free to ping me back and many thanks again for the reply! Cheers, Dan the Animator 05:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to move the 2014/2016 information elsewhere if appropriate, but it does not fit on articles focused on 2021/2022. The second subsection should be heavily condensed (you could probably summarise it with a sentence) at that article, with detail moved elsewhere. For Postponents, I would instead suggest it is moved elsewhere in the article, although the mixture of timeline and topical sectioning makes it hard to place at a glance. The delays are necessarily part of an invasion prelude. As a separate point, perhaps consider making the "Invasion" subsection its own lv2 section further down the article. It is in essence the 'aftermath' of the prelude. CMD (talk) 06:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks CMD! :)

Fully agree with your comments on the first and second subsections (1st subsection should be merged to Reactions to War in Donbass article as mentioned above; agree with adding a very brief summary of the 2nd subsection in the prelude article, with the longer details left to the two other articles). For the 3rd subsection (postponements), I'm not opposed to leaving it on the prelude article although given Mr_rnddude's comments above I'll leave it where it is right now until a consensus here is reached.

Given the comments above and per WP:BOLD, I've made the following edits:

• Merged the Sazonov (2016) sentence from the 1st subsection (pre-invasion statements) into the 2nd (Early invasion planning assessments)
• Merged and slightly reworded the last sentence from the 3rd subsection (Putin's three postponements) into the 2nd
• Deleted the remaining part of the 1st subsection and merged that content into International reactions to the war in Donbas (2014–2022)

I plan on doing straightforward trimming and condensing edits on the 2nd subsection content tomorrow but both that and the 3rd subsection (postponements) will remain until at least some sort of consensus is reached. Cheers, Dan the Animator 06:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with the third subsection (postponements) being retained in the prelude article per CMD. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, CMD: Based on the above comments and my best judgement, I merged the majority of the remaining content (of the 2nd subsection (assessments)) between the articles Russian Kyiv convoy, Battle of Kyiv (2022), and Russian information war against Ukraine. I left two sentences from the 2nd subsection content together with the postponements part in the prelude article, where I moved them to the reactions section (there was already some content related to invasion planning there anyways so I thought it fit well there). If either of you have any issues with the above, please let me know soon, otherwise, I'll close this already longer-than-expected discussion and try to finish up the article GAN. Cheers, Dan the Animator 02:41, 18 December 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.

Casualties summary

The first line of the “Casualties” section and the casualties line in the infobox should state “Casualties are in the hundreds of thousands, including killed and wounded,” based on reliable sources, for example:

• Guardian (August 2023): “The number of battlefield casualties in Ukraine is approaching nearly 500,000 Russian and Ukrainian soldiers, US officials have told the New York Times, marking a significant rise in the death toll this year following intense fighting in the east of the country.”[23]
• CBC (December 2023): “With no end in sight after more than 21 months of war, the number of people killed or wounded in the Russian invasion of Ukraine is in the hundreds of thousands, intelligence estimates suggest,”[24] citing UK MoD, anonymous US officials, and others.
• NYT (December 2023): “All along, he waged a war that has killed or maimed hundreds of thousands while exhibiting contradictions that have become hallmarks of his rule.”[25]

There are plenty of articles quoting experts relying on the estimates of Ukrainian, US, and UK intelligence, and none disputing them, as well as quotes demonstrating that Russian statements on casualties are incomplete, unreliable, and sometimes false.[26] The broad estimate of hundreds of thousands of casualties is widely considered reliable, if not also the more specific ones of “nearly 500,000.”

Readers deserve the key facts up front, not buried somewhere. Any contradictory reports or Russian estimates can be stated immediately after with appropriate caveats to provide the context.  —Michael Z. 16:31, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Troop numbers

Russia just said they had 617,000 troops fighting in Ukraine. Pretty sure this article said that previously. Any reason that was removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxsmart50 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Updating the lead to add the consensus that the 2023 Ukraine counteroffensive largely failed?

The lead only contains one sentence about the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive: "In June 2023, Ukraine launched another counteroffensive in the southeast."

Should the lead be updated to add the consensus, both by Ukrainian leaders and Western analysts, that the offensive largely failed to retake territory?

This is from the main page about the Ukrainian counteroffensive:

In an interview on 30 November, president Zelenskyy said the war was entering a new phase and he gave a mixed answer regarding the results of the offensive. As of early December 2023, multiple international media outlets described the Ukrainian counteroffensive as having failed to regain any significant amount of territory or meet significant strategic objectives. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 18:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I am dubious as to this, as it will be a long while before we even have any clue as to what Russia's objectives were, and if they have been achieved. Slatersteven (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

What do Russia's objectives have to do with it, though? Ukraine set goals (although I’m not sure how much was officially articulated by whom) and evidently they were not achieved. There is an overwhelming body of RS to this effect. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

There does seem to be an RS consensus that the counteroffensive failed. Plenty of articles even mention certain specific phase lines and stuff that were pretty optimistic. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

If we want to include it, this should be framed slightly differently. For example,

In June 2023, Ukraine launched another counteroffensive in the southeast." During six months of the offensive Ukrainian forces have conducted a number of successful attacks at the Russian-occupied Crimean Peninsula and against Russian Black Sea fleet. However, they have achieved only modest territorial gains, capturing around 370 km².

My very best wishes (talk) 05:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

In my view, this framing would not accurately reflect or summarize the corpus of RS on the matter. After all, the purpose of the lead is to make an encyclopedic summary of things, not to present a SYNTH narrative, especially one that could be a radically optimistic excursion from the sources. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Use of chemical weapons by Russian forces

[27] - According to reports by Institute for the Study of War, 810th Russian Naval Infantry Brigade is using chemical weapons against Ukrainian forces in Krynky (on the eastern bank of Kherson Oblast) by dropping K-51 grenades from drones onto Ukrainian positions. K-51 aerosol grenades are filled with irritant CS gas (2-Chlorobenzalmalononitrile), a type of tear gas used for riot control (also known as a Riot Control Agent [RCA]), which the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) prohibits as a method of warfare." Other sources on this: [28],[29]. They did it before [30] according to Royal United Services Institute. This should be probably included to the page. Seems important. This is not just a "claim by Ukrainian side". These are reliable scholarly 3rd party sources. My very best wishes (talk) 05:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I support adding such information, perhaps in section 4 (battlespaces) or section 3 (timeline).

Sidenote: I wouldn't include it in the lead, as it's too specific of a detail for a general overview of the invasion. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Now that the crossing of the Dnipro has been added, this would fit connected to that added content. TylerBurden (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Also:

Russian forces used chemical weapons 465 times between 24 February 2022 and December 2023, according to Ukraine.

 —Michael Z. 00:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

This seems to be reliably sourced. That said, I’m not sure whether it’s significant enough to belong in the main article. As the sources said, while technically it’s a CWC breach, it doesn’t seem to be arousing the same indignation as chlorine barrels in residential neighborhoods would.

The RUSI article you linked to and some news sources I googled make it sound like some local commanders had the bright idea to take some riot control grenades intended for occupation-related usage and drop them from drones. Noteworthy, but I can’t endorse blowing every instance of Russian misconduct out of proportion. The Russians have done more than enough to besmirch themselves; going all Kenneth Starr and dwelling polemically on the details will just turn readers off and invite charges of POV.

There are a bunch of pages where adding this info would definitely be helpful. I’m not convinced this is one of them, though.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

That’s a lot of very expressive creative writing, but doesn’t relate to sources, guidelines, or evidence.

465 recorded chemical attacks and increasing use of prohibited chemical weapons is systemic war criminality, not “just boys being boys,” not insignificant “because they’ve done worse,” and mentioning systemic war crimes in an article about the war is not “going all Kenneth Star” (whatever that means). The Black Sea fleet publicly bragging about their war crimes as “a radical change in tactics” instead of denying them is also significant, indicating, as the sources discuss, possibly official adoption or normalization of them.

The sources say it’s notable. So it should be noted.  —Michael Z. 16:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Lede change suggestion

I would like to propose that the first sentence of the lede should include Russia's aim when launching the invasion. Which was ethnic cleansing, and annexing the entirety of Ukraine. This was stated by Putin on his addresses to nation on both 21 and 24th of February 2024. Putin denied that Ukrainians were a people separate from Russians, and claimed that the Ukrainian cities were historic Russian cities.

Proposed lede: On 24 February 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine with the self-proclaimed objective of ethnic cleansing and annexing the country. The invasion became the deadliest conflict in Europe since World War II. It is estimated to have caused tens of thousands of Ukrainian civilian casualties and hundreds of thousands of military casualties. By June 2022, Russian troops occupied about 20% of Ukrainian territory. About 8 million Ukrainians had been internally displaced and more than 8.2 million had fled the country by April 2023, creating Europe's largest refugee crisis since World War II. Extensive environmental damage caused by the war, widely described as an ecocide, contributed to food crises worldwide. Ecrusized (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the proposed Lede change 👍 Monochromemelo1 (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

A diff of the proposed edit

− On 24 February 2022, [[Russia]] invaded [[Ukraine]] in an escalation of the [[Russo-Ukrainian War]] that started in 2014. The [[invasion]] became the largest attack on a European country since [[World War II]]. It is estimated to have caused tens of thousands of [[Attacks on civilians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine|Ukrainian civilian casualties]] and [[Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War|hundreds of thousands of military casualties]]. By June 2022, Russian troops [[Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine|occupied about 20% of Ukrainian territory]]. About 8 million Ukrainians had been [[Internally displaced person|internally displaced]] and more than 8.2 million [[Ukrainian refugee crisis (2022–present)|had fled the country]] by April 2023, creating Europe's [[List of largest refugee crises|largest refugee crisis]] since World War II. Extensive environmental damage caused by the war, widely described as an [[ecocide]], contributed to [[2022–2023 food crises|food crises worldwide]]. + On 24 February 2022, [[Russia]] invaded [[Ukraine]] with the self-proclaimed objective of [[ethnic cleansing|ethnic cleansing]] and [[Annexation|annexing]] the country. The [[invasion]] became the deadliest conflict in Europe since [[World War II]]. It is estimated to have caused tens of thousands of [[Attacks on civilians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine|Ukrainian civilian casualties]] and [[Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War|hundreds of thousands of military casualties]]. By June 2022, Russian troops [[Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine|occupied about 20% of Ukrainian territory]]. About 8 million Ukrainians had been [[Internally displaced person|internally displaced]] and more than 8.2 million [[Ukrainian refugee crisis (2022–present)|had fled the country]] by April 2023, creating Europe's [[List of largest refugee crises|largest refugee crisis]] since World War II. Extensive environmental damage caused by the war, widely described as an [[ecocide]], contributed to [[2022–2023 food crises|food crises worldwide]]. References

Above is the simulated diff. I think the mention of the Russo-Ukrainian War is important context and would prefer to keep it. —Michael Z. 21:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Putin's self-proclaimed objective[s] in Ukraine are denazification and demilitarization. These are hogwash, of course, but as far removed from the proposal as possible. There is not a single mention of ethnic cleansing anywhere in this article. It cannot be introduced into the lede without credible sources both a) discussing ethnic cleansing and b) discussing Putin stating that the objective of the invasion is ethnic cleansing. It should go without saying that Putin denied that Ukrainians were a people separate from Russians is not even adjacent to a self-proclaimed objective of ethnic cleansing, which is the forced expulsion or eradication of a people; nor that Ukrainian cities [are] historic Russian cities is synonymous with and annexing the country. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

You are right that the article mentions genocide several times, but not ethnic cleansing.

The goals are mentioned in the second paragraph of the lead and further down in Russian invasion of Ukraine#Putin's invasion announcement. I think it might benefit the article to have a short section on the various goals that Russia has announced at different times and expert analysis of its actual strategic and operational political and military goals. This could even grow into a separate article.

The better it’s covered in the article, the easier it is to incorporate it in the lead.  —Michael Z. 22:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Context: Ethnic cleansing--per the article on it--is defined the systematic forced removal of ethnic, racial, or religious groups from a given area, with the intent of making a region ethnically homogeneous. Along with direct removal, extermination, deportation or population transfer, it also includes indirect methods aimed at forced migration by coercing the victim group to flee and preventing its return, such as murder, rape, and property destruction.

My comments: Putin has not attempted to expel the Ukrainian people and repopulate it with Russians. What he has done, such as in the occupied territories (i.e. Crimea and the 4 oblasts illegally annexed in 2022), is impose Russification (i.e. Russian language, Russian passports and other government documents, reimpose the prior USSR toponyms, etc.). What he's done can be better described as forced assimilation and irredentism, not ethnic cleansing.

Sidenote: For a better example of ethnic cleansing, the 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh caused almost all the ethnic Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh to flee to Armenia. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Russia certainly plans to ethnically cleanse Ukraine. Not necessarily by expulsion or eradication, but through Russification. The gradual denial for the use of Ukrainian language, culture and assimilation into Russia is also ethnic cleansing. Ecrusized (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The term for this is genocide, and it does include mass deportation and resettlement, including deportation of children, as well as selective eradication of self-identifying Ukrainians and Ukrainian political and cultural elites following the “filtration” process. For an overview, have a look at executive summaries of the two New Lines reports from May 2022 and July 2023.[31][32]  —Michael Z. 23:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

A better description is forced assimilation, not genocide.

The Russian armed forces have not systemically attempted to kill every single Ukrainian (or even all Ukrainian men and boys), including in the Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine. "A near-uniform pattern has emerged throughout history in which men and adolescent boys are singled out for murder in the early stages" per the article on genocide.

Definitions:

Forced assimilation is the involuntary cultural assimilation of religious or ethnic minority groups, during which they are forced by a government to adopt the language, national identity, norms, mores, customs, traditions, values, mentality, perceptions, way of life, and often the religion and ideology of an established and generally larger community belonging to a dominant culture.

The United Nations Genocide Convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group". JohnAdams1800 (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

No. Ethnic cleansing is just one aspect of Russia’s genocide in Ukraine, but Russia is documented as targeting the Ukrainian national group for genocide, as opposed to the ethnic group. See the well-organized legal explanation in the New Lines reports, written by over 30 legal and genocide experts, which explicitly say so.[33][34] “Forced assimilation” is not mentioned, but the UN’s preamble to the Genocide Convention says that “losses to humanity in the form of cultural and other contributions represented by these human groups” is part of what is destroyed by genocide, and the first New Lines report says that Russia’s ongoing genocide includes “destruction of cultural and sacred sites.” Russia’s denial of the existence of Ukrainian identity, its targeting of Ukrainian leaders and activists, filtration and selective torture, rape, deportation, and killing, and its mass deportation of children for reprogramming are all aspects of its genocide against Ukrainians.

“. . . systemically attempted to kill every single Ukrainian” – no, this is a straw-man definition of genocide. There is an actual, legal definition that we use:

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines five genocidal acts, any one of which may constitute genocide, if there is intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a group. Russia is documented as having systematically committed all five acts (some of them it brags about), and has openly and persistently broadcast its genocidal intent through public statements over more than the last two years. These statements also constitute the crime of incitement to genocide defined by the convention.

Both the ICC (International Criminal Court investigation in Ukraine) and ICJ (Ukraine v. Russian Federation (2022)) are investigating allegations of genocide in Ukraine.  —Michael Z. 18:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but for it to be self-described that had to say "we are going to ethnically cleanse Ukraine", dId they say that using the words "ethnically cleanse"? Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Units in infoboxes for campaign and battle articles

I thought it appropriate to start a centralised discussion on populating the units parameter for articles falling under the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I would make several obervations.

1. Per MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS, there is no carte blanche exception for using flag icons in a military conflict infobox. They must serve a useful purpose. They do this when there are three or more separate belligerents, in which case, the national flags act as a shorthand for entries under different parameters (eg units and casualties). Unit insignia should not be used.
2. Information of units in an infobox must be supported by the body of the article (with a citation) or by direct citation. If unsourced, it should be deleted from the infobox.
3. If the fighting is between Russia and Ukraine, listing the militaries of each as units (eg Russian Ground Forces) is redundant. Per Template:Infobox military conflict, populating the unit parameter is optional. Similarly, it is not particularly useful to populate with things like National Police and State Border Guard forces
4. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is for a summary of key facts. Consequently, what is presented in an infobox is considered to be factual and in this case for units, complete, at least for the major units participating. Unfortunately, in most cases however, we have little or no reason to believe that the information we have is anywhere near complete, being based on snippets of information from news sources or daily reports compiled by ISW. The nuance of what we know is probably best left to prose in the body of the article?
5. The infobox is not a place for where a particular unit fits within the hierarchy of a national force (eg Russian Ground Forces → Southern Military District → 8th Guards Combined Arms Army). As a summary, we should confine ourselves to the highest formation committed en masse - ie, if it was being fought by 8CAA but not other units of the SMD, we should only list 8CAA. Similarly, if the battle is being fought by the 8CAA (more or less as a whole), the infobox is not the place for a listing of the 8CAA sub units. That would be unnecessary intricate detail for which the infobox is unsuited (see WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and the template documentation).
6. We should avoid unnecessary bloat of the infobox. We should confine ourselves to the major units and avoid the intricate detail that bloats the infobox.

For discussion. MilHist is being notified. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

This definitely would be better. It appears to me that majority of the info box on certain battles of this conflict are entirely wrong or missing a lot information. Not only that, they are also uncited. Key examples of this are the Battle of Avdiivka (2022) and the Battle of Bakhmut from 2022 to present. Both of these articles are missing certain crucial and minor units, they are also typically uncited. Moreover, the large amount of units that are engaging in these battles are simply abundant and would look unattractive; therefore, it should most probably just be simplified to the certain Armed Forces of either Russia and Ukraine.

It would make more sense to just list the engagements between the Russian Armed Forces (RAF) and the Ukrainian Armed Forces, and add subordinations of each Armed Forces. An example of this would be the Russian Armed Forces, and the Russian Ground Forces (RGF) being listed in a battle - as the RGF is a component of the RAF. These unnecessary and lengthy units that are sometimes abundant just take up the page, the size of logos are inconsistent, units are typically incorrect, and are uncited meaning that is could potentially be incorrect or unreliable for the reader. It would be better if the specific units were discussed in the article rather than the info box, that way if readers really desired to figure out or know what units fought in the battle then they can read the article. This would also be another way to lure readers into reading the whole article more, making readers more likely to appreciate the effort of the editors of Wikipedia.

I also firmly believe that having a standardised set of requirements and criteria for these pages encompassing the Russo-Ukrainian war, particularly the Russian invasion of Ukraine, would allow them to be more consistent, that way there isn't too many discrepancies amongst the pages. Davomme (talk) 12:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

500,000 Ukrainian military killed or seriously wounded

• [35] Wow! This number significantly exceeds all other estimates, although not impossible. Did Yuriy Lutsenko explain where such number came from? It was treated as a top secret. How reliable is this number? My very best wishes (talk) 07:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• 500,000 killed and wounded is a typical estimate for total war casualties (both Ukrainian and Russian), with about 200,000 casualties estimated by the US for the Ukrainian military. Lutsenko's rationale behind his statement, as stated within the today.ua article, is to mobilize more Ukrainians to the front: Однак Юрій Луценко впевнений, що гірка правда буде оптимальним рішенням. Тому що люди повинні перестати ховатися за байками про те, що може служити хтось інший, тільки не вони самі. This appears to be in response to Zelensky's release on October 9 regarding the death toll of the war. Lutsenko served in the military until late July, but I don't know whether he'd be privy to any privileged information. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• Basically, it's misinterpretation. It has been detailed here Маніпуляція: В Україні визнали, що у війні вже загинуло пів мільйона солдатів  | StopFake. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes, indeed, this looks like a "fake". Such number was also reported for the military losses by both sides [36]. My very best wishes (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I asked admin advice User talk:Dennis Brown#Mhorg and Russia-related topics regarding this return [37] of misleading 30,000 figure. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Manyareasexpert, please look here. There are at least three Ukrainian sources that speak of this statement. When he spoke of the "500,000" it can be misinterpreted, but the fact of the 30,000 deaths\injured per month is reported in the sources (as is even noted in the headline):

Focus[38]: ""30 thousand a month": Lutsenko calls for voicing Ukraine's losses in the war and gives figure (video)"

TodayUA[39]: "Lutsenko said that the AFU loses 30 thousand people a month: "Ukrainians deserve this truth"."

Antikor[40]: "Ex-Prosecutor General Lutsenko says Ukraine loses 30,000 military killed and wounded per month"

On the Lutsenko part, we can add that he is pushing for a new mobilisation, if I understand correctly. Mhorg (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

We aren't using sensationalized mass media article titles as reliable sources. Lutsenko's speech has been analyzed here Маніпуляція: В Україні визнали, що у війні вже загинуло пів мільйона солдатів  | StopFake . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Could you point out which part of the 30,000 is covered in this source? I understand that it only deals with the 500,000, if I read correctly. Mhorg (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Former Prosecutor General of Ukraine Yuriy Lutsenko, according to propaganda media, allegedly revealed the real losses, saying that 30 thousand people die at the front every month. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I understand that 500,000 is not the number of Ukrainian soldiers who were killed and wounded, but the number of new soldiers Ukrainian government allegedly wants to recruit. "Allegedly" because Zaluzhny said he did not request such number. My very best wishes (talk) 02:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

South Ossetia as a belligerent

By the same logic which the DPR and the LPR were put as belligerents, South Ossetia should also be there. It is an independent state (whether it is less or more recognized should not matter, see Taiwan or Kosovo cases), and it actually sent troops to Ukraine territory, while the other countries just sent military aid or logistic support (Belarus). FCBWanderer (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

• This has been discussed several times (see here, here and here). There is more to this than the statements made in the two sources given by the OP. South Ossetians are enlisted into the Russian armed forces and Russian forces based in SO, have soldiers from SO. The Russians have sent these units to Ukraine. As quoted in this source: “I am not the one who gave the order to the 4th military base, because it is the Russian army, but when our friend is under the gun… we will stand side by side…,” Bibilov wrote then confirming the troop transfer, while also reflecting domestic criticism against the move. There would be a direct comparison to Nepal and Ghurka troops in British service. The previous RfC resolved not to include SO as a belligerent for these reasons. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 January 2024

The title should be "Full Scale Invasion" rather than just "Invasion", since Russian Federation invaded into Crimea in 2014 already. And in 2022 Russia started the full scale invasion. 2001:1530:1002:9232:D0C5:BCAB:5D1B:AA3A (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit requests should not be used for matters which require a consensus discussion. The title 'Russian full scale invasion of Ukraine' is grammatically poor. It's also unnecessary verbiage. A 'full scale' invasion is still an invasion. No change to the title is needed, nor would it be beneficial. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

The map (completely unrelated to Q6 in FAQ)

I think by now the editor of the territorial map in this article should include russia as it’s been reporting ukrainian bombings recently, and show the locations of ukrainian strikes on russia within the last week of the update of the map (eg: recent ukrainian strikes in the past week as of january 22) 78.174.190.122 (talk) 07:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The FAQ still instructs that any suggestions to improve the map should be left at c:File talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg. The editors here don't generally work on or alter the map. The map isn't hosted on en.wiki. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Correction on assasination attempts on Chief of the Main Directorate of Intelligence of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, Budanov

Small point of correction: "In November 2023, the wife of the Head of the Security Service of Ukraine was hospitalised after being diagnosed with heavy metals poisoning. The chief has survived 10 assassination attempts carried out by the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB), according to Ukrainian authorities."

According to the source provided (https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-russia-poisoning-budanova-kyrylo-budanov-wife-2a71ce108f5bd4d7dfb57b46657f1943), it was Lt. Gen. Kyrylo Budanov, who is the chief of the Main Directorate of Intelligence of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, who reportedly survived 10 assasination attempts and his wife who was hospitalised for heavy metal poisoning , not the Head of the Security Service of Ukraine who is Vasyl Malyuk. 45.49.3.34 (talk) 05:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Particularly given that it is the wife that was hospitalised and there is no confirmed assassination attempt, this sounds like a case of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. I have deleted the sentence accordingly. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Link to most recent closed and archived RfC: Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 11#RfC on Western support to 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 heading above is a link to the RfC: Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 11#RfC on Western support to Ukraine, closed 30 December 2022.

See also earlier RfCs: Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_9#RfC on "Supported by" in the infobox for Ukraine, closed 9 June 2022; and, Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox?: closed 6 March 2022. All RfCs were closed with "no consensus". In the most recent RfC, the closer made the following statement:

Also, can we not do this again in a couple months? There is WP:NODEADLINE, and there is sure to be plenty of academic studies and expert writings that will provide excellent context and sourcing for what, exactly, should be listed in that infobox parameter. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Cinderella157 (talk) 06:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

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

New articles (new big battles)

It is impossible for more than a month after the fall of Marinka does not take any single battle for a significant place. I will no longer make new boys, but I think it is necessary to make a more minimum of two articles in Luhansk Oblast campaign, which started the fall in Ukrainian arms on September 19, 2022, return the article of the battle at the suburbs of Donetsk. — Baba Mica (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Luhansk Oblast campaign already exists, though. Also, don’t recreate the Donetsk suburbs article without getting consensus first, since there was consensus to remove it earlier. HappyWith (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

And then what happens in Novomihailovka, Georhievka, etc.? The Battle of Bahmut will be completed with only three scenarios. The first scenario is a Russian victory and the fall of Krasnoe (Ivanovskoe). The second scenario is a Ukrainian victory and the return of the city of Bakhmut under Ukrainian control. The third scenario is a draw or some truce or some demarcation on the current front line. The same applies to the Luhansk Oblast campaign. The first scenario is a Russian absolute victory, which can only happen if the Russian army retakes the place of Bilohorivka, expels Ukrainian forces from the last square meter of Luhansk Oblast, let alone the penetration of Russian troops to the Oskol River or deeper into Kharkiv Oblast. The second scenario is a decisive Ukrainian victory and taking full control of Luhansk Oblast and returning to the borders before February 24, 2022, or perhaps before April 6, 2014. The third scenario is a tactical truce or peace agreement on the current line of fire which means a draw or stalemate. As for the battles for Novomihailovka and Georhievka, I demand the return of Battles of the Donetsk Suburbs. Otherwise, two new articles Battle of Novomihailovka and Battle of Georhievka should be opened. Especially the Battle of Novomihailovka where there is real carnage and the fighting is very similar to the Battle of Marinka. The places are very similar in size and surface area, and the Ukrainian defense line is strong and the fighting has been going on since the end of November or December. The Russians are advancing around that place, but they can't penetrate that place. I have two more drafts left: Draft:Battle of Krasnohorivka (a city that will 100% be hard fought) and Draft:Battle of Dvorichna (which I'm not sure will be hard fought if the Ukrainian defenses are broken from the left bank of the river Oskol near Synkivka and Petropavlovka) which is a springboard to the city of Kupiansk. — Baba Mica (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Remove the People's Republics from the list of belligerents in the infobox

The People's Republics were Russian-controlled puppet states, which, in my opinion, does not justify their inclusion as independent belligerents. Their actions and governance were directly controlled by Russia, making them mere extensions of Russian military and political will, rather than independent entities with their own agendas and decision-making processes. And even this quasi-independence came to an end with their annexation just six months after the full-scale invasion began. Yorkporter (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

We can mention they were controlled by Russia. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I hope you are joking if you are at all intelligent? The Minsk agreements established that these people's republics exist. That the Minsk agreements failed, ask the Biden administration and the new EU leaders. So what does ISIL, Rojava and FSA represent in the Syrian Civil War? So what did the RSK, RS, RHB, APWB represent in the Bosnian War and the Croatian War of Independence? So what does Somaliland represent in the Somali Civil War or Tigray in the Ethiopian conflict? Because of these national republics, Putin launched an aggression against Ukraine, and instead of deleting, the following should be added on the Ukrainian side under political and military support: NATO, USA, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, EU, Poland, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia , Germany, France, Holland, Norway, Croatia, Japan, South Korea and maybe even Moldova, Israel, Argentina and Ecuador. On the Russian side, in addition to Belarus, political and military support should be added: Iran, Syria, China and North Korea. Eree... What's your brain? You throw out the two main players instead of putting in Kherson People's Republic, Zaporozhye People's Republic and Republic of Crimea. I haven't seen that anywhere. This war, and especially because of this war, Wikipedia turned into a circus. Especially English Wikipedia. I feel like throwing up when I see all the crap you're cramming, it's creepy. Articles disfigured by some politically motivated pamphlets without a shred of objectivity. If there is even a shred of objectivity, it has long been clear even to sparrows that it is not only Ukraine and Russia that are at war in Ukraine, but NATO (led by the USA led by the Biden administration), the EU (which is blindly listening to this American administration) against Russia (with Putin's autocratic regime ) supported by the even more authoritarian regimes of the countries in the collective east that I mentioned. I hope this user is joking with this stupid suggestion. — Baba Mica (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

MAP

Is anyone going to update the map, I also want to know were to find it Matthew Campbell (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The map is found on commons.wiki. The editors here do not alter the map. The map is updated when there are major changes to the frontline. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposing to add casualties to the infobox based on US estimates

Russian invasion of Ukraine
Location {{{place}}}
Belligerents
Russia Donetsk PR Luhansk PR Supported by: Belarus	Ukraine
Casualties and losses
120,000 killed 170,000–180,000 wounded	70,000 killed 100,000–120,000 wounded
10,242 Ukrainian civilians killed and 19,337 injured For other estimates, see § Casualties.

This article stands out quite weird when compared to other war articles, since it doesn't show anything in the casualties section of its infobox. I think US estimates regarding both Ukraine and Russia are reliable and unbiased, since US also gives a high estimate of casualties for Ukraine. If other editors agree on this, I would like to change infobox casualties to the example seen here. Discuss. Ecrusized (talk) 11:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

The main issue with casualties in the info box is that civilian casualties are under-reported by the U.N. due to having restricted access to Russian-occupied territory. An example of this is the Siege of Mariupol where the U.N. was able to verify 1,348 civilian casualties and stated that the actual number is "thousands higher". Ukrainian sources say that it is at least 25,000 while Russian sources are claiming at least 3,000 civilians died during the siege. LemonEater5000 (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@EkoGraf and Cinderella157: As Cinderella157 has stated on the template talk page, the previous discussion of casualties apparently took place on this talk. Ecrusized (talk) 13:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Why? the USA is not authoritative. Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

It's a 3rd party source. Both Ukraine and Russia give extremely low numbers for their casualties. But despite supporting Ukraine, US estimate also gives a significantly high number for Ukrainian casualties. Ecrusized (talk) 13:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Its also not the only third-party source. Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

If you can find a better one, you're welcome to share it. I want the casualties section to stop being empty because every other war article on Wikipedia gives some form of casualties in its infobox. Ecrusized (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Most wars are over. And we already have plenty of alternative sources in this article. I object to this, and this objection remains until a convincing argument is made as to why only the US estimate is authoritative. As such I shall not comment here unless it is to retract my objection. Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Ecrusized (talk) 14:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Seems to have been resolved but I agree with Slatersleven that given that the war is not over estimates by all parties will be off. Either because of limited access to numbers or for propaganda reasons. The current overview across different sources is (for now) I think the best we can do. In other words keep current situation - but I guess that only supports consensus already reached. Arnoutf (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, your comments pretty much support and reflect the reasons the previous consensus that was reached here. This subject has been raised from time to time since but the existing consensus has been upheld. I do not see that the reasons given in reaching that consensus have changed. Consequently, we should continue as we are until the circumstance change significantly. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I also agree with the points raised against adding it to the infobox, there is WP:NORUSH, it's currently the largest conflict on the planet and those numbers are constantly changing. TylerBurden (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

"recaptured" or "regained" in image caption?

The image caption for the map says "recaptured from Russia". For NPOV I suggest changing "recaptured" to "regained", since "recaptured" suggests regained via active military action by Ukraine, whereas some or all of the territories were regained when Russia withdrew, such withdrawal stated to have been as a goodwill gesture at the request of Ukraine, France and Germany related to the peace process which began with the Istanbul negotiations. The word "regained" makes no statement as to what happened or didn't happen at the time so it's better for NPOV. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Scare quotes in the lede

I haven't looked whether this has been discussed before, but I find the scare quotes in the "demilitarize" and the "denazify" to be a little too unserious, plus quotation being used like this isn't necessarily universal so it doesn't convey the intended meaning to each audience. If the intended meaning is to convey that these attempts are insincere on Russia's part, it shouldn't be conveyed through scare quotes but through wording like: He said that his goal was to demilitarize and denazify Ukraine, however the usage of these words have been criticised by so and so {citation}.

Maybe that's too wordy, but there has to be a better way than scare quotes. Egezort (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

We need to keep the lede shorts, this adds words for no real benefit. Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, I tried a simple technical fix: don't quote each word separately. Everyone happy now? RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

If the intent is to use these as scare quotes, then we should probably not be employing scare quotes. However, I would believe that the intent is to use them as actual quotes in as much as these actual words are being purported to have been used. In such a case, a citation is absolutely necessary to support from where these words were quoted regardless that this occurs in the lead. As actual quotes, we cannot combine these words together into a single quote (as RadioactiveBoulevardier suggests) unless this is how they occurred in the passage being quoted (which I doubt). On the otherhand, we possibly don't need to use quote marks in this case since the context without quote marks would be presenting a close paraphrase. In short, we either use the quote marks with a citation or we don't use the quote marks? Cinderella157 (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I haven’t checked the original speech transcript, but searching for the two together in Russian (Brave Search, but others should work as well) comes up with plenty of results like this: [41]

But I agree it needs to be cited.

Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

UK Security cooperation agreement

I initially missed it because I wasn’t paying that much attention to the war for a while, but apparently in January the UK signed an agreement on security cooperation with Ukraine. Full text of the agreement here: [42]

Part II is the most relevant part for the purposes of this talk page.

When an official bilateral agreement takes pains to stress how the UK is a leading defence and security partner for Ukraine who has been one of the largest suppliers of military aid to Ukraine, will work together, and with other partners of Ukraine, to ensure Ukrainian…forces are able to fully restore Ukraine's territorial integrity, is determined to forever end Russia’s unprovoked attacks and will continue to support Ukraine for as long as it needs, among other statements of purpose — surely this is worth…further examination?

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I heard that on the news. I think it deserves mention either (very briefly) in the Foreign involvement subsection of this article, and/or in the Foreign involvement in the Russian invasion of Ukraine article if it isn't already there. I also heard that Russia and Iran had, sometime in recent months, signed a mutual defense agreement; however, that may be less relevant to the Ukraine war than the UK-Ukraine agreement is. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Russian invasion force size - 2024 update

As of February 2024, the number of Russian troops in Ukraine given in the infobox is a year out date. This RUSI report gives a figure of 470,000 Russian troops in Ukraine as of January 2024, and I believe the infobox should be accordingly updated. TensorPointer (talk) 08:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The strengths of opposing forces is something that varies with time and is something of relevance. This is something appropriate for the body of the article but is detail unsuited for the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

^^ RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Remove the People's Republics from the list of belligerents in the infobox

The People's Republics were Russian-controlled puppet states, which, in my opinion, does not justify their inclusion as independent belligerents. Their actions and governance were directly controlled by Russia, making them mere extensions of Russian military and political will, rather than independent entities with their own agendas and decision-making processes. And even this quasi-independence came to an end with their annexation just six months after the full-scale invasion began. Yorkporter (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

We can mention they were controlled by Russia. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Their inclusion has been long-standing and discussed many times. The consensus has been to retain them with the notes regarding their status. These republics were removed by Yorkporter, referring to this discussion as justification in the edit summary. I reinstated them because I don't see that this discussion has achieved a consensus for removal. I would consider that Manyareasexpert's comment is not supporting their removal but perhaps, an edit to the existing notes? Given the history of the infobox and their inclusion, I think their should be a reasonably clear consensus for their removal before that might occur. For myself, I see that there has been significant reference to these as entities in sources up to their annexation to warrant their continued inclusion. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Textbox under the image of the shelled building should be changed

I'm going to discuss this first, since it will likely be reverted.

"Damage to a residential building in Zaporizhzhia following an airstrike on 9 October 2022. Putin has been labeled a war criminal by international experts."

This seems a bit WP:OR, WP:SYNTH-adjacent and well, unencyclopedic at best.
1. Failed verification
1a. It asserts "International experts" (plural), but the source quotes only one person.
1b. The word "international expert" isnt even used in the source
1c. What even is an "International expert" in the first place?

2. WP:SYNTH
2a. It's using a information in the article (an image) to make the case for another sourced statement of fact (putin is a war criminal)
2b. though admittedly, "war criminal" per se isn't used in the reference either

I propose changing it to "Damage to a residential building in Zaporizhzhia following an airstrike on 9 October 2022.", removing the second sentence per WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. DarmaniLink (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning and with the removal of that sentence. Discussion of allegations of Putin as war criminal probably require nuance and presentation of alternative points of view, probably better placed in paragraph form rather than attempting to fit a short message into an image caption. Also, perhaps you'd need a source that links the particular place shown in the image with a war criminal allegation, if it's to be mentioned in the image caption; otherwise it isn't specifically relevant to the image per OR. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Frankly, that last sentence seems like a bit of a non sequitur, loosely speaking. Its forcible insertion looks like an attempt to insert PoV unnecessarily.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

It took me about a minute to find a more suitable source, it could have been fixed rather than removed. I have restored the image with aforementioned reference. I also don't see how in the context of destruction of civilian targets, the mention of Putin being labelled a war criminal is "PoV". Seems like a rather unnecessary remark that could just as easily be made in the reverse. TylerBurden (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

The problem is this is WP:SYNTH, even the source you added merely asserts he is a war criminal with no connection to the building in question. I don't know much about this conflict as a whole, but just a quick look at a map shows that Marupol and Zaporizhzhia aren't even remotely close, so what connection does that source have? I do agree with what RB pointed out, that it is a non sequitur.

It's not about it being a rare take - its about it failing verification and being original research. Information that fails verification or is original research can be removed at any time. The onus is not on me to fix it, the onus is on the one who wants it to be included. People can come to the conclusion on their own that a shelled residential building is a war crime, but explicitly adding it in there with no connection to the building itself, as an image caption isn't encyclopedic, it seems more like something you would see on a news outlet. DarmaniLink (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Images are used as a suppliment to text in the body of the article and improve the reader's understanding of the subject. The caption (Damage to a residential building in Zaporizhzhia following an airstrike on 9 October 2022. Putin has been labeled a war criminal by international experts) would draw a direct connection between the damage to this building and labelling Putin as a war criminal. That might be fine for a newspaper but we are not a newspaper and this falls too close to WP:SYNTH. The image is placed in a section on the Zaporizhzhia front where airstrikes on residential buildings occurred. It is not a section where war crimes are being discussed, where the deliberate targeting of civilians (and this image) to support such text would be relevant. In short, drop the extra sentence. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks to me that three editors agree with removing the sentence per Wikipedia policy, and only one editor, TylerBurden, argues to keep it and has re-inserted it. In the body of the article it says "Even the usually fractured United States Senate came together to call Putin a war criminal." If you want to add more to the article about the idea of Putin being a war criminal, you might suggest an edit here on the talk page that adds more to that bit of the body of the article, then wait for consensus before editing; but not insert the idea into the image caption (see arguments above). I suggest that the sentence be removed again, based on the discussion above, and not re-inserted unless there's a clear consensus to do so. TylerBurden, do the new sources you've cited mention this specific building and link it to the idea of Putin being a war criminal? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree it should definitely be removed and not reinserted without consensus. There seems to be consensus for its removal. DarmaniLink (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Removed. Neither source supports the statement as written (i.e. fails WP:V), and as this is material about a living person it is additionally subject to the stringent requirements of WP:BLP. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Assistance in invasion(s) summary

I have recently created and began working on the List of invasions in the 21st century. Obviously, this invasion and offensives amid the invasion are included in the list. I have a few short summaries already listed in the chart, but I would appreciate if anyone who is familiar with the invasion wants to help out. My current thought process is that anything significant related to the invasion/offensive needs to be mentioned in the summary. So, if anyone wants to help out, feel free to work on, improve, or completely rewrite the summaries in that list. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

We already have List of military engagements during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I suggest that the appropriate course would be to link to that list rather than duplicating it. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Duplicating? I don't mean listing ever battle or engagement. Actually, there is multiple invasions for this war. For example, the Battle of Kherson and the Second battle of Lyman are in two separate invasions/campaigns. Linking that list to each of the 6 invasions during the war would be more duplication than writing a sentence or two about the few critical ones that led to geopolitical changes. I could link it in all six though if editors think that is better than sentence-form. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Are all six termed to be invasions in reliable sources? Otherwise, calling them invasions would be WP:OR. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Treaty / not one inch

Please, add after 'That statement is disputed.' the following text: Prof. Mary Elise Sarotte from Johns Hopkins University investigated the negotiations with Secretary of State James Baker and Gorbachev. She proved from interviews and written notes, that former president George H.W. Bush sr. rejected crystal clear the discussed possibility that NATO would not expand eastward, "not one inch". Sources book: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Not_One_Inch_(book); interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&t=859&v=aHj0K9PofCw&feature=youtu.be&ab_channel=KyivSchoolofEconomics Zanden30 (talk) 11:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Not with such clear cut writing, she assrted something, that doe snot make it a fact. Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Russian casualties

The famous newspaper, possibly based on Pentagon data, states that Russia lost 60k killed and 180-240k wounded. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/15/world/europe/russia-invasion-casualties-wounded.html 95.25.208.74 (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Remove the People's Republics from the list of belligerents in the infobox

The People's Republics were Russian-controlled puppet states, which, in my opinion, does not justify their inclusion as independent belligerents. Their actions and governance were directly controlled by Russia, making them mere extensions of Russian military and political will, rather than independent entities with their own agendas and decision-making processes. And even this quasi-independence came to an end with their annexation just six months after the full-scale invasion began. Yorkporter (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

We can mention they were controlled by Russia. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Their inclusion has been long-standing and discussed many times. The consensus has been to retain them with the notes regarding their status. These republics were removed by Yorkporter, referring to this discussion as justification in the edit summary. I reinstated them because I don't see that this discussion has achieved a consensus for removal. I would consider that Manyareasexpert's comment is not supporting their removal but perhaps, an edit to the existing notes? Given the history of the infobox and their inclusion, I think their should be a reasonably clear consensus for their removal before that might occur. For myself, I see that there has been significant reference to these as entities in sources up to their annexation to warrant their continued inclusion. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Invasion age counted in non-standard way

Today, 2024:0224, at 11:26 CET, which corresponds to 2024:0224 at 12:26 EET (which is the same as Kyiv time), the information box mentions an age of 2y 1d for the invasion.

I hold the age mentioned should be 2y 0d, since - according to the article - the invasion started on 2022:0224 at 03:40 Kyiv time, and at least until 2024:0224 at 15:40 Kyiv time - i.e. when half a day after the minute of the 2nd anniversary has passed - conventional mathematical rounding rules result in an age of 2y 0d.

An even more widespread, I think, standard says that during all of the nychthemeron of 2024:0224 (Kyiv time) the age is 2y 0d.

I propose the latter way of counting the age be followed.

If some duration calculation algorithm results in the duration indicated in the article, I suppose it, too, needs mending.Redav (talk) 10:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

When the template calculates the age, it counts the start as a day and the anniversary as a day. If there is an issue, it is with the template and should be addressed there. It would be also be based on UTC. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Article on Ukrainian neutral status

Here to propose creating an article on a potential Ukrainian neutral status. Not only has this been discussed widely in the context of the invasion [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] but it was also a real policy of Ukraine (in a softer way, non-alignment rather than neutrality) until Russia's first invasion [54] [55] [56] [57]. I incite editors to consider writing such a page as I think it has a lot of potential. Super Ψ Dro 13:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 February 2024

A new figure of Ukranian military losses has been provided by the president of Ukraine, according to a BBC news article published in the last hour

Please include this casualty report in the confirmed casualties section of the article.

"Ukraine war: Zelensky says 31,000 troops killed since Russia's full-scale invasion"

Source is here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68397525

If a better source can be found, please use this instead. But this source I believe is strong enough for use in the article BlunanNation (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Not done These numbers are already added in Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Casualties as a report by the office of the Ukranian president. So the numbers are in the article already. They should not be considered the most important assessment however as Ukraine has a vested interest in presenting as low as possible numbers given their involvement. Arnoutf (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

We generally rely on third-party estimates for casualty numbers, ideally with transparent methodology. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Casualties table sorting

I propose to sort Casualties table by the end date of the period of the assessment.

Reasoning: all the assessments start at Feb 24, 2022 and the number of casualties is only growing since then. The larger the assessed period the larger the number would be. Showing the reader the most recent estimate first will let the reader to assess the numbers from the perspective of time period. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

This might be a bit difficult to maintain. but I don't have an intrinsic issue with this. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Cinderella, and this would be beneficial for the reasons ManyAreasExpert listed. Tuna^VeniVidi_Vici 05:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Spy war

• interesting, the original was published by NYT. This is a lot of info related to this page, although it also covers many events that had happen earlier. My very best wishes (talk) 04:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2024

It IS NOT an "invasion"! IT IS A WAR !

It is clear !

It is simple as that ! 95.133.108.133 (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: This is not the main page for the war, it covers an event within the larger conflict. Jamedeus (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

There should be a higher resolution image for the map that’s suitable for zooming in

Especially given the Russian offensives across the front (as of the time of this talk page), there should be a map with a good enough resolution that you can pinpoint changes in the frontline and compare them to the previous day/week/month. Maybe there could be some other solution too, such as the option to type in a date and look at the corresponding map for that date. Maybe there should even be a map of territory that was previously regained during Ukrainian counteroffensive operations but was taken back by the Russians. (Personally, I prefer the former solution.) Either way, improvements should be made. LordOfWalruses (talk) 01:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Malorossiyan Liberation Army

I recently came across information about a newly emerged militant group known as the Malorossiyan Liberation Army (MOA) operating in Ukraine on behalf of the Russian Federation. According to reports, the group is purported to consist of approximately 5,000 to 5,500 soldiers, many of whom are claimed to be Ukrainian deserters now fighting for Russia. The information I gathered was primarily from the group's official website, which is available in two translations indicating varying numbers of soldiers. (https://localcrew.ru/moa_en)

Given the limited coverage of the MOA in mainstream media, I relied heavily on their Telegram channel as the primary source of information. It's worth noting that there is a dearth of articles discussing the MOA, making it challenging to verify information independently. (https://t.me/maloross_army)

Considering the potentially significant role of the Malorossiyan Liberation Army within the context of the conflict in Ukraine, I am wondering if it would be beneficial to create an independent Wikipedia article dedicated to this group. Such an article could serve as a centralized and reliable resource for those seeking to learn more about their activities, background, and impact on the ongoing conflict.

I would appreciate hearing the community's thoughts on whether establishing a Wikipedia article on the MOA would be valuable and warranted. Additionally, if anyone has further insights or reliable sources regarding the Malorossiyan Liberation Army, please feel free to contribute to this discussion. Korean991 (talk) 12:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

No, as they do not pass wp:n. Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. The name rings a bell, but most likely I saw a mention on Russian-language telegram so yeah… the burden is on OP to demonstrate RS coverage…

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 12:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

European arms initiative

What about creating article about European arms initiative, initiated by Czech Republic to provide weapons and ammunition for Ukrainian Army? In current situation, it is quite important event.--178.255.168.45 (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 March 2024

I suggest that the first paragraph of this article should clearly state that the invasion was in violation of international law. Saltednutrolls (talk) 04:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. We currently have sources saying the annexation of territory violated international law, but not the invasion itself. Jamedeus (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think sourcing is the issue - we have plenty of sources in the first sentence of Legality of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and it does not seem too controversial. My issue is that it is TOO obvious - we don't start Murder of John Lennon with saying it was a crime - for most people it is a given. "Don't invade other countries" is like international law 101. 164.10.46.64 (talk) 13:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Merge discussion Battle of Siversk to Battle of Donbas (2022)

Please see discussion at Talk:Battle of Siversk#Merge. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 March 2024

In the prelude section, modify the word "appeasement" in this sentence to link to the wikipedia article of appeasement to help readers who aren't familiar with the term.

On 19 February, Zelenskyy made a speech at the Munich Security Conference, calling for Western powers to drop their policy of "appeasement" towards Moscow and implement a clear time-frame for when Ukraine could join NATO.[65]

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Appeasement Leafyon (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Done Good point. Jeppiz (talk) 23:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Malorossiyan Liberation Army

I recently came across information about a newly emerged militant group known as the Malorossiyan Liberation Army (MOA) operating in Ukraine on behalf of the Russian Federation. According to reports, the group is purported to consist of approximately 5,000 to 5,500 soldiers, many of whom are claimed to be Ukrainian deserters now fighting for Russia. The information I gathered was primarily from the group's official website, which is available in two translations indicating varying numbers of soldiers. (https://localcrew.ru/moa_en)

Given the limited coverage of the MOA in mainstream media, I relied heavily on their Telegram channel as the primary source of information. It's worth noting that there is a dearth of articles discussing the MOA, making it challenging to verify information independently. (https://t.me/maloross_army)

Considering the potentially significant role of the Malorossiyan Liberation Army within the context of the conflict in Ukraine, I am wondering if it would be beneficial to create an independent Wikipedia article dedicated to this group. Such an article could serve as a centralized and reliable resource for those seeking to learn more about their activities, background, and impact on the ongoing conflict.

I would appreciate hearing the community's thoughts on whether establishing a Wikipedia article on the MOA would be valuable and warranted. Additionally, if anyone has further insights or reliable sources regarding the Malorossiyan Liberation Army, please feel free to contribute to this discussion. Korean991 (talk) 12:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

No, as they do not pass wp:n. Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. The name rings a bell, but most likely I saw a mention on Russian-language telegram so yeah… the burden is on OP to demonstrate RS coverage…

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 12:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

According to Wikidata, only Arabic WP has an article (a stub citing two sources, only one of which, a Substack article, is independent of the subject).

A quick google search shows no obvious WP:SIGCOV.

Barring a potential future propaganda stunt like the one Ukraine is currently pulling to celebrate the upcoming election…

Not notable.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 01:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Is the UK a Co-belligerent based on Taurus Missile Leaks?

The German Taurus leak has also been reported to indicate that British troops are on the ground and assisting in the use of Storm Shadow missiles as well: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/04/british-soldiers-on-ground-ukraine-german-military-leak. Per FAQ, prior talk on whether countries supplying Ukraine with weapons should be listed as co-belligerent came to no consensus. Most opposition was on the grounds that just selling weapons was not sufficient for co-belligerence. However, sending troops to assist in their use would be a different matter. Though the UK has not officially stated why it's troops are there, it has admitted they are there, Germany has not denied the contents of the leak, and the UK has not denied the contents of the leak either. This may still be "alledged" co-belligerence, however. Tophattingson (talk) 12:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

"Kremlin claims audio of officers discussing UK help with missiles shows involvement of ‘collective west’", so no not in our voice, but we can say "russia has claimed...". 13:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

This story is covered by multiple mainstream sources. Exceptional doesn't apply. In addition to The Guardian:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/03/03/germany-intelligence-leak-uk-troops-ground-ukraine-nato/

"“If we’re asked about delivery methods. I know how the British do this,” he said. “They always transport them in Ridgeback armoured vehicles. They have several people on the ground,” he said."

https://theconversation.com/british-troops-operating-on-the-ground-in-ukraine-what-international-law-says-224896

"An unencrypted telephone call intercepted and leaked to Russian broadcaster RT suggested British troops were helping the defending forces in the use of Storm Shadow cruise missiles the UK has supplied to help Kyiv’s war effort.

In response, the UK prime minister, Rishi Sunak, confirmed that there are a “small number” of British army personnel “supporting the armed forces of Ukraine”. But he added that “we haven’t got any plans for large-scale deployment”."

https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-olaf-scholz-slammed-claims-france-uk-help-ukraine-target-missiles/

"“This is a very far-reaching weapon,” Scholz said of the Taurus. “And what the British and French are doing in terms of target control and support for target control cannot be done in Germany.”" Tophattingson (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

There are also further sources available in the existing article on the German Taurus leak now that it has been greatly expanded upon since this morning. Tophattingson (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

In response to the recording, it has been confirmed by the British Prime Minister himself [58]. There are British troops present in Ukraine supporting the Ukrainians. Thus the UK should be added. EkoGraf (talk) 23:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The presence of troops does not equate to co-belligerent status. Per Britannica's definition of belligerency "Under Geneva Convention III, lawful belligerents comprise members of the armed forces as well as the members of militias, voluntary corps, and organized resistance groups who are commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates, have a distinctive sign, carry arms openly, and conduct operations lawfully. A nation departing from strict neutrality by giving assistance to one of the contending factions in a war may still be considered a nonbelligerent under certain circumstances." (emphasis added). Until we have reliable sources claiming that the UK is a co-belligerent, we cannot include it simply based on WP:SYNTH from the leak alone (which does not directly make this claim) -- there is nothing new from this leak sufficient to overcome the existing determination that no consensus for including additional nations exists. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Per that logic we should then remove Belarus which has not even provided troops, let alone them being in Ukraine itself, unlike the UK which has now openly admitted it has troops in Ukraine itself with the purpose of supporting them against Russia. Simple as that. In any case, I am in agreement with both Tophattingson and RadioactiveBoulevardier that based on available sources, the UK PM's admission and the German chancellor's statement (plus the leaked conversation for good measure), the UK should be added (in a support role at least) to the side of Ukraine. EkoGraf (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you.Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 08:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

To claim co-belligerency (a term that, as I and others have previously pointed out, has a specific definition) is clearly SYNTH and not supported by even the sort of non-reliable sources that were using the term about Belarus. But the recent leaks do, in my view, further strengthen the case for adding the UK to the infobox as a supporter. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 02:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree, both on the point of Belarus and the UK. EkoGraf (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

As Cinderella157 has said, the "Supported by" classification in wikiboxes seems to be deprecated, at least in this article, but I feel like this is worthy of a mention in the "Foreign involvement" subsection of "International Aspects" V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 12:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Tophattingson, User:RadioactiveBoulevardier, User:Nafis Fuad Ayon, per the discussion here, and based on the sources provided, I have added the UK in a support role [59]. However, mind you, despite the apparent consensus here and the sources available, it should be taken into account that since the start the subject of this conflict has been a very heated one among editors, and thus I expect that my edit will be promptly cancelled out by editors who in the past opposed the inclusion of any country in a support role for Ukraine. Thus, if it comes to that, I leave it up to you to continue the discussions. I will be here to provide arguments of support if needed since we are in agreement. EkoGraf (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

EkoGraf, you should know quite well that supported by in the infobox is a deprecated term and that the close of the RfC leading to the term being deprecated tells us that an RfC is the appropriate course to override the strong community consensus not to use the term. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Cinderella157, if its deprecated, why hasn't "Supported by: Belarus" been removed from the Russian side? And consensus can change, which is evident from this discussion which has shown strong support for the addition of UK based on the available sources. In any case, like I said above, removed [60], I leave it to the others, not getting involved anymore, will only voice my agreement as before. EkoGraf (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

EkoGraf, there was an RfC here which confirmed that Belarus should remain as "supported by". Cinderella157 (talk) 00:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I also agree to add UK in a support role.Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Related article needs expansion and cleanup

Hey all,

Fortifications of the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a messy start-class article that could use a lot of improvement. Attention from more editors would be helpful.

Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 09:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Expanding the map

The war map at the top only focuses on the situation inside ukraine.but thats just not how this war is working. there have been some rather sizable incursions in the belograd, kursk, and voronzenh regions. I think that these should be shown somewhere, since, even if the ukrainian government is not taking part in them, they are direct response to the invasion and are mainly used to divert rusisna resources from ukraine. i dont this would to hard to do. I also think the detailed map should be updated and maybe the tterritorial control during the war as well. Definetly the list of engagements 68.132.201.101 (talk) 22:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Seems like a better fit for Russo-Ukrainian War rather than this article which specifically focuses on the Russian invasion. TylerBurden (talk) 15:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I created the Template:Russian internal conflict detailed map/ Lukt64 (talk) 05:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

While I see the value of this information, I am not convinced this should be on a map. The current map gives an overview of territory that is controlled or being fought over. Small scale incursions that were never intended for lasting control are not on that map, nor are airstrikes etc. If we would include those for Ukraine the map would probably unwieldly filled with such minor actions. But if we agree it makes no sense to include each and any (known) airstrike or command raid within Ukraine, that raises the question why we would then need such a map for Russia. It seems a bit asymmetric to me. Also I am not sure the proposed internal conflict map works for this purpose. Arnoutf (talk) 10:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

These territorities have been held for nearly 2 weeks now...@Arnoutf 68.132.201.101 (talk) 10:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Find a source saying that the pro ukrainian groups have been driven out of said territory. In the absence of one its reasonable to assume their still there @Slatersteven 68.132.201.101 (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

British English is probably unenforceable

This topic area is finally peaceful and quiet enough that it’s time to seriously consider what that banner is doing up there, given that it’s honoured only in the breach. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

At a glance, inconsistently, rather than not at all? I would think it could be difficult to enforce either way though. Usually Europeans are split on US and UK English usage, and the topic is of interest to a very broad audience, so I think this is likely to be a problem whatever anyone does. Jim Killock (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. But inconsistency is the worst of all in my opinion. Obviously as a proud American I have a bit of a potential bias here, but for what it’s worth both Ukrainians and Russians overwhelmingly use American standards of English in real-world settings. And I do believe it’s empirically verifiable that a sort of de-Americanized American standard is becoming the global standard for non-native speakers.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

MOS:RETAIN exists to avoid wasting time arguing about this. Since the topic has no ties to any particular English variety, whatever was first used post-stub revision is what should be used. If you care that deeply, look at the article history and see if the British tag was correctly added. TylerBurden (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, I took your advice…

Turns out, it was disruptively (agf) added by @WhisperToMe without discussion or justification at a point when non-British spellings were already prominently in use.

To my knowledge, British English has never, ever been consistently used in the article. Or at least, since the time the tag was unilaterally added, when the infamous words "demilitarize and denazify" were already in the lead in non-British spelling. What with the chaos on the ground, the frequent edit conflicts due to the usual current-events flurry, and other stuff, no one noticed the addition and later it became the status quo.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 18:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@RadioactiveBoulevardier: - This was the state of the article on February 24. I added UK English template because the article was using day first date format, a characteristic expression of British English, in the lead and in multiple places in the article. I am aware that the US military uses day first, but ordinarily U.S. topics use month first. I did not extensively go over each part of the article to see which spellings were used. While there are other Englishes, of course, that use day first format, UK English is typically the most prominent. Unless an article has a particular tie to a particular English speaking country in some way, if I see day first being used, I choose British English as I assume that is what is being used in the article. Due to the prominence of the date format, I perceived UK English to be already a matter of fact in the article, and not necessary to discuss. Oxford Learners' Dictionaries state demilitarize is acceptable British English as it states "(British English also demilitarise)", though Cambridge dictionary states that in the UK it is usually "demilitarise". Collins dictionary stated that both forms are used in UK English. I am not aware of "denazify" being spelled differently in the UK, and Oxford English dictionary uses "denazify". WhisperToMe (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@TylerBurden: - This is the first diff I see in the revision history (which seems to be a split from 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis). It uses day first date format. While "North Atlantic Treaty Organization" is used, The Guardian (a British newspaper) uses that particular spelling for NATO. As for "recognized," Collins dictionary states that both "ize" and "ise" are used for that word in British English ("recognize in British English or recognise "). Same with Oxford Learners Dictionary ("(British English also recognise)"). WhisperToMe (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Per MOS:DATETIES, For any given article, the choice of date format and the choice of national variety of English are independent issues. That is why we have separate use templates. For example {{use dmy dates}}{{use American English}} is pretty common in milhist and many other areas.

It’s an interesting point you make about “demilitarize”, but I don’t believe it’s ultimately well taken. While I don’t have an OED on the shelf at home, Cambridge Dictionary [61] has “BrE usually”.

(Furthermore, your citation of a learner’s dictionary is arguably evidence of the increasing normativity of certain American spellings in international/L2 contexts).

Also, the diff you linked appears to be from six hours later, which is an eternity in terms of actual revisions on the first day of a massive current event.

I didn’t suggest that “denazify” has divergent spellings.

NATO has an official spelling and it’s that way probably because the depositary and primus inter pares of the North Atlantic Treaty is of course the US.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

So this seems to have been the revision I would have read before I added the template. In the end, the page still uses extensively DMY. Anyway, I was not aware of the line in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Strong_national_ties_to_a_topic (and it turns out the line was in there at the time). It seems so strange because date format is perhaps the most visible difference between those varieties of English. Unless I knew the topic is about the US Armed Forces, my brain automatically decided "British English" when I saw that date format, and likewise when I see MDY my brain decided "American English". I used date format as the decider too because it would take too much time to look through every single spelling and weigh its prominence and guess what the editor who added meant. Date format just became a very convenient decider for me. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Well respectfully, I believe that was eroneous. Dmy can indicate any number of non-Anglophone TIES. If I wrote a biography article about a Brazilian in AmE, would I use mdy?

Anyway, do you have any objection to the removal of the tag?

Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

1. While DMY can be based on ties to non-Anglophone ties, the majority of edits on ENwiki are from countries with Anglophone ties (see Wikipedia:Edits_by_project_and_country_of_origin). Additionally, editors of non-Anglophone backgrounds are often influenced by the key variety of English they learn in school (either British or American). For example an editor from Brazil may have learned English from an American teacher (or a non-American teacher who uses American English) and therefore uses American English.

2. I'm fine with the template being removed while editors reconsider which variety to select. Consensus should decide which one is ultimately used.

3. Additionally, when I went back over WP:ENGVAR I found the line "An article's date formatting (March 24, 2024 vs. 24 March 2024) is also related to national varieties of English – see MOS:DATEFORMAT and especially MOS:DATETIES and MOS:DATEVAR." Should this line have clarification that MOS dates are not necessarily related to national varieties of English?

WhisperToMe (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Checking the article revision at the time the TP was tagged (without the article itself being tagged until much later), only one possible Britishism, “authorised” appears anywhere. While there are no smoking-gun Americanisms, the “ize” endings and consistent use of Oxford commas (mainly an Americanism these days, sadly) seem to indicate otherwise. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Its not really unenforceable, as we can enforce it. Slatersteven (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, perhaps (although I would question the feasibility) but did you read all the above comments? I have seen no evidence of any explicit consensus to use BrE, except tacit acceptance of what was erroneously assumed to have been the original state. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

FWIW I am happy for the change to be made to US English, in return for the US unblocking its support for Ukraine in Congress. This is a fair exchange, I believe. Jim Killock (talk) 06:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't help out there 😂Not even by calling my rep bc they're already solidly in favor.

In any case I don't see Ukrainian sources switching to BrE as a protest lol RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Trump could intervene in favour of British English yet. Seriously tho, while I don't think international == use US English, you probably should regard this as a question of what is convenient and minimises the work. Jim Killock (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Not quite the same issue. But "TACIT ACCEPTANCEE" is consensus. But I will say why British English, as this is not a British topic. But it does need consistency, so we have to pick one. Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• An article should be consistent in things like spelling and date formats. An article in a state of flux (eg an ongoing current event) will rarely be consistent until the article becomes stable. Many editors don't make a conscious choice of EngVar spelling when editing, so this inconsistency will always be an issue until it becomes relatively stable. We do need to choose one variety of English or another so that the article can become consistent. WP:TIES really doesn't resolve this. Do we accept the variety of English as tagged? Do we try to analyse the very first edit? Do we take it to an RfC and see how many US users v non-US users turn up on the day? Are there better and more important things to do? Cinderella157 (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  My view, as I said above, is that there aren't better things to do in this topic area for now. Unless the usuals here want to join some backlog drives or hop over to the ongoing CoI mess at ANI or, y'know, take some ZSU brigades and VS RF divisions to GA, then I don't see why this isn't the ideal time. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

European arms initiative

This is my last attempt, but I will try it. There should be article about Czech-initiated European arms initiative to supplying Ukrainian Armed Forces during current shortages. Is there anyone, who will create article about this?--178.255.168.45 (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Why is this more significant than any other aid? Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Because problems in the USA and it was already favoured by Dmitro Kuleba, so it have significance at current critical situation. 78.45.59.159 (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@178.255.168.45 If you really want stuff added, you can make some edit requests to Talk:Ukraine Defense Contact Group.

As Slatersteven said, there is as yet no indication in RS that this is more significant than the supplies of Patriot, HIMARS, F-16s, Bradleys, Javelins etc.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

On wiki are far less significant articles (in case of this war, various local skirmishes articles etc. and no one will delete them). Thus, not sure if thats valid argument.--78.45.59.159 (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Something gets added to Wikipedia if it is notable, not if it is significant. Something is notable if it is mentioned in secondary sources. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

If it is notable, than in that case, this article should be there much earliers, as already even WSJ mention this initiative. 178.255.168.45 (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Lithuania also joined initiative with 35 million Euros.--178.255.168.45 (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Zelensky thanked for initiative.--178.255.168.45 (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Another sources: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/19/czech-republic-to-deliver-thousands-of-extra-artillery-shells-to-ukraine and https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/a-small-ex-soviet-satellite-state-goes-hunting-for-arms-for-ukraine-35255577 or https://www.france24.com/en/tv-shows/the-debate/20240321-ukraine-and-arms-supply-can-the-eu-bridge-the-gap --178.255.168.45 (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Well more of the articles you speak of are gonna get deleted by consesnsus pretty soon, almost certainly… RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 04:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Such as? Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

For example, Battle of Balakliia is unnecessary in comparison to this initiative. Would someone delete that article? It can be merged to Kharkhiv counteroffensive without any problem.--178.255.168.45 (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

That is an article about a battle, not aid. They are not comparable. Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, you are right. Battle of Balakliia is much less notable than military aid. Thank you! Will you write that European arms initiative article? I do not have much time for creating article. 178.255.168.45 (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Another source to help you with creating article: https://www.rmf24.pl/fakty/swiat/news-sikorski-zapowiada-polska-podwoi-swoj-wklad-w-czeska-inicjat,nId,7415776#crp_state=1 --178.255.168.45 (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

source needs home

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 accidentally overwrote it and am putting it here because I don't think it is a very good source anyway for Russian involvement in Donbas. I looked quickly but the gist seemed to be that the US should not provide military aid to Ukrain in 2022. But maybe I am wrong, or maybe some other point in the article could use some support from the US defense contractor point of view. Russian troops were deeply involved in the conflict.

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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 April 2024

Requesting that in the Belligerents section, it should show Ukraine is supported by: NATO. And maybe even the EU. Rc2barrington (talk) 22:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Not done for now This is a perennial proposal and consensus is, last I checked, deadlocked as to who should be added. You are more than welcome to ask further questions about why this is on the user talk page(s) of frequent contributors to this article, including myself.RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Prelude

The 'historical revisionism' link takes you to the article on 'historical negationism'? Which is it?

The descriptor comes from a named writer, so we have to use his term - there's no link to the source article, though.

Regards to all Notreallydavid (talk) 10:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Images of Dead

In the article for this, there are images of the deceased. Could we perhaps blur the faces of those individuals so that the impact of war is still evident, but their dignity is intact. 69.131.151.15 (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Blurring faces for privacy reasons is not necessarily "censorship". TylerBurden (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 April 2024

Books/Biographies written by people who were on frontlines and have escaped -

1. https://www.amazon.ca/War-Punishment-Zelensky-Russias-Invasion/dp/166801372X#:~:text=War%20and%20Punishment%3A%20Putin%2C%20Zelensky,9781668013724%3A%20Books%20%2D%20Amazon.ca

2. https://www.amazon.ca/Life-Tolka-Nitin-Chopra/dp/9392507054/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=2NEP7VI7LQJ9U&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.herhdIedqL3d88NpkQ8qNt-ZQtp5bdXTNpzy4RigIHuKB0T2u7-LwwtrUQVmj7HyhrqlzILk05LvrVufCqh5qkHEaxdAp_40I2-p4KBzOuaI2-WfQ8MuWjnNFcHqcFF4hL60bV8eQPHEVELVOdjLfq4JH6mj2vWYswDuSDtXxxkR4al12MHFITRSK3nRwY4r.OA8EfwiJx8NkzsSRk-aCZ2Wvmhj18Ff3PdOdUckxPLo&dib_tag=se&keywords=the+life+of+tolka&qid=1712561099&sprefix=the+life+of+tolka%2Caps%2C142&sr=8-1

3. https://www.amazon.ca/You-Dont-Know-What-War-ebook/dp/B0B4QXWQS5/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=6ATLPEXQLH4S&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.ghUraF6-yAgcCbAmLUTuiPouSyFCfR3jDuQ-uGb-rFfMyCpMu-KrHJkgZKIKmgSRLeVAOQ8yf7T1gQ68YkJuGeKuIgutiqYDzz4qlnRwCzrYbSzemST_4ytGjEecnIVDcI3ea7GReB664o5BM_jcEbeQ-ti8ihokGqfLO4IHfq15X3aF2ielyhIlTLHAE2YUXzr3hZ8tQiEEi-h92oR_HQ.o9oFaSX2mNnumpYOP-517CTWFGnDWYoRNJIKdOhQ5YI&dib_tag=se&keywords=the+story+of+a+young+girl+from+ukraine&qid=1712560989&sprefix=the+story+of+a+young+girl+from+ukraine%2Caps%2C144&sr=8-1

4. https://www.amazon.ca/Message-Ukraine-Speeches-2019-2022-ebook/dp/B0BGX2HNJ9/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=311VH554H2P4H&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.xAY3wS5YVTMakGoq7R4SXLgq2NHetkkASzTae39DYz3Q0PZGFO2RRrq96Xe73jXUcc_EYqJaXb1QKK9WExwV1UKyurFJvu0z8UtZQh025__2ALXOMCTJiRQZTFZRNBat0yOB8qdBoHbsZfw2kL0UYezWGCt4d9OecBTcyUtOrV8Iw3d3qirfUaKwWS7ic0VK4xOgNvrVhC4DSG3BpCunQg.gzbvAkg-1--aKSIRseVmdutuJg3hLFR95kbrvrh5Igg&dib_tag=se&keywords=ukraine+2022+book&qid=1712561054&sprefix=ukraine+2022+book%2Caps%2C129&sr=8-1 2605:B100:108:65DC:B115:E8D4:4E02:B900 (talk) 07:26, 8 April 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. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 07:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

The majority of the " aviation losses" claimed by the Ukraine inflicted to Russia on the latest timeline section are not verifiable

As the New York Times reported,[62] "The majority of the shootdowns could not be independently verified, and a senior U.S. official expressed skepticism at that number.", We all know that the Ukraine has been proven several times to boast of successes or made up some for PR reason, understandably, hence I ask to add a specification in the page that such claims could not be independently verified and that even western officials doubt them as truthful, and I also do suggest to change the title of the Paragraph to "Battle of Avdiivka, claimed Russian naval and aviation losses (1 December 2023 – present)"

Moreover, I must insist that a report of a shootdown spree by one of the fighting sides should obviously be taken with a pinch of salt and definitely shouldn't be included in the title of a paragraph. It feels like some pro-Ukrainian editors are trying to "balance" Russian successes by adding something to the Battle of Avdeevka, which was a Russian victory, to make it seem like Russia is losing on some other front. I don't need to state that this is pure coping. 87.13.20.225 (talk) 23:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• Hi, please be more specific as to the changes you wish made in the format - change X to Y, (including any inline citations in the changed text). Cinderella157 (talk) 02:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the subheading is probably a WP:Due weight issue. Seems like editors don’t like the idea of something like “winter/spring 2023–4 campaign” even though that’s a better supported term.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with "pro-Ukrainian" or "coping", those are personal attacks, and everything to do with what is actually within the section. The content that has thus far been considered noteworthy enough for this period of time to add was the Avdiivka battle/capture and Russia's significant losses of both ships and planes. The section title not only summarizes this, but is also in line with the other similar sections covering other periods. I don't see what is wrong with including successes from both sides.

Furthermore, everything included is from WP:RS with wording used as to not create issues with claims being stated as fact.

@RadioactiveBoulevardier Do explain how it is "probably a WP:Due weight issue, I'm genuinely interested given that both Avdiivka and the high profile equiment losses of Russia have been widely covered in RS. I'll also have to disagree with your vague title suggestion. TylerBurden (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it comes down to the palette of sources being used. The typical editor in this topic area is drawing mostly from a pool of mass-market news sites, mainly American. Their idea of academic analysis is ISW.

When compared to the only other topic area currently under ECP, this is a pretty poor sourcing pool. Over there, because of the constant fisticuffs, all editors have gotten their act together and the end result is solid in most places.

As a corollary of WP:NOTNEWS, one can’t simply say that because David Axe and some other sites (not infrequently including English editions of Ukrainian outlets subject to wartime censorship laws that are ipso facto an “additional consideration”) report something in order to get views, it must be important. There has been more than one occasion when Ukraine said one thing, the Pentagon or another partner said something different, and editors went with the Ukrainian version.

If I (or frankly many of the analysts I read and respect) were to completely rewrite the purely military sections of this article, it would look much less like a propaganda-scented chronicle of heroic resistance and much more like a sober and reasonably comprehensive discussion of a bloody, chaotic conflict, i.e. the closest that one could get in 2024 to the rich histories of WW2 and other conflicts that we summarize here.

While I haven’t been as in the loop 24/7 as I once was, I haven’t been seeing a lot of hard academic/professional RS statements to the effect that Russian equipment losses are of the significance that is attributed to them here. A giant mushroom cloud in the middle of Sevastopol makes for a great Telegram video, but the actual military value has more to do with what precisely was lost than how much.

Also, there’s the issue of how much and what kind of “behind the scenes” curation can be conducted before it verges on SYNTH. This cuts both ways, but I invite other editors to take a long at other MILHIST areas for inspiration.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh also, in terms of Russian naval/air losses I think the main issue is that the reader is given the impression that “oh look we blew some stuff up yay” (destruction of matériel) is the main thing. With some digging one could definitely write well-cited sentences and paragraphs explaining why this is actually reasonably important in the operational-strategic context (regardless of what other events may also be reasonably important). Lastly, I don’t have time to actually read this whole article over again every 48 hours to see where it’s at, so bear that in mind. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Untill the war is over this will always be an issue. We should leave out all casualties until a sober assessment has been done post-war. Slatersteven (talk) 09:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 April 2024

"South Ossetia" is a Russian-backed unrecognized separatist republic. It has sent its troops to Ukraine. It should be added in infobox on Russia's side, since "South Ossetia" is participating in invading Ukrainian land - https://english.alarabiya.net/News/world/2022/03/26/Georgia-s-breakaway-region-sends-troops-to-Ukraine- 27.5.96.197 (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

You need a better source than this. Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/03/26/georgias-breakaway-region-sends-troops-to-ukraine-a77094

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/georgian-breakaway-region-says-it-sent-troops-to-ukraine-to-help-protect-russia/ 27.5.96.197 (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Mmm only the Times of Israle really passes muster, Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

have to disagree - alarabiya.net - is a valid source as far as I know for Wiki ? 2603:6080:21F0:6140:5544:563:E5E3:3EB0 (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Currently it's not even listed at WP:RSP so it might be a good idea to take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Bias in peace talk section

I have concerns this is not neutral. Right now it implies Russia wants to talk and Ukraine does not, effectively creating the image of nice Russia wanting peace and bad Ukraine rejecting the proposal. The sentence "Zelenskyy announced that Ukraine would not hold peace talks with Russia while Putin was president and signed a decree to ban such talks" seems undue (and is it still up to date?). There is also nothing said about how international observers see Russia's peace proposals as a insincere public relations [63] or ploy to rebuild and then surprise attack again ([64], [65]), or that Russia refuses to consider withdrawing from occupied territories ([66]).

PS. The bias is very clear when you consider this NYT referenced sentence in our article that states only "In December 2023, The New York Times reported that Putin has been signaling through intermediaries since at least September 2022 that "he is open to a ceasefire that freezes the fighting along the current lines."" without acknowledging doubts expressed in the NYT article such as "Some American officials say it could be a familiar Kremlin attempt at misdirection... . The former Russian officials add that Mr. Putin could well change his mind again if Russian forces gain momentum." and "Many in the West are skeptical of a cease-fire because they say Mr. Putin would rearm for a future assault." Noting is is said about Ukraine's side ("Ukraine has been rallying support for its own peace formula, which requires Moscow to surrender all captured Ukrainian territory and pay damages. President Volodymyr Zelensky said Tuesday that he saw no sign that Russia wanted to negotiate.") _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I am unsure it does, as Russia is the aggressor. Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven I am not sure what you mean? What do you refer to as "it"? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

What you are talking about, the article. Slatersteven (talk) 09:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven Perhaps it is my fault as not being a native speaker, but I fear I still can't parse the sentence "I am unsure the article does". Does what? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

"implies Russia wants to talk and Ukraine does not", as (not place to examine the rights and wrongs of the stance) does not imply it as it says it as it is true, Russia offered talks and Ukraine refused. It does not "effectively creating the image of nice Russia wanting peace and bad Ukraine rejecting the proposal", as Russia in the invader, thus Ukraine has a right to refuse to surrender. Which is what we do say. 09:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

What Slatersteven said. We cover stuff by summarizing RS.

I haven’t read the main article linked there, so I can’t say offhand if it’s a comprehensive summary even of that article. Would be worth checking the authorship (blame wld be probably necessary afaik to concentrate on the section).

And by the way, for the future, for some stupid reason you have to use a separate template for the tag instead of adding a section param. I fixed it already and you’re welcome to follow me to the template talk page to complain about those semantics to the template guru demigods admins :)

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

The Ukrainian government is reportedly rejecting peace negotiations until Russian forces are out of Ukrainian territory, which appears to be missing in the peace efforts section. This would reduce potential bias.[67] The US government, as the largest non-belligerent party involved in the war on Ukraine's side, has rejected peace talks too.[68] According to these and other articles, the Russian government's intentions for peace negotiations are varied but nonetheless political. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try to c/e the section to summarize RS. Let me know if anyone has any concerns about my version; if not, I'll remove the npov template I've added in a few days (feel free to do it yourself too - well, the section is stable). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Lutsenko estimate

There are only low-quality sources for this, and it is a misinterpretation. See FALSE: Every month, about 30,000 Ukrainian soldiers are killed or seriously wounded — Ukrainian doctors (voxukraine.org) . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 07:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

What are you replying to exactly? Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

[69] this addition. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 07:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that American mainstream media is necessarily low-quality sourcing for quoting Ukrainian officials, especially when the same media is aggressively pro-Ukraine. The statement is appropriately credited to Lutsenko. voxukraine is a local Kyiv-based Ukrainian website and there's no indication it is reliable. Its basis for the "FALSE" claim is a Telegram post having no relation to Lutsenko's statement and this website https://memorybook.org.ua/.

The sourcing in the article is lopsided as is. The sourcing for both Ukrainian and Russian casualties are Ukraine and its supporters. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

It's a misinterpretation. See argument above. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

According to voxukraine. I didn't know this earlier, but I found that voxukraine has been criticized as unreliable and works with the Ukrainian government in the media space, including from Ukrainian political scientists.[70][71][72] We should find a reliable source. Have ABC and other news reporting the same or Lutsenko recanted or corrected their statements? What do others think about the use of unreliable sources to reinterpret politicians' statements? Saucysalsa30 (talk) 03:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

While voxukraine may be an uncertain quantity, its criticisms can be tested for validity. Unless shown to be incorrect (either of you?), I am happy to take them at face value. Lutsenko falls to WP:VNOT. There is certainly no consensus to use him at present. It is not like he is a good quality RS. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Move Page Request.

Hi I've just come onto this page for info but i noticed the page is still called "Russian invasion of Ukraine" this should be edited on 2 accounts, point a. this is now being classed as a war, and an invasion must be completed, or be within a year of the conflict beginning, so the first re-name should be to either "Russo-Ukrainian War" or "2nd Russo-Ukrainian war (2022-)", the first being sourcable on the bbc, NYC and other sources, the second is sourcable by the first BUT as there is already a Russo-Ukrainian war then i think that should renamed to "Russo-Ukrainian conflict since 2014" the "Donbas War" to "1st Russo-Ukrainian war (2015)" etc. Point B is that the page should be called "Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022-)" again because of what has happened previously in Donbas, which again should be called "Russian invasion of Ukraine (2015) (the Donbas war)" Infomanfromearth (talk) 09:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

This is titled "Russian invasion" because it seems to be considered one aspect of the broader Russian-Ukraine conflict, Russo-Ukranian War, that has gone on since 2014. Do you have sources that identity this as a separate and distinct conflict? That seems unlikely given that the conflict has been ongoing since 2014, the invasion simply raised the stakes. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

The title is not perfect by this point but I'm not sure what the best alternative is and there is WP:NODEADLINE. If you think this is a good idea and are willing to bring it into a discussion of truly epic proportions…a move wouldn't be procedurally appropriate. You would have to propose a merge following the instructions at WP:MERGING. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 10:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

In terms of the sourcing there is actually plenty of basis to change the name or scope but but while the subject of the articles is still ongoing it will be hard to find a good on scopes and titling.

To point out an analogy, we don't call the entire Iran–Iraq War "Iraqi invasion of Iran" despite a very high degree of similarity. And while non-opinion sources are still mixed on nomenclature, there has been a shift. I don't really know the ideal methodology to utilize metrics for these purposes, but some other editors active here do. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 10:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Replace the country names and this lead paragraph from Iraqi invasion of Iran would fit fairly well:

The Iraqi invasion of Iran began on 22 September 1980, sparking the Iran–Iraq War, and lasted until 5 December 1980. Iraq attacked under the impression that Iran would not be able to respond effectively due to internal socio-political turmoil caused by the country's Islamic Revolution one year earlier. However, Iraqi troops became increasingly bogged down in the face of fierce Iranian resistance, which greatly stalled their advance into western Iran. In just over two months, the invasion was brought to a halt, but not before Iraq had managed to occupy more than 25,900 square kilometres (10,000 sq mi) of Iranian territory. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 10:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Istanbul Communique

Greetings fellow editors, @Slatersteven, how this addition [73] can be improved? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

For a start, it does not may most of that, it said there were talks (which may not have in fact even been genuine peace talks) that may have been scuppered by the West (but others disagree). Its hard to see how this could be reworked, or even its real relevance as even the source says "...that the parties were merely going through the motions and buying time for battlefield realignments or that the draft agreements were unserious.". Thus this seems undue. Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Its hard to see how this could be reworked
— User:Slatersteven 15:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The text can always be reworked with the help of reliable sources. The opinion of those "others disagree" can be added, your quote from the source can be added. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I have raised my objection, it is undue. Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Which and what opinion you characterize as undue, and why? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I have said why, so once more. The source does not say this is a fact, they say SOME people they talked to said this. Other people they talked to disagreed, and some they talked to did not even think the peace talks were serious. This is why it is undue, even the source hedges its bets. Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The added text mostly described the so-called "Istanbul Communique", and it is unclear what's undue in adding it into the article? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

We already mention peace talks in Turkey. Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

That's why the addition was following and supplementing the current mention. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Why? there were many peacetalks, this was just one, what makes this one special? I will not be responding again until you come up with a good reason why this needs more of a mention than the others, assume silence is disagreement. Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Foreign Affairs is considered one of the United States' most influential foreign policy magazines, and the article in question comes from academic researchers in a field. Given the "Peace efforts" section references mostly news articles, it's surprising you decided to delete this particular academic and most reliable one. What "many peacetalks" are you referring to? There are more academic sources discussing "Istanbul Communique" -
Peace talks between Russia and Ukraine: mission impossible (ssoar.info)
Diplomacy in the context of the Russian invasion of Ukraine: continuation of war by other means (ssoar.info)
Avoiding a Long War: U.S. Policy and the Trajectory of the Russia-Ukraine Conflict | RAND ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Zelensky Peace Formula

@Cinderella157, let's update the Peace efforts section with more up-to-date info and better and more up-to-date sources [74] . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 08:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Apparently, the post I made to this TP didn't post. Given there is a main article, the section on peace efforts should be a tight bare bones summary. It certainly does not warrant the two sub-sections that I reverted. The previous text reinstated could be further trimmed. There is no issue with adding appropriate more recent material. It comes down to the execution. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

The main article is still far from perfect and is mostly filled with news sources. I observe these day's sources primarily talk about the Istanbul talks (Communique) and Zelensky's peace formula, you? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

We only need detail about the ones that works, not the ones that fail. Slatersteven (talk) 09:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

It depends more on if they are covered by sources then on success. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

No it does not, as we have an article for it, thus failures are not really that useful here other than adding just words. In fact we have two articles, because peace talks need to be coved in Russo-Ukrainian War than here. But I have had my say, assume silnce means no. Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Objections are OK but only substantiated objections can affect the outcome and "failures should not be covered" aren't. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:VNOT. summary style does not mean everything. If there are deficiencies in the main articles, remedy them. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Other articles deficiencies shall not stop us from improving this one. The section uses mostly news sources currently so the edit adding in-depth analyses was an improvement, you could just remove subsection headers if you oppose that, it's unclear what other objections are? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Important recent developments not added yet?

The timeline section does not include information on the Russian gains since taking Avdiivka, the more destructive Russian missile/drone attacks & tactical air support, the offensive toward Chasiv Yar, the breakthrough to Ocheretyne, and the passing of the major US military aid bill. At the moment it just ends by stating, rather flippantly, that Russia took Avdiivka, mentions the disparity in Ukraine and Russian ammunition, and states the Russian warplanes downed in February. Since then, multiple major developments are not mentioned at all. Namely those I just mentioned; major increase in Russian air support, Chasiv Yar battle beginning, Ocheretyne salient (and the reported unit rotation issue that caused it), and US aid finally being approved to alleviate the disadvantages Ukraine currently has. The outlook on Ukraine and momentum of the war has actually shifted significantly since the seizure of Avdiivka and it just isnt included here when it should be. Massivebrain420 (talk) 07:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

There are more people complaining about the article on the talk page than there are actively adding more content, and that includes many that have the necessary permissions to do so. Then again Wikipedia doesn't need to be first with adding news, see WP:NOTNEWS. Of course we could add every meter gained by Russia, the daily Russian terror bombings of civilians in Kharkiv that recently started, the US aid being approved etc, but since there is only so much space it might make more sense to wait for developments to actually reach some sort of point that you can summarize. For example, we don't know what effects the US aid will have yet. Unless there is some significant established event (like Avdiivka falling into Russian hands), I don't think it is urgent.

If you would like to change the article anyway but don't have permission to edit it, feel free to submit an edit request. TylerBurden (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Troop numbers

Everybody keeps ignoring me but I'm determined not to stop. Russia now has 510,000 troops in Ukraine. Please update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxsmart50 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Use your determination to find WP:RS supporting the claim and make a proper WP:EDITREQUEST. TylerBurden (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 May 2024

5.228.82.103 (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Я уповноважена особа, що володіє всіма правами і привілеями автопатрульованих, подаю запит на розблокування статті "Вторгнення Росії в Україну" для подальшого її редагування, блокування якої відбулося через помилкове спрацювання системи захисту від небажаних правок, тому я, як автопатруюємо на розблокування, щоб змінити розмір шрифту і зробити його більш читабельним.

 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. — Czello ^(music) 20:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems that they want the article unprotected (which we cannot due to WP:RUSUKR and the circumstances that led to that DS), and that they want to make the font size bigger (which violates MOS:FONTSIZE). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Map Update

It seems that Pervomaiske has fallen under Russian control. Should we then have the map updated to a period more recent than April 2nd? 2603:6012:5940:17E:291F:6E2A:D0A4:A05A (talk) 06:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Please see Pervomaiske, Pokrovsk Raion, Donetsk Oblast#History. There are currently three citations there relating to this (that I could see at a glance, mind, there might be more), one for a media report on Russian milbloggers claiming it, another for the Ukrainian media stating it and the third for the Russian MoD claiming it. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 10:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

GeoConfirmed pics and all of Telegram agree. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

The map seems to be a mix violation of both WP:OR and WP:NOTNEWS. It's not Wikipedia's job to provide live frontline map updates. A "collage" of notable images from the invasion would be more in line with Wikipedia policy and manual of style. TylerBurden (talk) 15:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree. New event happen too quickly for Wikipeida to keep up. We can have live coverage. Bilseric (talk) 22:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Losses

Ukranian casualties must also be updated: 46.450 comfirmed by names according to UALosses Project at April 30 2024. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uricm55 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

And this will keep changing, so casualties really need to be left out until the war is over. Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

That's an absolute minimum figure. The casualty count thing is a whole mess and I'm with you on this one. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I would opt to keep it out personally, as it's heavily contested topic. Bilseric (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I believe that the number of casualties is an important piece of informaiton in any armed conflict. I readily conceed that the number can be up for debate but I also believe that if there are reliable sources that can support the proposed number, it should be included and part of the article. It would be akin to the death toll of a major event, though it is not the main issue, it is an important human aspect that should be included as it is intergal to the conflict itself. Jurisdicta (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

How come countries like the USA arent considered be Belligerents?

Alot of countries send hunderts/thousands of vehicals and weapons to Ukraine. So why arent they Belligerents for "Supported by:..." 2A02:8108:9940:24B8:2160:79C0:5E29:F227 (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

See the talk page achieve for every answer to this., Slatersteven (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 May 2024

Please do a minor the grammer fix. In the International Aspects, under reactions, in the first paragraph, it says "...shift its coal exports to from Europe...". Please remove the first "to". Thank you for your time. Chunkybeef9847 (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done Jamedeus (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Infobox: Belligerents

Under Belligerents, it is shown Russia, Donetsk , Luhansk PR and supported by Belarus on one side and on the other side, Ukraine. Shouldn't on the other side show Ukraine and supported by USA, UK and EU or NATO? Sarvagyana guru (talk) Sarvagyana guru (talk) 09:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

See talk page archive, discussed over and over again, you have brought no new arguments forward. Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 May 2024

Please add [[File:Avdiivka_Coke_Plant_after_Russian_shelling,_2023-10-19_(02).jpg|thumb|View of the [[Avdiivka]] Coke Plant after Russian shelling]] under the Battle of Avdiivka, Russian naval and aviation losses (1 December 2023 – present) section --Hoben7599 (talk) 02:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The date range in the title of this section is 1 December 2023 – present, but the image is from 19 October 2023. Jamedeus (talk) 03:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Change to [[Avdiivka_Central_City_Hospital_after_Russian_shelling,_2023-12-27.jpg|thumb|[[Avdiivka]] Central City Hospital after shelling]]]] --Hoben7599 (talk) 08:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Should France be added as a belligerent or as at least supporting Ukraine ?

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-commander-french-military-instructors-visit-ukrainian-training-centres-2024-05-27/ Clearly sending french soldiers into Ukraine to train Ukrainian units would make them active participants and targets for the russian military. https:theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/04/british-soldiers-on-ground-ukraine-german-military-leak It is also surprising that the British haven't been already added to the belligerents section given the leaked German military phone call that detailed British troops are on the ground helping with missile targeting. 94.142.59.241 (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

maybe not active participants as they aren't actively fighting Russian forces, but some way to recognize them as "pro Ukraine" would work Icantthinkofaname1 (talk) 16:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

See FAQ. Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Spelling inconsistency I noticed

In the Prisoners of War section of the article, it says "Zelensky compared Russian soldiers to "beasts" after the footage was circulated." In the rest of the article, his name is spelled "Zelenskyy". It should be spelled like that here too. MORTALITY ANOMALY (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done --JasonMacker (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Original Research Image in Use

There are concerns from editors regarding File:2022 Kherson-Mykolaiv Offensive.png, created by @Rr016:, that the image contains original research. Can editors, or Rr016 verify the source(s) for this map? This map is in use on some child-articles currently and has been removed by others under OR grounds from Battle of Kherson, in prep for a GAN. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 June 2024

In the box where the belligerents are described, add for Ukraine "Supported by NATO", the same way how you added "Supported by Belarus" for Russians. Right now it gives the wrong impression that Ukraine is alone, while the support NATO is giving is a decisive factor, while Belarus's support for Russia is negligible. 2001:8F8:166B:4F6D:E1EA:3FEC:B4A9:4A0D (talk) 06:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Do not use edit requests for edits that require consensus. Read the FAQ, specifically Q4. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Background section

@TylerBurden
"...former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev clarified that there was never any promise to not enlarge the NATO alliance..."

This 'summary' of Gorbachev's response to the question of James Baker's 'promise' that "“NATO will not move one inch further east" gives readers the impression that Gorbachev uttered words closely resembling the claim that "there was never any promise to not enlarge NATO."

James Baker may or may not have uttered words to Gorbachev that he interpreted as resembling a 'promise'. However, nowhere in the published interview is Gorbachev quoted as even uttering the word 'promise'. The secondary source referencing the interview makes the claim "There was, he said, no promise not to enlarge the alliance." Gorbachev never said that.

The 'summary' suggests that Gorbachev viewed James Baker's "not move one inch further east" assurance as unimportant or that Gorbachev stated James Baker never said those words at all. Why not just quote Gorbachev directly: "The topic of 'NATO expansion' was not discussed at all..." instead of claiming "Gorbachev clarified that there was never any promise"? Chino-Catane (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

No disagreeing as such, but if it was never discussed by definition it could not have been promised. Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven

You raise an important point. What you are describing is an implication, not a definition. "Mikhail Gorbachev's response implied that there was never any promise" reads differently from "Mikhail Gorbachev clarified that there was never any promise". Nevertheless, why even invoke the word 'promise' at all when summarizing Gorbachev's statements? Chino-Catane (talk) 18:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@Chino-Catane Because WP:RS did, it's their job to interpret material, not Wikipedia editor's.

The exact part of the source is: "There was, he said, no promise not to enlarge the alliance, though in the same interview Gorbachev also stated that he thinks that enlargement was a “big mistake” and “a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made” in 1990." TylerBurden (talk) 18:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@TylerBurden

"There was, he said, no promise not to enlarge the alliance..." is not an interpretation. It is a false claim stated as fact. The evidence demonstrating the falsity of this claim is the referenced primary source interview. A text search of the interview reveals that Gorbachev never used the word 'promise' in any of his responses.

My edit, which you undid, offers no interpretations whatsoever. It directly quotes Gorbachev and allows his words to speak for themselves. You made the critique that my edit was "longer than it needs to be." I can accept that. You should accept that your "reliable source" is not reliable in this particular instance. Chino-Catane (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

You quoted Gorbachov incorrectly: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification (i bolded what you omitted). ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@Manyareasexpert

I did not quote Gorbachev incorrectly. I omitted words for brevity and substituted ellipses to flag the omissions. If I had included everything, my edit would have been even longer than "longer than it needs to be". My omission was actually more severe than you indicate, as I excluded everything in that sentence passed "...military structures would not advance..." What is your issue with the omission? Chino-Catane (talk) 22:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Map which shows territories controlled and regained from Russia in Ukraine is somewhat misleading

The first map at the top uses a very similar colo(u)r for bodies of water and territories that Russia no longer occupies. This makes the area around the Dnipro river confusing, as a reader could very well believe that it is territory formerly occupied by Russian forces due to the similar colors. A change in colors for this map (such as changing the color of territories regained by Ukraine to a color other than blue) could be helpful. Thanks Icantthinkofaname1 (talk) 00:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Light green or a deeper yellow could both work. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Yellow is already the color Ukrainian held territory is being used for, and any other shade could still be mistaken. Green would give the idea of "Ukraine good Russia bad" by implying Ukraine retaking territory is a good thing(while it might be a good thing for you or others, it goes against the idea that wikipedia should be a neutral source) Purple could work though, it is different from the rest of the map and is more neutral Icantthinkofaname1 (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I think a light shade of purple would work best. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 08:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, I have realized that most maps in this article use the same format as the top one. Making changes would require a lot of time, as it is preferable to have the maps coincide with eachother colorwise, so keep that in consideration Icantthinkofaname1 (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

This discussion should be had at c:File talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg. Melmann 11:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I think there needs to be a broader question on whether it should be included in the map at all. The other way around (territory recaptured by Russia) isn't indicated in any way, making the map unbalanced in terms of what it's trying to portray. Right now, for example, there is no indication that those two areas captured by Russia in the 2024 Kharkiv offensive were previously indicated as "light blue" on the map. So in effect, the map is presenting a biased view where Ukrainian territorial regains are represented, but Russian territorial regains are not. I think this should be addressed.--JasonMacker (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

maybe it would be better to get a gif which shows the evolution of front lines throughout the war every month or so, and remove the idea of "formerly occupied by ___" all together, which would make the map more straight forward and unbiased Icantthinkofaname1 (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Speaking of the map, has anyone ever explained how it is not in violation of WP:NOTNEWS? TylerBurden (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

How is that remotely a relevant policy here? Mr rnddude (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Most of the blue-shaded areas are derived directly from whichever areas were colored in red during the early period of the war (February-March 2022), and are thus prone to the errors inherent in breaking news reports. As a result, the boundaries of this blue area are highly suspect.

As an example, I recently found that the cities of Bohodukhiv and Derhachi were denoted as having been previously Russian-occupied, based on a vaguely worded report that an editor had seemingly misinterpreted on 26 February 2022. I demonstrated on the talk page that based on more recent retrospective sources, those cities had never been occupied in the first place. The map's primary editor indulged my request and shifted the blue area so that it fell just outside of the aforementioned cities, despite, in the case of Bohodukhiv, there being no evidence that Russian forces were ever anywhere near this city. On these grounds I can say that at the very least, some parts of the blue-shaded regions on the map are a total mess of synthesis and original research. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 00:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude Your response to this? Are Wikipedia editors frontline journalists now? TylerBurden (talk) 11:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

It was a fair question. If there is any issue here, I would think it is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. I don't see how WP:NOTNEWS reasonably applies either? Cinderella157 (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The smugness is misplaced. NOTNEWS deals primarily with topic encyclopedicity (a freshly minted word). There is no question that the subject is encyclopedic. Moreover, NOTNEWS explicitly and repeatedly encourages editors to keep articles current. The opening clause of the policy is [e]ditors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage .... I still don't see what application NOTNEWS is supposed to have here.

Regarding OR/SYNTH, the current front is IIRC typically sourced from the ISW. The blue shade of 'former occupation' probably relies on the reliability of former versions of the map. Any error once introduced will be retained until noticed (as in the case raised by SaintPaulofTarsus). The map is hosted on commons.wiki which has different policies to en.wiki. Handling such issues is consequently complicated. Either we can 1a. notify commons.wiki editors of errors once identified as at present; 1b. request the blue shading to be removed to eliminate risk of OR/SYNTH; or 2. migrate a copy of the map to en.wiki (put it under our jurisdiction so to speak) and use that instead. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I’d be all for migrating the map to be under us. It might be marginally more laborious at the back end but it beats the other options.

Also, I now see that I was erroneous in assuming for many months that the fancy map is based on the detailed map template and module. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Pictures must be blurred

Wikipedia is open to anybody including children.

It is not appropriate to show violent images without any warning.

I propose blurring of violent images and addition of warning. 31.206.142.86 (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

See WP:NOTCENSORED. TylerBurden (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you serious?

Then see:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Offensive_material 31.206.142.86 (talk) 03:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes we're serious. So long as the images serve an encyclopedic purpose, they will not be censored or removed. Per the WP:OM guideline (note also that a policy supersedes a guideline) you just cited: [a] cornerstone of Wikipedia policy is that the project is not censored. Wikipedia editors should not remove material solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers. We do not include material for the purpose of being offensive, but we also will not censor or remove material because it may cause offense. In briefer words, the won't somebody think of the children refrain is not a justification for us to remove, alter, or censor the images. If this doesn't suit you, you may refer to Help:Options to hide an image for guidance on hiding images on your browser. That guide also informs the readership that: Wikipedia is not censored, and the community will in general not remove content on grounds of being objectionable to some people. Wikipedia will also not use specific disclaimers within articles warning readers of such content. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Further to above, Wikipedia makes no claim about being suitable for any particular use. As the Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer clearly states: All information found on the site is without any implied warranty of fitness for any purpose or use whatsoever.

This means that if you're a parent or a guardian, or otherwise legally responsible for the wellbeing of children, it is your responsibility to assess and determine whether Wikipedia suitable for the use of children in your care (while understanding that Wikipedia may contain content that is offensive, inaccurate, misleading, dangerous, unethical, or illegal), and to take necessary steps to allow or disallow access to Wikipedia for any such children. Melmann 07:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Ukraine Defense Contact Group

Would it be useful to generate an RfC for infobox inclusion of the UDCG as a supporting belligerent? News outlets have recently reported that members of this group are supplying Ukraine with weapons that have or will be used to strike targets inside Russia. Chino-Catane (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The notion of adding arms suppliers to the infobox has been flogged to death. It is an ex parrot. It isn't going to voom if you 40,000 volts through it (that's been tried) or if you call it a donkey. It's still dead. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Here are the the main points of opposition and their resolutions:

1. The West only provides hardware

In addition to having received military intelligence, combined arms combat training, analytical exercise preparation, and war games planning, Ukraine is now receiving fighter jets along with many months of NATO-provided training on those fighter jets.

2. Infobox creep

There only needs to be one entry - either UDCG, US or NATO.

3. Infobox inclusion of Ukraine support advances Russian propaganda

Omission is "Western" propaganda.

4. Distinguishing between aid type is complicated

The types of aid we care about are (a) lethal military aid and (b) the most severe economic sanctions possibly in the history of modern civilization. A single "Supported by" entry - UDCG, US or NATO - would encompass those two types of aid, and only those two types of aid.

After more than two years of conflict, it is far past time for that infobox to present an honest assessment of who is engaged in this war. Without lethal military support from the leaders of the so called rules-based international order, Ukraine would have been forced to negotiate a peaceful resolution to this confict long ago. This truth reasonable inference should be reflected in that infobox. Chino-Catane (talk) 05:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I am with the dead parrot analogy. Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Your ″truth″ is WP:OR. TylerBurden (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

But say your suggestion goes through somehow, are we also then adding North Korea, Iran, etc to supporting Russia? These requests interestingly always seem to leave those countries providing aid to Russia out of the equation.

https://apnews.com/article/north-korea-russia-arms-transfers-ukraine-a37bc290ed3ee59cfbbafdc2a994dc58

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/6/5/how-iran-contributes-to-russias-war-in-ukraine TylerBurden (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@TylerBurden - "Your 'truth' is WP:OR"

Osraige shared sources[[75]] demonstrating evidence of intelligence delivery, combat training and war planning.

"...are we also then adding North Korea, Iran, etc..."

If you accept the proposition that transfers of non- dual-use lethal weapons constitute belligerent support, let's go ahead and add North Korea and Iran to Russia's list of supporters. However, even rejecting that proposition does not exclude the U.S. and our allies from consideration as belligerent supporters of Ukraine. We have contributed substantially more than just lethal weapons, contributions without which Ukraine could not possibly continue its belligerence. Either way, inserting one or three entries to the infobox would not constitute unnecessary or inappropriate "creep". Chino-Catane (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

"Without lethal military support from the leaders of the so called rules-based international order, Ukraine would have been forced to negotiate a peaceful resolution to this confict long ago. This truth should be reflected in that infobox"

I was referring to this "truth". Saying "we" also doesn't make your arguments mean more, where you claim to be from is irrelevant. TylerBurden (talk) 19:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@TylerBurden You're right, I should not have used the word "truth". Thanks for the criticism. Your interpretation of my use of the word "we" is interesting. Do you have any substantive objections to any of the points I raised? Chino-Catane (talk) 23:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Avdiivka, Russian naval and aviation losses, second Kharkiv offensive (1 December 2023 – present)

The section title was changed from Battle of Avdiivka, second stalemate and continued air and sea operations (1 December 2023 – present) with this edit, which was inturn changed from Battle of Avdiivka, Russian naval and aviation losses (1 December 2023 – present) with this edit. MOS:SECTIONS tells us to apply similar consideration to section headings as we would use for an article title (ie including concision) and to avoid wrapping. The heading for this section is ridiculously long and at risk of wrapping on mobile devices. We really should consider a more concise heading. I had changed it to just the date range but this was reverted back to the current. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

After reviewing the titles of the earlier timeline sections, I support immediate removal of "Russian naval and aviation losses". This may be a case of undue weight, as the naval and aviation losses in question don't seem notable enough to warrant such a prominent mention here. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 03:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I’m mot sure whether I’ve said this before, but it seems pretty clear that yes, it’s a due weight issue and probably based on someone consuming too many David Axe articles. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Out of the seven sources cited for Russian naval and aviation losses, a solid single one of them is by David Axe. I don't see why he would be a problem anyway, since he is Forbes staff, last I checked WP:FORBES staff was WP:RS. So what's the point of your comment exactly? TylerBurden (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The criteria of being natural, sufficiently precise, and concise suggest that unnecessary verbiage should be excluded. Why is it useful and necessary to include anything other than "Battle of Avdiivka" and dates? Chino-Catane (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, let's shorten it to Russian losses then. On top of the naval and aviation losses, in the same section we also describe the high manpower and vehicle losses during the battle of Avdiivka. TylerBurden (talk) 19:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

"Russian naval and aviation losses" gets reduced to "Russian losses". This is a step in the right direction. However, "Russian losses" is not useful information to be included in any section header of this article because Russian Forces have been suffering losses since the beginning of the invasion. The author of this heading appears to be over-stretching to highlight Russian naval and aviation losses that are neither strategically nor politically significant. Chino-Catane (talk) 05:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Russian losses, including those of expensive military equpiment, are widely covered in WP:RS, hence why there are many references available to use when covering them. It's not your job as a Wikipedia editor to determine if they are "tactically" or "strategically significant", more WP:OR. The idea that covering Russian losses is WP:UNDUE is.. questionable at best and POV at worst.

I guess when you take massive losses for proportianally little gains, it tends to be reported on by media that is allowed to. TylerBurden (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The sources in question fall to WP:NEWSORG, which means they are an RS with caveats. We are expected to distinguish per WP:NOTNEWS what is encyclopedia content (not everything). This is particularly important when dealing with a high level (overview) article. WP:VNOT applies and so may WP:DUE. These sort of editorial decisions fall outside of WP:OR, which is about writing an editor's conclusions into content. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I mean we can sit and WP:WIKILAWYER all day, what would be more useful is concrete suggestions on how to improve the article that isn't just "remove Russian losses". TylerBurden (talk) 11:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Such as the notice of original research contained within the article heading identified by Chico-Catane (@ 05:51, 14 June 2024) that should be removed? The 'second Kharkiv offensive' is a non-extant topic within reliable sources. I receive 9 results when searching for the topic: two are Wikipedia, two are Reddit, one replicates Wikipedia content, one is YouTube, one is a 'study guide', and the remaining two are other non-RS (one forum post and one blog). The article linked within the body that is being referred to by that name is 2024 northeastern Ukraine offensive. That too is another editor fabricated title created by synthesizing titles across disparate sources. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

"Russian losses ... are widely covered"

Russian losses have been widely covered since the beginning of the invasion. Why do "Russian losses" merit inclusion in any section heading, let alone this one?

"not your job..."

The topic under discussion is the appropriateness of a section heading. You have made it your job to determine that "Russian losses" in the period (1 Dec 2023 - present) are somehow more significant than "Russian losses" at every other time during the invasion. That's "not your job".

As a matter or policy, MOS:SECTIONS calls for precision and concision. The expression "Russian losses" is not precise and erodes the concision of the section heading. It is also not consistent with the style of section headers in other invasion articles rated WP:GA : Operation Barbarossa, Operation Overlord, United States invasion of Afghanistan. Chino-Catane (talk) 01:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

″Why is it useful and necessary to include anything other than "Battle of Avdiivka" and dates?″

Because readers might want an idea of what they are going to read about? --TylerBurden (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The Battle of Avdiivka was politically significant. Its strategic significance is questionable. The Russian naval and aviation losses discussed in this section are neither strategically nor politically significant. When I google with quotations included "second kharkiv offensive", three results appear. One of those results is this article. Neither of the other two results linked to published news articles. Chino-Catane (talk) 05:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Gennadij Židko

Gennadij Židko is dead, however there has been no cross added next to his name, unlike with pages for many other wars. Update? ReelmsyWiki (talk) 08:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

He wasn't killed in action. He died in Moscow. There shouldn't be a cross. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Mines in Ukrainian port approaches

See Russian invasion of Ukraine#Naval blockade and engagements: Ukraine closed its ports at MARSEC level 3, with sea mines laid in port approaches, until the end to hostilities. The source cited failed verification and has been tagged. I was unable to find an alternative source - particularly in respect to mines. Can anybody else?

Further down in the section: On 1 June, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov asserted that Ukraine's policy of mining its own harbours to impede Russia maritime aggression had contributed to the food export crisis ...

The first text might be deleted on the basis of the second passage if no source is found for the first? Cinderella157 (talk) 08:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Just FYI

Thought I’d mention that next week I’m planning to do a fairly thorough survey of the way in which uk-wiki and ru-wiki handle the whole “what counts as a discrete battle” thing. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 02:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Maps of previous days should be accessible

Whilst the map does give a generally good view of how the frontlines change, it’s often hard to tell how much it’s changed or if the change is significant or meaningful in any way. As such, I think it would be neat for there to at least be some way to view the previous maps from previous days in the war. (At the absolute minimum, there should be a new day-by-day timelapse that goes to the current date.) LordOfWalruses (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

It's worth noting that we now know that the maps from February-April 2022 are wildly inaccurate, so it might be best to create new revisions with the benefit of hindsight, depending on what exactly it is you think should be added to the page. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Adding revisions before putting the maps in a visible archive would be a good idea. (Also, in what ways are the old maps inaccurate?) LordOfWalruses (talk) 23:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

With the benefit of hindsight and higher-quality retrospective reporting we have the potential to create far more detailed and accurate maps of the early war. Examples of what I would consider inaccurate in the maps/gifs on this page would include depictions of Russian control over Vyshhorod, over areas between the Dnieper and the Desna, over Slavutych prior to 26 March 2022, over a bridgehead southeast of Chernihiv rather than southwest of it, over Bohodukhiv and Derhachi, over certain areas in Zhytomyr and Dnipropetrovsk Oblasts and countless dozens of other small obscure details where the "accurate" alternative is now verifiable through reliable sources. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 04:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 June 2024

There is significant biased framing in the article. Sentences are containing statements of subjective judgement next to statements of fact (eg. "falsely claimed" instead of "claimed" on issues that can not be proven or disproven). It also applies subjective moral judgments and fact checks next to citations of opinions which in their nature can not be either true or false. This is applying misleading framing with the intent of provoking emotional reactions in readers. For a platform presenting itself as an encyclopedia this is unacceptable and I urge you to allow the edit of emotionally, morally and ideologically biased content to preserve the objective credibility of the platform. 178.148.159.134 (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit requests are for specific changes (such as) A to B, not general requests or discussion. Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

On migrating the infobox map, File:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg, from Commons to Wikipedia

The users @Mr rnddude and @RadioactiveBoulevardier raised an interesting proposal at this recently archived discussion, suggesting that the map image in this article's infobox be moved to English Wikipedia's "jurisdiction", so that it can more strictly adhere to en.wiki policies (namely WP:V and in some cases, WP:SYNTH) in its capacity as a prominent image on a frequently viewed article. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 02:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I definitely agree with the policy based rationale. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

It's clear there are issues with the current version of the map despite the strong "consensus" it has. I have tried to say this several times, so any step towards actually making it more in line with WP policy is a step in the right direction. TylerBurden (talk) 14:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

An elaboration on the issues you have with the map would be appreciated. I only recall your WP:NOTNEWS concerns from previous discussions on this talk page, which I share to an extent. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 22:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Naturally, I continue to support this. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 02:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Unconvinced. It's one Wikipedia, and the community's effort is to provide the same information across multiple languages. Hence Commons, hence Wikidata. — kashmīrī ^TALK 07:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 June 2024 [Belligerents section]

in the Belligerents section just like how it says Russia is supported by Belarus for Ukraine add that it is supported by United States of America 173.72.3.91 (talk) 20:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: See Q4 of the FAQ — Czello ^(music) 20:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

DPRK troops as a belligerent

North Korea has recently been added to the infobox as a belligerent citing this Kyiv Post article bearing the headline Pyongyang Says It Will Send Troops to Ukraine Within a Month. More specifically, the article says Pyongyang announced early this week that it will be sending troops in the form of a military engineering unit to support Russian forces on the ground in the Donetsk region. The actual planned deployment seems less significant than the title implies; remember WP:HEADLINES. My question is if/how we as editors intend on differentiating this North Korean military engineering support unit from Western countries' military advisors and support elements that are already on the ground as well. Best regards to all SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Ukraine is completely dependent on foreign lethal military support.

Here are the the main points of opposition and their resolutions:

1. The West only provides hardware

In addition to having received military intelligence, combined arms combat training, analytical exercise preparation, and war games planning, Ukraine is now receiving fighter jets along with many months of NATO-provided training on those fighter jets.

2. Infobox creep

There only needs to be one entry - either UDCG, US or NATO.

3. Infobox inclusion of Ukraine support advances Russian propaganda

Omission is "Western" propaganda.

4. Distinguishing between aid type is complicated

The types of aid we care about are (a) lethal military aid and (b) the most severe economic sanctions possibly in the history of modern civilization. A single "Supported by" entry - UDCG, US or NATO - would encompass those two types of aid, and only those two types of aid.

After more than two years of conflict, it is far past time for that info box to present an honest assessment of who is engaged in this war. Without lethal military support from the leaders of the so called rules-based international order, Ukraine would have been forced to negotiate a peaceful resolution to this confict long ago. This reasonable inference should be reflected in that info box.

Chino-Catane (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Adding UDCG [expand] is a sensible idea in my view. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 22:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

This hasn't happened yet. Troops are not on the ground and fighting. Also, per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE we don't add leaders where these are not supported by the body of the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it is premature at this point to make any changes to the infobox. But it may be worth discussing whether North Korea should be added as a belligerent if their troops (engineer corps) end up in Donetsk as announced. And I think the answer should be yes. --haha169 (talk) 05:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Iranian and Western troops are on the ground in arguably similar capacities, so the North Korean troops should not be considered in a vacuum in such a discussion. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 05:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

What is the nature of Iranian "troops"? My understanding was that they were drone trainers only, and far from the frontlines. If you have a source for something more involved, please share. Similar with Western "troops", if the information is new/different from the last discussion that established consensus. --haha169 (talk) 14:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

There are western mercenaries, and there are plenty of reliable reports about them, however that alone doesn't make Western states, belligerents in the formal sense. Mercenaries can come from anywhere in the world. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

There are RS that small numbers of Western troops are in non-frontline roles, mainly but not exclusively training. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the Spanish Civil War would be a good heuristic for determining who is classified as a "belligerent". AFAIK no country at the present time has supplied the number of men to the front-line that the supporting belligerents did to both sides of the aforementioned war. AsyarSaronen (talk) 04:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Ordering of civilian and military casualties

The following ordering of civilian and military casualties came off as bizarre and POV,

It is estimated to have caused tens of thousands of Ukrainian civilian casualties and hundreds of thousands of military casualties.

so I re-ordered it to put military casualties first. The number of military casualties is a full order of magnitude greater than the number of civilian casualties.

The edit was reverted by @TylerBurden, with the reverter claiming that my paying attention to the ordering at all is bizarre. I was told to discuss it on the talk page.

When you have two separate statistics but one overwhelmingly larger than the other, it is usually somewhat more natural to put the larger statistic first, as it represents the more significant parameter. This is especially relevant when the ordering is relevant for propaganda purposes. It is well-known that civilian casualties (in all armed conflicts) are an important propaganda weapon. I am thus afraid the original wording could be perceived as propagandistic in nature.

The convention in armed conflicts is to mention combatant casualties prior to civilian casualties, especially when the former considerably exceeds the latter as is usually true. This is evident in the infoboxes of all major wars. I do not see any compelling reason here to stray from that convention. JDiala (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to this "convention"? Because like I mentioned in my edit summary, I don't think it matters, they are both described in literally the same sentence, and both are significant parts of the article, so the placement is subjective and thus there is no reason to change it. I also don't buy the propaganda argument, you could say the same thing about the edit you made placing civilians behind military based purely on numbers being some propaganda attempt to divert focus away from civilian casualties, which would be equally unconstructive. Since it has never been an issue until now I am guessing that most people aren't interpreting it the way you are. TylerBurden (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

This is a stylistic judgement. I don't think that, for stylistic judgements such as this, we require (say) a military handbook which says "mention military casualties before civilian casualties" or something. Rather, it is reasonable to make judgements as competent English speakers as to how a sentence should be optimally arranged to come off as neutrally as possible. I am making the judgement that it is better to put combatant casualties prior to civilian casualties, because the former exceeds the latter by a full order of magnitude. You claim that this could equally be interpreted as propaganda, but this is not true, because I have a logical, non-propaganda explanation for my version (italicized in the prior sentence), whereas you do not for yours.

Imagine one of the first sentences on the 9/11 article writing something like "the attacks killed dozens of soldiers in the Pentagon, as well as around three thousand civilians". That would be a bit weird as the framing appears to emphasize the soldiers dying, despite the nature of the attack (a terror attack on civilians) and that far more civilians died. This would thus not be a natural or neutral way to word things consistent with WP:IMPARTIAL, particularly in the lead where it is especially crucial to be impartial. Likewise here, this is an armed conflict where the overwhelming majority of people dead on both sides are armed soldiers. The immediate emphasis on the comparatively low number of Ukrainian civilian casualties strikes me as strange. This is especially considering that the ratio of civilian-military casualties is not unusually high in this particular war (unlike many other armed conflicts). A reasonable reader could interpret this as having a propagandistic slant. This is not consistent with the project's goals.

I feel that this is ultimately a difference of opinion. Unlike a content dispute, it is difficult to "prove" that a particular sentence has a biased tone, and we might not be able to come to an agreement. For this reason, I welcome input from other editors.

Finally, I am not sure why the fact that the issue has not come up before is relevant. It is quite frequent (in fact, the norm) that a revert made at any given point in time was not something previous editors noticed. JDiala (talk) 04:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Well since you said it was convention, I was hoping you would back it up with a link. Like you said, this more comes down to stylistic judgement and personal interpretation. I don't think a single editor saying "I agree" constitutes consensus, since they also provided no link to the claimed convention. So unless that is done or it's clear that more people interpret it as POV, I think your change was premature. TylerBurden (talk) 19:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@TylerBurden: You are not engaging with the points made. As I have told you, stylistic judgements can be made by native speakers of the English language without citing a formal convention. There is no expectation of this as this is not an issue of content but of writing. I have given sound rationales for the change which you have not addressed, and I already have another editor agreeing with me. Furthermore, the discussion has been stagnant for a over a week. I do not believe it is a reasonable standard to demand an even more overwhelming consensus for this, especially since this is a minor issue. JDiala (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

You're acting as if you're fixing a typo, you're not. Your argument is "there are more dead soldiers", that's true, but the number of civilian casualties is not insignificant. And please, don't act as if two editors agreeing with each other is "overwhelming consensus". TylerBurden (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@TylerBurden: This is a bit more than a typo, but not by much. I don't think "well, yeah, but lots of civilians died too" is engaging with my point in good faith. I'd be happy to start an RfC if you'd like. JDiala (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@TylerBurden: Instead of an RfC, c or WP:DRN are also options. Would you be willing to accept the outcome of either of those processes? JDiala (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I already said I'd accept more people interpreting the same "POV" view as you as grounds to change the order. It should be noted that you've already recieved a topic ban in WP:PIA for POV issues. TylerBurden (talk) 00:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

@TylerBurden: It is inappropriate for you to refer to a sanction I have in another unrelated area as a substitute for an actual argument. Topic banned editors are allowed to edit in other areas, even contentious ones. You have provided no evidence that my conduct in this interaction is inappropriate or POV. Referring you to WP:PA, WP:GRAVEDANCING, WP:GF. JDiala (talk) 01:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it is quite relevant when someone who is complaining about "POV" based not on policy or guidelines but on subjective personal opinion is already topic banned for the same conduct in another WP:CTOP. No one has said you are not allowed to edit, it is relevant nonetheless. You can also stop pinging me, I have the page on my watch list. Thanks. TylerBurden (talk) 01:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

It is disappointing that an editor with such experience lacks a basic appreciation of WP:GF. You cannot engage with my arguments and instead choose to make personal attacks. I have started a discussion on administrator SFR's page about your conduct. JDiala (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

If you view this as a personal attack, I don't think there is any point in engaging further with you. TylerBurden (talk) 01:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

As a WP:3O, there is no clear convention in WP or elsewhere as to how this should be ordered. It does not require an overwhelming consensus to determine the order. One of these has to come first; therefore the other is second. This rather trivial issue has already killed way too many electrons. In my opinion, an RfC on this question would be disruptive because of its trivial nature. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. When you write "[it] does not require an overwhelming consensus", do you agree that the current 2-1 should be adequate to decide it? What is your stance on what should be done? JDiala (talk) 01:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

That's the point I've been trying to make since the beginning, since they both have significant coverage in the article and are mentioned right next to each other the order of it should not matter. TylerBurden (talk) 01:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The order doesn't matter. Two people think it should be one way; one person thinks otherwise; and nobody else gives a brass razoo - including myself. So why the fuck are the two of you still arguing over it as if it means the end of the world?

PS I can solve this with the toss of a coin if you both agree since nobody else gives a toss and that is how much it matters. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Genocide SYNTH in lead

@TylerBurden: The Wallenberg paper with the 30 genocide scholars only concludes that there is a "serious risk" of genocide and incitement to genocide, not an actual genocide. This is WP:SYNTH. Furthermore, the child article states the far weaker conclusion that the genocide allegation has only been stated with "varying degrees of certainty" by genocide scholars, and in no place states a scholarly consensus that Russia is currently perpetrating a genocide. Per WP:SS, the parent article should summarize the child article. I object to the current sentence in the lead on these grounds. JDiala (talk) 01:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

"To many observers, the erasure of Ukrainian nationhood in the occupied territories and frequent denial of Ukraine’s right to exist is evidence the Russian invasion is genocidal in nature. Some 30 genocide scholars, the Genocide Watch organisation and several national parliaments have supported this assertion."

This is directly quoted from the source, and on top if it there are several others cited. TylerBurden (talk) 01:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Stating that something is "genocidal" is not the same as asserting that it a genocide, which the lead sentence does. It could encompass a variety of strictly weaker things, such as incitement to genocide. This is SYNTH and OR. The actual Wallenberg paper does not definitively state that it is a genocide. JDiala (talk) 01:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The sources either describe it as genocide (Jade McGlynn) or various other mentions of genocide. I wouldn't be opposed to changing it to "characterised by scholars as genocidal in nature". TylerBurden (talk) 02:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree this would be a good change in wording. Moxy🍁 02:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with this. It's worth noting that Jade McGlynn, a historian and not a legal expert or genocide scholar, is a rather weak source for such a strong claim. Please note that WP:RS takes into consideration the quality of sources as well, and for such a contentious and strong claim it is best to err on the side of caution. That said, I agree with our compromise of "genocidal."

I also think the democide allegation should be removed from the lead. This does not appear to be a particularly notable allegation and there aren't nearly as many sources for it. I'm not sure it's due weight for the lead. JDiala (talk) 02:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

In fact, I've carefully looked at the cited sources and none of them state that the war is a "democide." I'm going to remove this myself as it's an unsourced claim. JDiala (talk) 02:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Jade McGlynn is most certainly NOT a “weak source”. Volunteer Marek 04:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I have added the qualifier "some" before "scholars", as this characterization is not a unanimous or consensus position among scholars of genocide. All of the cited sources acknowledge this in various ways: the first three are the opinions of single scholars in which they address the ongoing scholarly debate. The citations from the fourth article, the statement from the 30 genocide scholars and the Genocide Watch organization, are more significant, but I think there is a higher threshold for stating this as the scholarly opinion without qualification (our own article we wikilink to includes "allegations" in its title in reflection of this). — Goszei (talk) 06:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I scrolled through the Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russo-Ukrainian War and there is no one saying there is no genocide in Ukraine. It's pretty safe to just state it as it is. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Lead changes

I have implemented a series of changes in the lead section between this and this revision which I will explain here:

• Added a mention of Russia's demands for security guarantees that Ukraine not join NATO, whose relationship with Ukraine forms the primary topic in the Background and Prelude sections. According to many analysts, this is the true underlying cause of the war (beyond Putin's Russian irredentist/neo-Nazi state/"demilitarise and denazify" pretext), and so should be mentioned in the lead.
• Trimmed the fourth paragraph, which deals with international reactions and secondary effects (I moved the mentions of ecocide and food crisis here). I think that the UN General Assembly resolution is important enough to mention here, but that the ICJ and Council of Europe should be saved for the body. The same goes for the "terrorist state" designations by the Baltic states and corporate withdrawals.
• Added a mention of the EU and the US as the primary contributors of humanitarian and military aid, which is highly significant from a geopolitcal standpoint and detailed in the body.
• Moved the genocide allegation from the first lead paragraph to the fourth, wikilinking it from the ICC investigation sentence. This better reflects its WP:DUE prominence as a matter under ongoing investigation by several bodies and interpretation and debate by scholars. If in the future the genocide becomes something closer to a consensus among scholars or widely-accepted historical fact, it should be moved to the first paragraph.

— Goszei (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly endorse these changes on the grounds you mentioned. This is an excellent step towards neutrality. Thank you for the excellent work! JDiala (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Such drastic changes require consensus. I do not think they have have such.

• “Many analysts” is vague and unsourced. Many other - really most - analysts are clear on the fact this had nothing to do with NATO.
• No comment currently on 2 and 3.
• Strongly disagree with moving it.

Volunteer Marek 04:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

On the third point your text made it seem like these were the only countries which sanctioned Russia. Volunteer Marek 04:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

A consensus is not required to edit or make changes to the article. Whether they are substantial changes or not does not factor into bold editing. Your 04:46, 7 July 2024 edit appears to be disruptive. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

No, but if someone objects to changes to long standing text, then yeah it’s a good idea to seek consensus.

What exactly is “disruptive” about my edit? If consensus isn’t required to make changes to an article then undoing such changes is even less problematic, no? Volunteer Marek 05:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I mean, you yourself basically say pretty much what I just said here Volunteer Marek 05:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, I did end up moving the paragraph beginning with info on ecocide roughly to where Goszei wanted it. I do think the text itself was better previously. Volunteer Marek 05:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Reverting because you have a genuine objection is fine. Reverting solely because prior approval was not sought isn't.

That said, it had appeared to me that you'd removed the ecocide material rather than moving it. The highlighting in the diff tripped me up. I've struck the portion of my comment relating to the edit and apologize for my error.

I think the edit you've linked to isn't quite comparable. There was an on-going discussion of that material, which had been disputed by several editors on specific grounds including being based on actual misinformation. At that point, a consensus with adequate sourcing is required. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I do have a genuine objection. In particular I object to the removal of the info that leading up to the invasion Kremlin denied they had any intent to invade. That’s key info and should stay. I also object to over emphasizing and treating as legitimate Russian propaganda claims regarding NATO. I certainly object to using one to remove the other. Volunteer Marek 16:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

The NATO thing is not merely Russian propaganda claims. There are plenty of RS (both news and academic), not to mention innumerable opinion pieces by analysts, including some rather big names, discussing it extensively. While it might be better to focus on those sources rather than the blatherings of Peskov and Zakharova, that does not negate the notability or prominence of the NATO angle. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

(thanks for striking that part and I understand the confusion - with text being moved it’s always messy to figure out what’s going on) Volunteer Marek 16:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I think your revert is hard to justify. We encourage bold editing. Bold editing by definition does not require consensus on the talk page. If you object to the edit, you can revert. But you should have a reason for the revert besides “you need consensus first” which is not really a reason. Furthermore when an edit consists of multiple changes it is usually encouraged to do a partial reversion rather a wholesale reversion (WP:REVONLY). If you revert everything I’d expect a point-by-point criticism of each part of the edit on the talk page which you haven’t provided. JDiala (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I did specify my objections and my edit was indeed partial. That’s why it was done in a couple separate edits. Volunteer Marek 16:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, it appears you do not want discussion of NATO in the lead, since you reverted my edit. As I discussed in my edit summary, I think NATO should be discussed in the lead for a simple MOS:LEAD reason: it is discussed at length in the body in the prelude section, and the lead is supposed to summarize the body. It is also factually a correct statement that Russia demanded security guarantees that Ukraine not join NATO in the run up to the war and this was a major diplomatic issue. I want to emphasize that discussing NATO is not justifying Putin's actions. The Treaty of Versailles is frequently cited as a cause of WWII but no one suggests it justifies Hitler's wars of aggression. But we have to discuss the geopolitics honestly and a part of this includes mentioning Russia's threat perception vis-a-vis NATO. JDiala (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

First, you not only added stuff about NATO to the lede, you also removed the fact that Russia was denying it was going to invade in the build up to the invasion. Second, since most analysts and sources regard the demands regarding NATO as a pretext and red herring for invasion pushing it into the lede is WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Yes, the pretext is mentioned in the body, lots of things are, it’s a big article. Most of the text is explaining the context, which is necessary but can’t fit into the lede. Volunteer Marek 16:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

On the first point, you are correct I did remove the invasion-denial part. I stand corrected on that point and I apologize for the oversight. I do not really have an objection to the inclusion of that. On NATO, it seems that you are confusing two separate things. You seem to think the previous version of the lead claimed that NATO expansion was the actual reason Russia invaded. This is indeed a contentious claim, although I would not describe it as "fringe" and Goszei has convincingly argued below that there are legitimate reasons to believe it is more than a pretext. The key thing to note, however, is that, this was not what the previous version said. The previous version said that Russia "demanded security guarantees that Ukraine not join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)". In other words, this was merely a description of what Russia said publicly in the diplomatic crisis preceding the invasion, without any prejudice towards its actual intentions. That NATO expansion was what Russia claimed to have been a threat is not really disputed. JDiala (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok, we can work this out. The part that I have a problem with - and this issue arises frequently when dealing with situations like this - is that presenting one side’s claims can make it seem as if those claims are legitimate. In this particular context the problem is that Russia made several demands prior to invasion, all of them highly unrealistic (withdrawal of NATO forces from Poland, “denazification” of Ukraine, etc). Why mention this particular one? As Gordon’s edit summary said, Putin was throwing out all kinds of claims and demands, while whole time denying he was planning to invade. And this is how it generally works with invasions - make impossible demands, then claim that since these weren’t met, you aren’t really the aggressor, but a victim. So again, why this particular one? I wouldn’t be completely opposed to mentioning NATO issues in the lede but we do need to be careful with the wording. At the time Putin invaded, Ukraine wasn’t slated to join NATO. Volunteer Marek 17:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

There are two responses to your question "Why mention this particular one?" First, it's not just "this particular one." The paragraph in question discusses a variety of Russian reasons to invade, including "demilitarization", "denazification", supporting the pro-Russian forces in the Donbas conflict, and also unstated Russian intentions which analysts ascertained like a denial of Ukraine's right to exist and irredentism. Second, the NATO stuff is particularly important because it was the principal point of contention in the diplomatic crisis preceding the war. It was a direct Russian ultimatum: guarantee you don't join NATO, or else.

With respect to your other point, "presenting one side’s claims can make it seem as if those claims are legitimate", this is just not something I agree with. We have to respect our readers' intelligence. If a claim is not stated in wikivoice and is directly attributed to a third party, then the educated reader should clearly understand that we are not endorsing the factuality or legitimacy of said claim.

Here is a thought for a compromise. Mention the Russian demand that NATO not expand eastward. However, also state the Ukrainian counterargument: that sovereign states have a right to join whichever alliances they please. JDiala (talk) 18:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Here's a fair solution. The revision in question should have read,"In late 2021, Russia massed troops near Ukraine's borders, having demanded security guarantees that Ukraine not join NATO while denying any plan to attack." This proposition appears to be factually unassailable with no bias whatsoever. Chino-Catane (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Russia massed troops near Ukraine's borders, having demanded
Russian demands have been evaluated by academic sources, and that evaluation should be in the article body. If it's not there then it should be added. After that we may think why russian demands, without academic comments, should be presented in the lead. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

VM, what makes you say that it is a red herring[…] and WP:FRINGE? Apart from the source pool, common sense seems to come into it. Sure, invading a country is an unlawful escalation, but that doesn’t negate that there was a bona fide diplomatic crisis. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

---

I believe this discussion has got off onto the wrong foot. All versions of the article text (both existing and proposed) require consensus, and both I and Marek thus far have followed standard practice through the WP:BRD cycle. The purpose of this discussion is to build a consensus, as we are doing.

I disagree with Marek's argument that "analysts are clear on the fact this had nothing to do with NATO" and that "NATO stuff was obvious red herring". NATO is currently mentioned 36 times in the article text. We link to Enlargement of NATO, and describe Ukraine's 2008 bid, Russia's opposition on security grounds then, and NATO's declaration that Ukraine would eventually join. If anything, it fails to mentions NATO enough. Our article at Ukraine–NATO relations describes how Yanukovych's government officially abandoned the goal of joining NATO in 2010 before it was ousted by the pro-EU revolution in 2014, resulting in a political turnaround. Our article at Russo-Ukrainian War describes how NATO and the U.S. began training and arming the Ukrainian military in 2014; both are still deeply involved in these capacities. At a very minimum, it is clear that Ukraine's complex relationship with NATO forms part of the broader geopolitical story of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the post-Soviet conflicts (see our article on the Russo-Georgian War, which mentions the diplomatic crisis over NATO in its lead), and Ukraine's internal divisions, which all can agree at least contributed to the war.

A backgrounder by the Council on Foreign Relations think tank, published in 2023, summarizes the analyst positions on the war's causes as such:

Some Western analysts see Russia’s 2022 invasion as the culmination of the Kremlin’s growing resentment toward NATO’s post–Cold War expansion into the former Soviet sphere of influence. Russian leaders, including Putin, have alleged that the United States and NATO repeatedly violated pledges they made in the early 1990s to not expand the alliance into the former Soviet bloc. They view NATO’s enlargement during this tumultuous period for Russia as a humiliating imposition about which they could do little but watch. [...]

In the weeks leading up to its invasion, Russia made several major security demands of the United States and NATO, including that they cease expanding the alliance, seek Russian consent for certain NATO deployments, and remove U.S. nuclear weapons from Europe. Alliance leaders responded that they were open to new diplomacy but were unwilling to discuss shutting NATO’s doors to new members. [...]

Other experts have said that perhaps the most important motivating factor for Putin was his fear that Ukraine would continue to develop into a modern, Western-style democracy that would inevitably undermine his autocratic regime in Russia and dash his hopes of rebuilding a Russia-led sphere of influence in Eastern Europe. “[Putin] wants to destabilize Ukraine, frighten Ukraine,” writes historian Anne Applebaum in the Atlantic. “He wants Ukrainian democracy to fail. He wants the Ukrainian economy to collapse. He wants foreign investors to flee. He wants his neighbors—in Belarus, Kazakhstan, even Poland and Hungary—to doubt whether democracy will ever be viable, in the longer term, in their countries too.

I believe this demonstrates the topic is more than just a "red herring", and that it is consistent with mentioning both Russia's NATO-related security demands in late 2021 as well as Putin's irredentist statements in this article's lead, as my version proposes. — Goszei (talk) 16:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

wrt to NATO We are talking about this specific text by which was reverted by GordonGlotall and then readded by JDiala. I still agree with Gordon here. First issue is that it removes the denials. Volunteer Marek 16:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

And his edit summary is correct - Putin also demanded NATO’s withdrawal from Poland and Baltic, recognition of occupation of Crimea, a change in Ukrainian government, etc. Why focus on this particular pretext?

In regard to the CoFR - again, you have these “some scholars”. Anyone who’s been following this conflict knows who these “some scholars” are and the fact that you can count them on fingers of one hand. The same source you quote gives the actual reason for invasion in the last paragraph you quote. Volunteer Marek 16:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken, I (not JDiala) made the change to that sentence in this revision, and I stand by it. It's obvious that Russia would deny plans to invade Ukraine (as opposed to openly announcing its intention), so it isn't worth stating. We should instead state what Russia did openly announce, which were its demands, no matter how disingenuous or non-viable they were. Our GA on the Prelude to the Russian invasion of Ukraine devotes a large part of its lead to describing the demands, and this lead should devote one sentence to doing so. Regarding the CoFR, it does not present the second viewpoint as the "actual reason for the invasion", but presents both as factors in Putin's decision to go to war.

If you need further evidence, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg himself said this to the EU Parliament in 2023:

The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition for not invade Ukraine. Of course we didn't sign that. The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second class membership. We rejected that. So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. [emphasis added] He has got the exact opposite.

— Goszei (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but JDalaia was the one who restored it after it was reverted.

And I think the denial is important. He wasn’t saying “if NATO agrees to my demands I won’t invade”, he was saying “oh, we’re just doing training exercises, we’re not planning an invasion”.

Also I do think the last paragraph lays out the real reason for invasion. Volunteer Marek 17:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Anyone who’s been following this conflict knows who these “some scholars” are and the fact that you can count them on fingers of one hand. [emphasis added] Really? Quite a lot of scholars outside agenda-pushing think tanks have taken this view. The basic principles of intl rel and poli sci naturally lead to such conclusions. It is pretty mainstream in the relevant fields, even if non-academics want to cancel it for their own reasons. It’s hard to see a fundamental difference between people employed by the Atlantic Council or the American Enterprise Institute, who happen to have degrees, promoting narratives consistent with their employer’s overall goals, and similar phenomena in the hard sciences in which people with degrees are paid to write about the purported safety of their employer’s products (plastics, greenhouse emissions, prescription drugs, etc.) in situations where independent research shows otherwise.

Do you seriously doubt that the Russians have a monopoly on propaganda/info ops? Or is it that you don’t believe there’s anything threatening about a giant permanent alliance of the world’s most developed powers with an integrated command structure sitting on one’s border? Or is it that hybrid regimes aren’t allowed to feel security threats? Get real(ist). It may be easy for Europeans to gloss over inconvenient bits, but if my country spent only as much on defense as our average ally, we could afford decent social programs and pay off our debt.

Of course none of this excuses going and invading a sovereign country from a legal or ethical perspective.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Please see comments below by Manyareasexpert and GordonGlottal. Also see WP:NOTAFORUM. Also, no spending as much on defense as “average ally” would not enable the US to “pay off its debt” (whatever that means) or even “afford decent social programs”, nevermind that these are just more red herrings here. Volunteer Marek 05:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

This is not only cringeworthy, but violates WP:NOTFORUM. TylerBurden (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Wow, so much discussion that I had to have a look. Why would not we edit the article body first and then the lead. I remember reading reliable sources both saying NATO expansion was an excuse for Russia to invade, and assessing Russia was feeling threatened by it. Let's talk sources. The burden is on those who request the change. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

+1. This discussion has wandered very far from valid methods. Anyone who is here to build an encyclopedia should please state their case strictly in terms of reliable secondary sources. This talk page is not a forum for lay political argument. GordonGlottal (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Russian threat perceptions

To editor Asarlaí: With regards to your reversion, which sentence(s) and source(s) in particular are you accusing of being instances of Russian propaganda? Chino-Catane (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The lengthy section you added was one-sided and gave undue weight to the Kremlin's claims of the "threat from NATO expansion". This is one of the excuses Putin gave for invading. The only sources used were those that support the Kremlin's narrative. It gave no opposing views or counter-arguments, and it took the Kremlin's claims at face value - even tho' most Western analysts believe they're only a pretext.

We could write an equally-lengthy section about the Kremlin's other claims: its denial of Ukrainian nationhood and statehood, "Ukrainian Nazis", "genocide in Donbas", etc. But, like the "NATO expansion" claim, they're already mentioned in the article, and writing a whole section for any of them would likewise be giving them undue weight.

As I said in my edit summary, if your content belongs anywhere, it would be Russia–NATO relations. But it would need to be re-written to include opposing views. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 10:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that an entire section on "Russian threat perception" is probably undue. However, I don't agree with removing properly sourced content altogether by dismissing it as propaganda. You can have it underneath "background" but without its own section. The size of the added material should be somewhat reduced. JDiala (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The "Background" section and the "Prelude" section already mention the Kremlin claims about NATO several times. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 19:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Right, only to dismiss them as meritless or a pretext. There is another perspective that Russian fears were to some extent merited. JDiala (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

"one-sided": The entry takes no sides. The notion that Russia perceives NATO and its expansion as a threat is a matter of fact. Russia's perception of a NATO threat, which is not exclusive to a military threat as summarized in my entry, directly relates to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. This is not controversial.

"support the Kremlin's narrative": You are projecting a pre-conceived notion of some narrative onto a set of facts that are not disputed.

"undue weight to the Kremlin's claims": My entry made no reference to any claims whatsoever, nor does it assign moral justification to any claim made by any belligerent.

"one of the excuses Putin gave": A neutral observer would not use the word "excuses". A neutral observer would say, "...one of the reasons Putin gave..."

"opposing views or counter-arguments": There are no views opposing the notion that Russia's perceptions of a NATO threat relate to its invasion of Ukraine. Chino-Catane (talk) 21:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

"The notion that Russia perceives NATO and its expansion as a threat is a matter of fact" - Whether the Kremlin really believed NATO enlargement to be a threat, or was merely using it as a pretext for invasion, is a matter of debate. It is most definitely controversial and disputed. What isn't disputed is that Putin claimed the invasion was provoked by NATO.

This article already says that Russia allegedly felt threatened by NATO enlargement. It already says that Putin related this alleged threat to the invasion. Here are some quotes from the article:

• "when Ukraine and Georgia sought to join NATO in 2008, Putin warned that their membership would be a threat to Russia. Some NATO members worried about antagonising Russia".
• "Russia demanded that NATO end all activity in its Eastern European member states and ban Ukraine or any former Soviet state from ever joining NATO. Russia threatened an unspecified military response if NATO followed an 'aggressive line' ".
• "Putin said that Russia was being threatened ... that a hostile NATO was building up its forces and military infrastructure in Ukraine".

We also link to other Wiki articles discussing this NATO aspect in more detail.

So, why do we need to go further and include a lengthy section about this one particular aspect? This article is already very long, and it's not the place for lengthy discussion of Russia's perceptions of NATO. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 22:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

To editor Asarlaí: "Whether the Kremlin really believed...": My entry doesn't mention the Kremlin or its beliefs. What the Kremlin believes is not a suitable topic of investigation because it cannot be investigated. Is it a matter of controversy that, "a majority of surveyed Russians believed Russia had reason to be afraid of NATO countries"? Think about the answer to that question along with my assertion "the notion that Russia perceives NATO and its expansion as a threat is a matter of fact".

Now let's address the three quotes you mention, in sequence.

• "In 2002, Putin said that Ukraine's relations with NATO were 'a matter for those two partners'. However, when Ukraine and Georgia sought to join NATO in 2008, Putin warned that their membership would be a threat to Russia." The second statement presents a Russian threat perception, preceded immediately by a statement made 6 years prior that invalidates it. The first sentence is pulled from an article that begins, "Russian president Vladimir Putin wants you to believe that NATO is responsible..."
  
• "Russia demanded that NATO end all activity in Eastern Europe and ban Ukraine or any former Soviet state from ever joining NATO. Russia threatened an unspecified military response if NATO followed an 'aggressive line.' These demands were widely seen as non-viable..." This presents a Russian action against a perceived threat, which is immediately dismissed.
  
• "Putin said that Russia was being threatened: he falsely claimed that Ukrainian government officials were neo-Nazis under Western control, that Ukraine was developing nuclear weapons, and that a hostile NATO was building up its forces and military infrastructure in Ukraine.": This presents a Russian threat perception labeled as false.
  

There exist three instances in this article of Russian threat perceptions being presented, juxtaposed with sentences that dismiss them.
"why do we need to go further and include a lengthy section": 334 words is not lengthy. This article does not need to go further in presenting Russian threat perceptions, it just needs to start.
"This article is already very long": This article is very long because it includes a detailed timeline of events. Chino-Catane (talk) 10:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

"There exist three instances in this article of Russian threat perceptions being presented, juxtaposed with sentences that dismiss them." - I wouldn't say that they're dismissed; rather that they're juxtaposed with the facts. Do you suggest that we add evidence that might support them?

"334 words is not lengthy. This article does not need to go further in presenting Russian threat perceptions, it just needs to start." - I'm not against presenting Russia's perception of a "NATO threat". The article already does. Nor am I against adding a wee bit more about it. But I'm against devoting 300+ words to it, on top of what's already there; and I'm not the only one. For balance, we'd have to write more about Russia's/the Kremlin's other perceptions, like how it sees Ukrainian sovereignty and nationhood. We'd probably also have to write more about Ukraine's perceptions. But as I said, the article is already very long, and is not the best place to discuss these things in great detail. There are other articles for that. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 11:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

"juxtaposed with the facts"

The two instances of Russian threat perceptions are positioned very far apart, sequenced with facts deliberately positioned so that readers immediately dismiss them. This is not a useful presentation of the Russian view, which is critically important information in an article describing the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The single instance presenting Russian action on its threat perceptions was also similarly sequenced with, "...widely seen as non-viable", with no cited WP:RS. Russian threat perceptions do not need to be "supported". They need to be presented in such a way so readers understand that Russian threat perceptions are mortally serious.

"we'd have to write more about Russia's/the Kremlin's other perceptions"

This can be handled concisely.

"Ukraine's perceptions"

Ukraine's perceptions played no part in Russia's decision to invade it. Ukraine's self-defense requires no explanation. Chino-Catane (talk) 05:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

We mention it, it deserves no more coverage. Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

You mention it in passing only to dismiss it entirely. There's no consideration given to the opposing view that the threat perception had a legitimate basis. JDiala (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Russian threat perceptions require at least 300 words of uninterrupted prose. An uninterrupted exposition of the Russian view is critically important in an article titled Russian invasion of Ukraine. Chino-Catane (talk) 06:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Why? Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• [76] - Yes, that was very good reversion. This is all hypothetical at best or a propaganda at worst. "Russia considered NATO expansion a threat to its national security"? Yes, but only if Russia would attack first. "Ukrainian entry into NATO ... represented a direct challenge to Russian interests"? Yes, but only if Russia would attack Ukraine. "Russia's world view as being rooted in pragmatic geopolitics aimed at enhancing its power and security."? This is a provable nonsense. Did Russia achieve such goals by attacking Ukraine and forcing the further enlargement and militarization of NATO and Ukraine? By losing a half million of its own people as dead and wounded? If anything, Russia has lost its power, security, reputation and even people. My very best wishes (talk) 01:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

There is some truth here. Putin did plan to attack Ukraine and potentially other countries, and therefore, NATO was a threat. And of course all Baltic republics would be occupied by Russia already if they were not members of NATO. And right now Putin has created a choice: he will either subjugate Ukraine or NATO will have to intervene more directly. Hence a threat. But none of these perceptions by Putin justified the invasion, as the included text implied. Rather, the perceptions came true because of the invasion. My very best wishes (talk) 02:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Belarus as belligerent

The infobox lists Belarus as belligerent on the Russian side. This is sourced to a piece of information on the BBC which itself is sourced to a Facebook post by a Ukrainian adviser to the defence minister. I hope editors here agree that this is an extremely poor sourcing for Wikipedia to formally implicate a country in an international war.

To-date, the role of Belarus for Russia has been nearly identical to the role played by Poland, Romania or Germany for Ukraine: as a training and resupply ground, arms supplier, and political backer. There's no good evidence that Belarusian troops are or have been taking active part in hostilities. While bilateral relations are in a rather poor state, neither country is openly engaged in hostilities against the other.[77]

In this view, I propose removing Belarus as belligerent. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The role of Belarus has not been at all similar - nevermind “identical” - to that of Poland, Romania or Germany. Ukraine is not attacking Russia from the territory of Poland, Romania or Germany. Russia did attack Ukraine from the territory of Belarus. This is pretty straight forward. Volunteer Marek 05:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

The main reason we list Belarus as a belligerent is that Russian troops were allowed to invade from Belarus. Ukrainian troops may train in foreign countries but always return to Ukraine before entering combat. Russian air attacks were also staged from Belarus. No country has permitted Ukraine to stage air attacks from their territory. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Please see the very complete discussion here. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Under this reasoning it could be argued that Belarus ceased its "belligerency" sometime around 2022, as Russian troops have not moved between Belarus and Ukraine since April of that year, and it is not apparent that Russian artillery and air strikes have since taken place from Belarusian territory or airspace.

A compromise might include a qualifier something along these lines:

Russia

• Donetsk PR
• Luhansk PR

Supported by:

Belarus (2022)

SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

if there is a source which makes such an argument, let’s see it. Volunteer Marek 05:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Which argument, specifically? SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 06:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Is it true that nothing has been staged from Belarus since 2022? The Ukrainian army reported a launch from Belarus on 5 August 2023 (Source). GordonGlottal (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Claim not verified independently - the source (CNN) only mentions is in passing, attributing it to an unreliable source (a different belligerent). Insufficient for an encyclopaedia IMO. Anyway, a missile launch by Russian troops stationed in Belarus does NOT make that country a belligerent. In other articles, we don't consider single instances of territory use as sufficient to consider the entire country a belligerent in a war. — kashmīrī ^TALK 01:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the infobox used to say that. Benpiano800 (talk) 02:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@GordonGlottal The close of that discussion highlighted that there was no consensus to list Belarus as belligerent. That was more than 6 months ago, and a new discussion is warranted. — kashmīrī ^TALK 01:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I guess it's been long enough for another RFC. But only if you think there's a real likelihood of changed consensus—be respectful of everyone's time. Note that another RFC is unlikely to be permitted for quite a while if two fail 7 months apart. GordonGlottal (talk) 02:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Belarus is not listed as a belligerent. It is listed as a supporter and there was clear consensus to keep [Belarus] there. This is affirmed twice in the RfC close.

This is the single most discussed element of the article and has hosted near a dozen RfCs and innumerable edit-requests and proposals across the two main articles. All bar one RfC has closed with no consensus. The Belarus RfC is the exception. 'A new discussion' without clear preliminary endorsement is doomed to status quo. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I support @Kashmiri's proposal for removal. The United States has provided far more lethal military support to Ukraine than Belarus has provided to Russia. Ukraine Armed Forces would not be able to make biweekly payroll without economic support from NATO. Russia can continue to prosecute this war even if Belarus removes itself completely from the situation. The same cannot be said for Ukraine if the United States steps away completely. Where is the neutral balance here? This particular aspect of the info box betrays a systematically biased point of view. Alternatively, simply have the info box express the fact that Ukraine is supported by the United States. Chino-Catane (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not only that. Ukraine is being actively armed by Europe and the US, it keeps receiving incredible amounts of military hardware, equipment, munitions, training, military intelligence, etc. The collective West has embarked on an economic war against Russia, seizing its assets and blocking its trade. Belarus has not done anything resembling that – generally, the West is much more engaged in the Ukrainian war than Belarus has ever been. If Belarus, by simply allowing Russian troops on its territory in line with its international obligations (CSTO), is called a "belligerent" by Wikipedia, what will be the right term for the Western countries so active in Ukraine? — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Russia invaded Ukraine from Belarusian territory. The US (or EU or NATO or whatever) did not invade Russia from Ukrainian territory. Or at all. Simple as that. Volunteer Marek 05:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Nothing in the CSTO treaty required Belarus to do any of this, not that it matters. I want to modify what I said earlier slightly in response to this exchange: Your proposed understanding of the conflict is fundamentally rejected by the vast majority of English Wikipedia editors and by the sources English Wikipedia has chosen to elevate as reliable. An RFC from this perspective is guaranteed to fail. It will be an enormous waste of editors' time and effort. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. Please find a more productive use of your editorial energy. GordonGlottal (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Why do you keep insisting that Belarus is listed as a "belligerent" when you have already been corrected above? Belarus is not listed as a belligerent, so your whole suggestion here is built on either you misreading or a misrepresentation of what the article actually says. TylerBurden (talk) 17:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to Manyareasexpert for publishing an explanation offering reasons why this article labels Belarus a "co-belligerent supporter" and not the United States. Belarus permitted Russia to stage its pre-invasion force and launch missiles from its territory. Similarly, we in the United States staged our forces for the 2003 invasion of Iraq from somewhere. We also launched air support for that invasion from somewhere. Were those pre-invasion staging territories and air support launch pads labeled as "co-belligerent supporters" in the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq? Chino-Catane (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Answer to this question seems to be that we list Turkey and Kuwait as belligerents proper (under "coalition of the willing"). The US didn't distinguish between different types of military support for the invasion and included hosts as full members of the coalition. See 2003 invasion of Iraq. GordonGlottal (talk) 04:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Mentioning NATO in lead

Continuing from the discussion above: (1) Should we mention NATO in the lead section? (2) If so, how should this be done (should it be presented in the context of the security guarantees demanded by Russia in December 2021, or in some other way)?

My favored wording is In late 2021, Russia massed troops along Ukraine's borders and issued demands including a ban on future expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), especially to Ukraine. The demands were broader, including the withdrawal of NATO troops and weapons from all of Eastern Europe (presumably in an attempt to extract maximum concessions), but the reason this particular demand should be highlighted is because it was the most immediate point of negotiation, given the circumstances of the crisis. I don't think that a clause like denied any plan to attack or similar should be included, because (1) it is obvious Russia would do this deny this, and (2) the denials became moot after December 17, as massing troops around a country and then issuing a list of demands of that country clearly constitutes a tacit threat of invasion. To be clear, simply mentioning Russia's demands does not present them to readers as legitimate, though I will note that if Russia didn't intend to negotiate at all, it wouldn't have issued any ultimatum. Indeed, documents recently published by the New York Times have revealed that in the spring 2022 talks, shortly after the invasion started, Ukraine agreed to Russia's demand that it become a permanently neutral state and never join NATO. The situation has now changed, but this demonstrates that this particular point of negotiation was and continues to be real, and should thus be presented to our readers. — Goszei (talk) 07:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@JDiala, Volunteer Marek, Mr rnddude, RadioactiveBoulevardier, Chino-Catane, Manyareasexpert, and GordonGlottal: Pinging all those who have participated in this discussion so far. — Goszei (talk) 07:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

the reason this particular demand should be highlighted is because it was the most immediate point of negotiation
Again those are personal opinions. Another question is why should the lead provide Russian demands but not their assessment by RSs, which assessments are already in the article.

I don't think that a clause like denied any plan to attack or similar should be included, because (1) it is obvious Russia would do this, and (2) the denials became moot after December 17
Again those are personal opinions. And no, it wasn't obvious, and as far as on February 23 everybody in Russia were laughing and making fun of Ukrainians for them to get concerned with possible invasion rumors. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 08:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree. In the run up to the invasion the question of “will they invade or won’t they?” was a huge deal and many commentators were assuring us that Russia wouldn’t invade based on Russian denials. It is also not obvious. Ultimatum in such situations aren’t necessarily rare. In 1991 US pretty much said “leave Kuwait or we’ll invade” - there were no denials. In this case the denials themselves were a propaganda campaign and Kremlin disinformation so yes, they’re important. Volunteer Marek 16:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Here's how the Council on Foreign Relations summarized Russia's demands:

  Russian draft treaties on security guarantees released in the run-up to the invasion focused on NATO, not Ukraine. The three key demands in these treaties were an end to NATO expansion, a prohibition on the deployment of offensive weapons along Russia’s borders, and the withdrawal of NATO infrastructure back to the lines of 1997, when the NATO-Russia Founding Act was signed two years before the first post-Cold War wave of expansion.

What Does Putin Really Want in Ukraine? Chino-Catane (talk) 10:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I support your NATO background addition [78] but please don't base it on outdated sources, as, after the start of the invasion, every pre-2022 source is outdated, and will be deleted. Use, for example, Putin's Wars and NATO's Flaws - Google Books and Evaluating NATO Enlargement - Google Books . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Putin's Wars and NATO's Flaws isn't scholarly, it's a book by a journalist without significant academic credentials or significant background in Russia/Ukraine. It's a low quality source. JDiala (talk) 00:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

This is better then pre-2022 sources and existing NATO-related text could be enhanced. There are more in-depth assessments however. For example, There is no question that Russia—its leaders, expert analysts, and public— reacted negatively to NATO enlargement right from the start. Despite some contrary statements, Russia’s opposition was fairly consistent over time. But there is little evidence that NATO’s enlargement per se was the primary cause of Russia’s concerns or fears about the West. There is little evidence of any direct Russian military reaction to enlargement, and Russian experts knew that enlargement actually made NATO harder to defend. Evaluating NATO Enlargement - Google Books ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I can only reiterate what I said above: editor discretion is strictly limited by policy, which requires us to follow reliable secondary sources. Valid wiki arguments take the form "RS1, RS2, and RS3 all say X" never "X must be true according to the following evidence and logic". Please state your argument exclusively in terms of secondary sources if you're here to build an encyclopedia. Then others can reply with alternate sources, critiques of your sources, critiques of your summary, etc. This is the only way it can work. GordonGlottal (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

To editor Manyareasexpert:What's the policy justification for this pre-2022 source ban? Only 2 / 9 citations in the International treaties subsection were published after January 1, 2022. How can this ban be justified for a Background section where history must be discussed? For example, the WP:GA assessed article Russo-Georgian War does not adhere to this condition. Chino-Catane (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

No ban but the source should be related to article topic and those pre-event are just don't. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The cited sources generate information describing "Russian threat perceptions". Which particular sentence(s) and source(s) do you believe are unrelated to the background of the historic episode we are labeling "Russian invasion of Ukraine"? Chino-Catane (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

There was serious reassessment after the actual event did happened. Why should we use pre-invasion sources to describe the invasion, given there are plenty post-invasion assessments. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not at all unusual to use sources about the background context of an event published prior to that event. If you're claiming that there was a "serious reassessment" sufficiently serious to deprecate older sources, you need a source for that. JDiala (talk) 23:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The source should be on topic. You seem to question the validity of the sentence There was a serious reassessment of the event after the actual event did happened. I think we should stop here. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

All of the sources in question are on topic. You are also misquoting your own sentence. You originally said "there was serious reassessment after the actual event did happened" and now you are saying "there was a serious reassessment of the event after the actual event did happened". It's hard to glean the point you're trying to make. As you've been told, you need an evidence-based, WP:RS backed reason to discard pre-2022 sources. This is not normally done. JDiala (talk) 23:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

All of the sources in question are on topic.
Let's have a look at the first source CIAO: Strategic Analysis: NATO Eastward Expansion and Russian Security (archive.org) of contested edit [79]. Nowhere it mentions the Russian invasion of 2022. No surprise here, since the source dated November 1998. So no, your statement is wrong.

You are also misquoting your own sentence. You originally said "there was serious reassessment after the actual event did happened" and now you are saying "there was a serious reassessment of the event after the actual event did happened"
So do you agree that There was a serious reassessment of the event after the actual event did happened is valid? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 08:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Sources from prior to the invasion by definition do not take into account the invasion in their assessment. That does not mean that they are irrelevant for discussion on the background context of the invasion. JDiala (talk) 09:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

discussion on the background context of the invasion
That should be source's conclusion, not yours. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

This isn't the standard used for sourcing. Editors are allowed to adjudicate whether a given source is relevant to a given article. As you've been told, it's routine practice for older sources to be used for for the background sections of a given article. JDiala (talk) 09:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

To editor Manyareasexpert: Since you did not respond to the question, "Which particular sentence(s) and source(s) do you believe are unrelated...", I take this to mean that every sentence in my reverted edit is related to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

• "Why should we use pre-invasion sources..."
  

Every sentence in my reverted edit was factually correct, generated from sources that no one has flagged as poor work or discredited. I have no issues with using newer sources to improve the entry, but this is no reason for my entry to not appear in the article as it was presented.

• "...describe the invasion..."
  

My Background subsection titled "Russian threat perceptions" does not describe the invasion itself. As Russia built up its invasion forces, it publicly stated demands concerning NATO 1 2 3. My entry presented historical facts concerning Russia's perceptions of NATO. Those facts have not changed, nor have they been disputed. Chino-Catane (talk) 03:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

No point arguing for the usage of pre-2022 sources, given there are plenty of sources which actually mention the article subject. You can even use the one given above. I even quoted some of its conclusions above. Here's more:

Some Western observers, even after February 2022, recognise the role of agency and contingency in a backhanded way, when they wonder why Russia’s vast bureaucracies, and the majority of people did not recoil in horror when their leader launched his war. Unfortunately, historic inves tigations into the impact of NATO enlargement on the Russian elites have become side-lined by current security and geopolitical concerns in the West. Still, as this essay suggests, it would have been much better for Western leaders to acknowledge what happened in 1991–1999 and in Ukraine between 2004 and 2008 without prevarications. A candid effort to get the story of NATO expansion straight and why Ukraine was left exposed to Putin’s fury would not affect any policies and attitudes that Putin’s brutal attack generated. Nor it would lessen the support for Ukraine’s cause. But it would have settled the issue once and for all, and thus denied Putin’s machine of propaganda lies, as well as his sympathisers in the West, any real grounds for credibility. (the chapter end paragraph) ManyAreasExpert (talk) 08:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

"No point arguing for the usage of pre-2022 sources": The use of pre-event sources in a background section does not require defense. There exists no policy nor general practice of excluding them, as the three aforementioned WP:GA articles demonstrate. I'm not seeing how your block quote relates to Russian threat perceptions with respect to NATO. Chino-Catane (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• Here are two WP:GA-assessed articles about armed conflicts that cite sources in their background sections published before the episode itself: Battle of Kilinochchi (2008–2009) and 2008 Mumbai attacks. Chino-Catane (talk) 03:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  another up-to-date source: NATO and the Russian War in Ukraine - Google Books
  A third option was put forward by Russia in December 2021 as an alternative to a full-scale invasion and was then ignored by the West that remained and remains wedded to the principle of self- determination: to force Ukraine to abjure any application to join the EU or NATO and to guarantee its neutrality by a great-power congress, involving Russia itself and America, of course, and NATO collectively (Bismarck must be laughing and weeping in his grave). Such a proposal not only flies in the face of the principle of self-determination but has also been deprived of any credibility by the behaviour of Russia itself as it had entered into just such a great-power agreement with the Budapest Memorandum of 1994. In this, the US and Britain stepped in as guarantors of an agreement between Russia on the one hand and Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine on the other that if the latter surrendered to Russia the nuclear weapons stationed on their territory at the time the USSR was dissolved, Russia in turn would promise not to touch their frontiers. Which Russia, in the case of Ukraine, has blatantly ignored since 2014. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 08:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

You really do need to engage with the arguments others are making to defend your position. Chino-Catane's point is that non-up-to-date sources are routinely used for the background sections of major events (including wars). You should address this. JDiala (talk) 09:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

That could not be used as a justification to violate the argument that sources should be on topic of article subject. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Please engage with the argument. We've cited numerous examples of GA-tier articles which source in a given way. Clearly, your views are not congruent with what the WP community considers correct sourcing. JDiala (talk) 09:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Wrong. See WP:OR : To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and you are misinterpreting what “directly related” means in this context. I will reiterate what I said earlier. “We’ve cited numerous examples of GA-tier articles which source in a given way. Clearly, your views are not congruent with what the WP community considers correct sourcing.” If you are incorrect and someone corrects you, it is generally wiser to be humble and accept the feedback rather than digging your heels in. JDiala (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

You can't override WP:OR with some local consensus. No more false theses please. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not a violation of OR. You just don't understand what OR is. JDiala (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

No false theses please. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Manyareasexpert's citations of WP:OR on this point is accurate. The way to write a background for this article is to cite present, up-to-date sources that provide the background information and analyses themselves. You do not need, nor should you be referring to, outdated sources to achieve this. You will be hard pressed to present a convincing argument for how a source that cannot so much as discuss the article's subject is directly related to it.

The argument from GA rests solely on other content and is an invalid justification there-in. Any editor can review and promote a GA, even whilst it contains violations of any policy. A major recent incident resulted in one of the most prolific GA authors having nearly all (5 of the original 233 retained GA status) of their GAs delisted and being site-banned because of the innumerable problems that those articles had and the intractability of their own problems. Even aside that, both GAs being cited here were listed over 15 years ago. They don't represent current practices at GAN. But lest anyone be led astray, even if they were FA articles listed yesterday, that does not mean they are devoid of any problems, only that all identified problems were resolved.

If you are incorrect and someone corrects you, it is generally wiser to be humble and accept the feedback rather than digging your heels in shows a complete lack of self-awareness. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it's important for you to understand that the position and interpretation you are defending is something absolutely in the fringes. This isn't a case of one or two GA articles which may or may not be good; this is basically everything. Nearly all reasonably large articles on a major recent geopolitical event have at least some sources published prior to the event's occurrence particularly in the "background" (or similar) sections of the respective articles. If you hold your interpretation, fine, but it's probably best to get a strong consensus for it because you have a fringe view on policy. There's a preference for recent sources but this is not an absolute ban on older sources. Furthermore, even if we are to accept your interpretation, then that implies many of the sources in the current version of this article (published pre- February 2022) also ought to be removed. JDiala (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

There are indeed sources and statements within the present version of the background section that should be removed.

The position that Manyareasexpert espoused, is one I have re-iterated repeatedly, even on this very talk page. It is not one I am defending, it is one I am upholding: see 00:58, 11 December 2023. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Fine, have it your way. I am actually seriously considering just systematically removing all pre-February-2022 sourced stuff in the background section. Do we have local consensus for this? We can't have one standard for material endorsing the pro-Ukrainian POV and another standard for the opposite perspective. JDiala (talk) 00:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

This would be fair. Chino-Catane (talk) 05:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

JDiala - I take it by your manual reversion, that you do not in fact endorse systematically removing all pre-February-2022 sourced material from the background section? Please clarify your actual stance and edit according to it. Rather than claiming one thing, than acting upon another. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

After discussion, of course. My main concern is you're being selective. It did seem interesting that the first target was something about NATO, rather than other things. JDiala (talk) 09:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

It is unnecessary to assign motives to my editing. I initially selected the paragraph with a citation needed tag and only one other dated source. The first thing I removed whilst editing, was not NATO, but the Russian invasion of Georgia. The relevance of which isn't well established within that paragraph. If your concern was that the removal of material about NATO above it shifted the article further away from NPOV, you should have stated that in your edit summary. It'd be a concern I could give due consideration for. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

There are a large number of claims based on pre-2022 sources. Removing them all in a haphazard fashion could negatively impact the quality of the article in the short-term. I think, if you want to do this, it is worth being circumspect in the process. I'd recommend attempting to find alternative sources based on post-2022 work before removing a given claim, or (if you yourself do not have time to source-hunt) consider temporarily putting a CN tag. JDiala (talk) 11:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort providing such a comprehensive explanation. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

"sources should be on topic": It is not controversial to state that Russian threat perceptions of NATO relate to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. [1 [2] [3] Every source I cited directly discusses Russian threat perceptions with respect to NATO. Chino-Catane (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

"another up-to-date source": I'm not seeing how this block quote relates to Russian threat perceptions with respect to NATO. Chino-Catane (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• Responding to the question on the top, no, we should not, at least in such context. One needs to propose a specific phrasing to approve or disapprove. My very best wishes (talk) 01:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

As about using pre-2022 sources, I think they can be used, but only if relevance of the content to the subject of the page is immediately obvious. If not, such content should be removed per WP:NOR. My very best wishes (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Spelling mistake in image description

Could someone please fix the spelling mistake in the caption for the image of the Normandy format meeting, only is misspelt as "onyl". The caption is as follows:

"Negotiations for conflict resolution started in 2014, with the Normandy Format facilitating meetings until just before the fullscale invasion, facilitating in 9, December 2019 a meeting between President Zelensky and President Putin for the first and 'onyl' time"

Thank you :) 1mikeymouse1 (talk) 13:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of WP:ONUS

@TylerBurden: Your recent revert is in fact having nothing to do with WP:ONUS. It is true that that the onus is on those wanting inclusion to gain consensus for inclusion. This does not mean that the intermediate, temporary version as there is an ongoing discussion must be your version. For that, the norm is to maintain the status quo, see WP:STATUSQUO.

It is important for you to understand that the point of this is to discuss. This is how consensus is built on this encyclopedia. This is how editing disputes are resolved. You are not actually participating in any discussion, and haven't been involved in any discussion here since June 30th. This is not really in the spirit of the collaboration.

In addition, per administrator ScottishFinnishRadish you do in fact need consensus to remove established long-standing material, notwithstanding some contradictory-seeming policies. JDiala (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

This paragraph should go (agree with TylerBurden) because it is not about relations between former Soviet republics (the subject of the section), but about their relations with NATO. Hence this should be removed or made a different (sub)section. My very best wishes (talk) 02:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

There are two separate issues being raised here: STATUSQUO and NOCON. One of these is a policy, the other an essay. The opening sentence of NOCON is [w]hat happens when a good faith discussion concludes with no agreement to take or not take an action? I can stop here as we have a significant problem. We're dealing with Schrodinger's discussion. That is that the discussion has simultaneously concluded and is on-going depending on which state suits someone's purposes. NOCON only applies to the former state. If the discussion has concluded:

There are four editors – Manyareasexpert, My very best wishes, TylerBurden, and myself – contesting the material. Two identified that sources were used in a manner that constitutes original research; one has partially agreed excepting for material with immediately obvious relevance to the article irrespective of source age. There are two editors – ChinoCatane and yourself – whose position is contingent on the consistency of application of policy. Assuming that this was a compromise position and that the contingent factor has not been met, then we have two editors supporting retention.

All else being equal, the discussion ends with a super-majority (2:1) of editors supporting removal.

STATUSQUO is an essay. It does not represent a widely accepting community norm, per WP:GUIDES. There isn't an issue with citing it, but policy has priority. The policy being sought here is WP:PRESERVE which instructs that editors retain material that has flaws that would otherwise be included anyway without them. However, that policy applies to material that is neutral, verifiable, and free of original research. Given the preceding, the material is not subject to preservation. It can be removed. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Now what? Compile a selection of sources on the Russian invasion of Ukraine that provide background coverage on NATO-Russia / NATO-Ukraine relations and an analysis on their impact leading up to the invasion. Write a paragraph or dedicated section about it from those sources. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: It is true that STATUSQUO is an essay, but it is also not the main argument I'm using. The main argument is NOCON. Supplementary to that main argument were two auxiliary arguments, namely (1) STATUSQUO, and (2) a discussion with an administrator, SFR, who appeared to take my side which you can see in the link provided. It is misleading to suggest that STATUSQUO "does not represent a widely accepting community norm." If you read WP:GUIDES carefully, it only indicates that essays may not be supported by widespread consensus. Your assertion may or may not be true. Your discussion on WP:PRESERVE may be an argument for removing the material (which you could utilize in a discussion) but it doesn't justify reverting during an ongoing discussion. Anyways, as I've already told you, your views on OR are quite fringe. We don't really agree that using pre-2022 sources is OR; that is a point of contention, although again I have been cooperative with respect to trying to find compromises.

The prior discussion did not conclude, and a vote count does not imply consensus has been established. There was a legitimate concern I respectfully brought up in the end of the discussion that you did not respond to or engage with. This isn't a "Schrodinger's discussion"; this is a simple case of you not responding, and thus me concluding that a discussion has not concluded. I want to be clear that I do intend to be cooperative and fair, keeping in mind that my position is currently the minority position. I have no doubt that we can have a positive and constructive conclusion to this discussion. If you read my objections carefully, I am not even objecting entirely to the edit, rather merely suggesting a compromise.

We should also be careful to bifurcate the issues at hand here. The first is the actual content dispute. The second is the specific issue of whether TylerBurden's revert was justifiable. On the second point, I do not think TylerBurden's conduct is remotely defensible. In general, if there is an ongoing discussion going on about disputed content, it is not considered appropriate for an uninvolved editor to revert to his or her preferred version without participating at all in the discussion. TylerBurden has not even wrote anything on this talk page in all of July. His revert does not seem to me in the spirit of collaboration, which is what the policies we are debating are anyways intended to facilitate. JDiala (talk) 10:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

My views on OR are mainstream, that you are ignorant of it does not change that. You may not use sources that do not discuss an article subject to make claims about the article subject. Present that statement to any admin you like, they will tell you some variant of: no shit. I've been ignoring your casting of the term fringe because they are frankly so off-base that they are not remotely worth debating. Since you are absolutely insistent upon it, fringe has a specific meaning on Wikipedia that relates to the presentation of views in Wikipedia articles that depart significantly from the mainstream. It is inapplicable to editor interpretation of policies and guidelines.

If you haven't noticed, you are consistently finding yourself in disputes with other editors because of problems like this. I have no issue discussing any material within the article with you, but you need to stop lecturing highly experienced editors. Your approach does not appear collaborative to most editors, but combative.

I ignore some of what you write because any uninvolved, experienced editor would realise that it is wrong. For example, I would ignore your 'not a democracy' point as my assessment was more than a vote count as any editor can identify. I presented specifically used arguments and afforded them due weight. I treated the arguments with equal weight – I doubt most editors would – and only then did I assess that there is a clear majority position. You've misrepresented that as a straight vote count. This doesn't appear to me to be a good faith approach. I have skipped over other such errors because if I dissect every line this will be a wall of information. If desired, I can do that and post it to your talk page to read.

Lastly, the reason I haven't responded to your concern is that I am not available every day to edit. The last thing I wrote was: if you have an NPOV concern, I can give it consideration. I have not edited the material further. Recognising the present situation, I have proposed the least conflict ridden path forward. If you want to fight other editors over that paragraph, be my guest. If you want to move the article forward, re-read my 'now what?' comment. Figure out what hills are worth fighting for, and which should just be retreated from. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: I do not think your OR views are mainstream. As brought up previously by Chino and I, virtually all other articles, including GA articles and homepage-linked articles, on current events allow for sources published pre-event in the background section. You can insist they're all wrong and GA articles are actually all bad (which is the argument you employed previously). Maybe you can make your case, but you cannot pretend it's mainstream. Definitionally, it's not mainstream if other articles (often edited by folks even more experienced than you) do not do this.

"Fringe" is an adjective in the English language, roughly translating to anything not clearly in the mainstream. I'm using the word in a generic English language sense, not in reference to the Wikipedia policy WP:FRINGE. This should be evident from me not capitalizing the word or appending the prefix "WP:" to the word. In general, whenever there is a law or a policy, there could be a range of interpretations to that policy. Some are mainstream interpretations. Others are less mainstream interpretations. I am using the adjective "fringe" in reference to what I consider your less mainstream interpretation.

Bringing up "combative" is funny. Let's compare our comments. You use profanity like "no shit". I use collaborative words like "compromise" and "respectfully." Who's really the combative one? The suggestion I had was simple and reasonable. If you are removing material based on it supposedly being based on an outdated source, it is probably a good idea to check if material you are removing can be substantiated by newer sources first.

Before we discuss moving forward, I will actually take up your offer on discussing the OR interpretation with an administrator. I was evidently too generous conceding compromises before actually even being confident that your position is a legitimate one. I will make a post on SFR's talk page. JDiala (talk) 23:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Update on the last point: I was told by SFR to move the discussion to WP:NORN, which I have done. This question of OR really ought to get resolved before we move forward. JDiala (talk) 00:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

You can insist they're all wrong and GA articles are actually all bad (which is the argument you employed previously) - This is false. I have never said that all GA articles are wrong or that they are bad. This doesn't qualify even as a strawman as that would require the presence of straw. I said – repeating for the benefit of passers-by – that just because a GA does something that does not mean that it is endorsed by policy. The argument should not rest on other content (essay) alone. The GAs that Chino-Catane cited passed the process fifteen (15) years ago. They are not representative of the process in 2024. I have contributed to both the GAN and the FAC process both as a writer and a reviewer. I used to be actively involved in both, but have turned my attention elsewhere with my limited editing time. I am averse to having that time wasted by – in the politest terms I can muster – such poor quality engagement. This spat will not lead to the article improving. I am aware of the NORN discussion, and have posted there as well. That matter is now in the hands of other editors. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely. To replace the first sentence, for example, one can use
Putin's War on Ukraine - Google Books
Russia subsequently prosecuted a military intervention in Crimea and Donbas in order to create a Georgia-style frozen conflict that would preclude NATO membership. This limited military intervention did not change the course of Ukrainian foreign policy, as Ukraine repealed its neutral non-bloc status in December 2014 and constitutionally enshrined EU and NATO membership as a strategic goal in February 2019. The collapse of Russian soft power in Ukraine, which was illustrated by opinion surveys showing less than 20% of Ukrainians with positive views of Russia31 and the inability of the pro-Russian Opposition Bloc—Party for Peace and Development to challenge for power, restricted Moscow’s non-military options. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

... or
Ukraine and Russia - Google Books
The year 2008 saw two pivotal events: the Bucharest NATO sum mit and Russia’s invasion of Georgia. At the Bucharest summit, NATO declined to offer Ukraine and Georgia Membership Action Plans but said that they could eventually join. Depending on one’s view, this com promise was either a concession to Russia’s concerns or an aggressive move to which it felt compelled to respond. Similarly, whether Georgia’s actions justified it being invaded by Russia was highly debatable. While both the United States and European Union were appalled by Russia’s actions, both made concrete efforts to put the episode behind them. In pursuing a “reset,” the new Obama administration was accused of appeasement and naivete, and the strategy brought few results.

The themes highlighted in Chapter 1 were all dramatically on view between 2005 and 2010. The security dilemma in central Europe was exemplified by the Bucharest summit: Ukraine and Georgia, fearing Russia, sought a formal alliance with NATO; NATO, worried about both those states but also about Russia’s reaction, tried to have it both ways – acceding to Russia’s opposition while reassuring Ukraine and Georgia – but even this was insufficient to assuage Russia’s fears of an intolerable loss. Mutually incompatible notions of the status quo exacerbated the security dilemma. For Russia, the perception after 2004 that Ukraine had been lost stoked resentment and determination to redress the problem. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to include any of this or some parts of the removed text. This content is relevant because not accepting Ukraine to NATO left it vulnerable to attack by Russia (unlike Baltic Republics). This only needs to be well sourced, and the relevance to the subject of the page should be clear, e.g. as appears in this diff [80]. My very best wishes (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

not accepting Ukraine to NATO left it vulnerable to attack by Russia. Hell no. Russia would likely attack Ukraine even sooner should it see an increased risk of NATO infrastructure getting closer to its borders. Besides, in 2008, much of the Ukrainian military command was on Russian payroll, and Russia had a 100% visibility into, and much influence over, the flow of security information there. To include these UA structures in NATO information sharing mechanisms would be a suicide, nobody at NATO was ready for such a risk. Add to that the fact that Georgia attacked Russian troops first in Tskhinvali against NATO principles and explicit US advice (that's why nobody at NATO offered support beyond lip service) – and you start seeing that the outcomes of the Bucharest summit were only reasonable. Let's just follow the books and focus on facts and not OR-type what-ifs. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

"not accepting Ukraine to NATO left it vulnerable to attack by Russia". Well, this is actually a well known claim by many, including Zelensky [81]: Zelenskyy didn't just single out the Russians – the murderers who hunted down pedestrians and cyclists. He also mentioned former German Chancellor Angela Merkel and ex-French President Nicolas Sarkozy. "I invite Ms. Merkel and Mr. Sarkozy to visit Bucha to see what the policy of 14 years of concessions to Russia has led to." Zelenskyy was referring to the NATO summit that took place in Bucharest in April 2008. So, why did not Merkel and others accept Ukraine to NATO? There were reasons as outlined in the linked investigation by Spiegel, but summarizing them is not easy. This can be used on the page of course. My very best wishes (talk) 01:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

If you have an issue with user conduct, do not discuss it here. Slatersteven (talk) 10:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Subarticle on Ukrainian civilians arbitrarily detained in occupied UA + RU?

Do we have a sub-article on the issue of Ukrainian civilians arbitrarily detained by Russian authorities in the occupied Ukrainian territories and in Russian territory? Please respond at Template talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#Ukrainian civilians detained in Russia: which article? or here. As stated over there, we have an 86-page Moscow Mechanism report The Moscow Mechanism Expert Report: On the Arbitrary Deprivation of Liberty of Ukrainian Civilians by the Russian Federation (Q127506242) but the topic doesn't seem to quite fit into any existing article. Boud (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine has an RfC

War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. JDiala (talk) 09:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Undue weight given to Kharkiv Oblast in most recent section

This is a classic WP:NOTNEWS violation. All serious analytical sources are saying it's just a diversion from the Avdiivka–Pokrovsk, Toretsk, and Svatove–Kupiansk directions. In two of those directions, the Russians have conducted continuous offensive actions over the entire period under consideration (with operationally significant gains in the Pokrovsk direction). There's also insufficient coverage of the strategic-level campaigns, again reflecting "breaking news" weight rather than serious analytical RS.

I would suggest just calling it "current phase" until a better title can be found and agreed on. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 09:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, on current events WP is too often a reflection of the news cycle. That is just how it works (or doesn't) and then we have to come back and bash it into something encyclopedic. I would avoid using phase as it tends to connote it being a terminology accepted in sources. There have been several discussions on this to my recollection. I would suggest Current operations, Operations since November 2023 or some other such permutation. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Have you ever thought about being WP:BOLD and fixing these problems you bring up? TylerBurden (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)