Jump to content

Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20→Archive 22

Is this article duplicates the scope of War in Donbas?

Tobby72 (talk · contribs) with this edit tagged this article, saying that the article duplicates the scope of the War in Donbas article. I want editors to discuss this, because I suspect that this content forking is might be acceptable per WP:RELAR. As far as I understand, the War in Donbas is a part of the Russo-Ukrainian War, so it makes sense, that the Russo-Ukrainian War article duplicates some parts of the War in Donbas article. Maybe, some specific section(s) in the Russo-Ukrainian War article could be trimmed, but I am not sure if it makes sense to tag the whole article. Also, the Russo-Ukrainian War article was created before the War in Donbas article. Thoughts, suggestions? Maybe we need (if we need) to tag the War in Donbas article instead of this one? --Renat 18:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

The war in Donbass is a theatre of the Russo-Ukrainian war. This article is a summary article. RGloucester — ☎ 18:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
That’s how I have seen it. —Michael Z. 20:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Both articles (Russo-Ukrainian War and War in Donbass) are completely incompetent as summaries of the military aspects of the war. For example, note each article's factually distorted treatment of the Battle of Ilovaisk. That encounter was the salient event of the 2014 summer campaign. The combined forces of the Donbass rebels and Russian army completely routed the Ukrainian military in this battle. The severity of this reversal was such that Poroshenko's government was forced to call a truce, and agree to the Minsk I treaty. These events terminated the Ukrainian military's first attempt to quash the Donbass rebellion in 2014.
However, both the Russo-Ukrainian War and War in Donbass articles totally fail to summarize the essential facts about Ilovaisk. Instead, the articles focus exclusively on two peripheral issues. One is the presence of Russian troops on the battlefield. The second is the alleged massacre of Ukrainian troops during the combat. This so-called massacre -- which occurred in the context of open hostilities -- is treated as a human rights violation by Russia, and not as the event it really was, which was the Ukrainian army's devastating casualty levels sustained during an open battle, with both sides firing weaponry at each other. Thus, the authors' are twisting truth and facts by calling Ilovaisk an atrocity, and not an armed confrontation by opposing armies.
The authors of this article are trying to advance the Ukrainian government's one-sided, propagandistic narrative of Ilovaisk. That politically-motivated distortion of the battle completely deflects attention from the battle's significance as a massive military reversal suffered by Kiev's forces. The Ukrainian government narrative seeks to make the world perceive Ilovaisk as nothing more than an example of an alleged Russian violation of international law (sending troop undercover into Donbass) and as an example of supposed heinous, barbarous Russian indifference to human life (i.e., mischaracterizing a battle as something more akin to a civilian massacre). There is no explanation for the authors' motives except that they seek to mislead readers into assuming the truth of Ukrainian government rhetoric.
Finally, concerning the rebels (and possibly Russians) opening fire on a column of Ukrainian troops who had already surrendered and been offered a safe retreat from the combat zone, the article's account is misbalanced. It ignores the Donbass rebel explanation of what happened during this incident. According to the rebels, the Ukrainian troops had been guaranteed a safe retreat as long as they laid down their weapons and left their combat vehicles behind. The rebel version of the story is that the Ukrainians, retreating under a white flag, continued to carry their AK-47s and rode on mobile weapons systems such as armored personnel carriers. For this reason, the rebels (and possibly Russian troops) opened fire on the Ukrainians, believing the latter to have violated the terms of the negotiated retreat, and in so doing, continuing to pose a threat to the rebel troops surrounding the area. I question why the authors of these Wikipedia articles made no attempt to acknowledge the rebel version of events, just for the sake of adding objectivity and balance to the depiction of this incident.
Let's face the truth here. The authors' are trying to control readers' perception of the Ukrainian Conflict by turning Wikipedia into an echo chamber for the Ukrainian government's rhetoric about the crisis.Kenmore (talk) 04:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
War in Donbas is a summary article as well. It can't space-wise cover every aspect of Ilovaisk. Those are instead covered in the sub-article Battle of Ilovaisk. I know this, because I was one of the main writers of that article. Your assessment of this state of affairs is quite a misrepresentation. RGloucester — ☎ 13:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
I would like to discuss your claim that I'm "mispresenting" affairs. Please summarize what you mean by "state of affairs." Thanks in advance. Kenmore (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@RGloucester:There are no Wiki articles named the Turkish-Syrian War, Turkish-Cyprus War, American-Syrian War, American-Iranian War, American-Cuban War, American-Vietnam War or American-Nicaraguan War, because it would be a violation of WP:TITLE and WP:UNDUE. An article named the Russo-Ukrainian War, a de facto duplicating article named the War in Donbas (there is no war in Crimea), is a violation of WP:TITLE and WP:Neutral point of view. -- Tobby72 (talk) 09:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

We follow reliable sources. These were cited in the renaming of the article. If you don't like them, that's your problem. RGloucester — ☎ 13:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Tobby72 makes a valid point. There are no media sources or analysts from think tanks and intelligence gathering that call this conflict a "Russo-Ukrainian War." If you've found a few sources (painfully few at that) who use this term, they are fringe elements. Not respected authorities or anyone established in media and academia. You should give more thought to the objection that using the title "Russo-Ukrainian War" violates Wiki's neutral point of view principle.Kenmore (talk) 22:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
For example, the International Criminal Court made a finding that the Crimean occupation and Donbas war are both part of an international conflict. Other international bodies have ruled that the Geneva Convention on treatment of Civilians applies to the occupied peninsula and the Ukrainian sailors that were taken prisoner in international waters off Crimea. The article section Russo-Ukrainian War#Other regions covers some other aspects that transcend these two regions, and could be expanded into sections of their own. —Michael Z. 16:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
But nothing that you cite serves as justification for calling the conflict a "Russo-Ukrainian War." After all, neither Ukraine nor Russia has declared war on the other. Your title also deflects attention from the fact that part of the war is a revolt by a region of Ukraine against the Ukrainian state. To call this conflict - or war, if you will - a "Russo-Ukrainian War deflects attention from those two very fundamental realities.
Also, you've got to take into consideration that the overwhelming, vast majority of media sources and analysts (i.e., from think tanks, intelligence reporting, etc) do not label this conflict as a "Russo-Ukrainian War. The same is true of the many international statesmen who are key to negotiating the conflict. I agree with others here who object to your title on the grounds that it violates Wiki's principle of neutral perspective in editing. For an editor to make the unilateral decision to use "Russo-Ukrainian War" is to lurch dangerously into the realm of personal point of view editing, or to elevating idiosyncratic thinking to the level of a new, authoritative viewpoint that's superimposed on the reader unfairly and unreasonably. Perhaps you should give more thought to reasons why this particular title should not be used?Kenmore (talk) 23:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
There was no unilateral decision. There have been eight formal move requests, and this title represents the latest consensus. —Michael Z. 02:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:Common name and WP:POVNAME

Rename the article to Russian military intervention in Ukraine or the Russo-Ukrainian conflict. Most sources don’t call it the Russo-Ukrainian War. Please read WP:Common name, and also WP:POVNAME. The article was originally titled the Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present), but in June 2020 it was changed to the Russo-Ukrainian War—the proposer of this page move was sockpuppet of User:Dolyn. -- Tobby72 (talk) 08:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Tobby72 I created a redirect. Perhaps you could make another move request. --Firestar464 (talk) 06:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Euromaidan and Anti-Maidan

What is the purpose of the 'Euromaidan and Anti-Maidan' section in the context of 'Russo-Ukrainian War'? I feel that section can be trimmed to be a more concise, with much of the specific left for the dedicated articles. Also there some issues there, for example with timeline [added for emphasis]:

[On 22] The protesters took control of government buildings in the capital city of Kyiv, along with the city itself. [..] After this incident, [On 21]the Ukrainian parliament voted to restore the 2004 Constitution of Ukraine

--Jakey222 (talk) 23:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore restoring the 2004 Constitution, as a goal of the protest, is an important event in the context of Euromaidan. But is it relevant to the Russo-Ukrainian conflict? It would be nice to see more sources that focus on Russo-Ukrainian conflict proper.--Jakey222 (talk) 07:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

War in Donbas summary suggestions?

A follow up to the discussion above #Is this article duplicates the scope of War in Donbas?. It has been noted that this is a summary article and suggested that the 'War in Donbas' section could use some trimming. Any thoughts on this thoughts and suggestions on this would be apricated. --Jakey222 (talk) 04:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

One problem stems from Russian continued to deny involvement, and this article cover many instances of Russian involvement being revealed (e.g. 'Luhansk region' subsection). I don't believe this info, especially at such level of detail, belongs in this section at top article. However, I haven't seen anything like it include anywhere else, so I am not sure where it should go (another section/article?), . --Jakey222 (talk) 04:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Glazyev tapes?

I believe that that Glazyev tapes receive undue weight on this page and would like to trim it. The problem is that while topic covered elsewhere, currently Glazyev tapes redirects here. Obviously I don't want to lose any details. So what is the procedure here? (Also is there any other place I can ask questions this topic seem a little inactive at times) --Jakey222 (talk) 20:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jakey222 Wikipedia:Be bold. You do not need to discuss every single action. Do what you think is necessary. Renat 20:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
In this case knowing what possible would sure help further things.--Jakey222 (talk) 06:06, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Map of the conflict in Crimea?

Any chance for some wikipidean made or free source variant of this map found here [1]--Jakey222 (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Better translated version of this map, or whatever else you can find --Jakey222 (talk) 10:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Should also show the international and Crimea–Kherson boundary lines. —Michael Z. 18:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


Maps of Crimea: We could use an English map with some level of detail regarding the Feb-March 2014 invasion,

Maps of East of Ukraine: We could use a map of the situation on the eve of conflict on April-ish 2014

--Jakey222 (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

A map request was created at: Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Map_workshop#Russia-Ukraine_conflict. Any input would be apricated. --Jakey222 (talk) 18:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

occupation of Crimea

@Seryo93: Concerning your edit fair enough. The way I see it, the Annexation seem to refer to the act of incorporating occupied territories (aspects of which are covered in detail on the main article) rather than the military actions that preceding/following it here. Also on the Ukrainian language version Crimea and Donbass are incorporated into a single theater. This way 'Occupation of Crimea February-March 2014' followed by the events of fighting in Donbas March–July 2014 seem to follow more naturally, and then "Crimean" 2016 border and 2018 Kerch escalations can be explained as part of the wider conflict and external factors like NATO build. Just couple of things to consider. --Jakey222 (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Need help to complete a request

Hi I have been working (as a graphic worker) with Jakey222 on his request for two maps intended to this article. Unfortunately I have lost contact with Jakey222 so my question is.

Is there anyone here that could  help me with their knowledge so the two maps can be completed, or can you link me to someone you think might want to do so, thanks. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 14:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Split

This monster is 18k words. Time to split it into a family of articles of readable length. What do you think? Lfstevens (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

For sure. I don’t think a formal split is necessary. Many sections can have some of their text offloaded into their respective main article, summary style, while a few could use new main articles (maybe Glazyev tapes, 2021 Russian military buildup). Certainly the #Donbas section is big enough for a major article, and fortunately there already is one (which may be given the same treatment). —Michael Z. 03:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

russian build-up map

does anyone have a map of the Russian build-up Cadyro1 (talk) 11:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

There’s a detailed map that can be used for information or as example here:
 —Michael Z. 15:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Another one here, apparently from the Ukrainian military:
 —Michael Z. 22:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
you can have a look at these: https://informnapalm.org/en/ukraine-intelligence-about-russias-military/ , https://gdb.rferl.org/387b0cda-b79c-4878-b545-535e90478af5_w1300_r0.png - HammerFilmFan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.19.34 (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The InformNapalm article has some more maps, but they are from July 2020, before this year’s buildups. —Michael Z. 17:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Have just added a U.S. intelligence assessment map and imagery which partly tackles this request. Rwendland (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Usage of "claimed" to include territories controlled by Russia but claimed by Ukraine

@AlexEng: It seems to me to be correct to use the word "claimed". Whether or not one agrees with these claims, the territories are in fact only "claimed" and not controlled. Usually on Wikipedia, when talking about territorial disputes, the claims are addressed without making a judgement as to which is "correct" (in accordance with WP:NPOV), and I don't know why there would be an exception here. Furthermore, a statement by the president of Ukraine doesn't seem like a reliable source with respect to this topic, and if you want to keep the current wording, it should probably be changed to something better. पदाति (talk) 04:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

This is not your run of the mill territorial dispute, पदाति. The territory in question belongs to Ukraine de jure, as a matter of international law; it is not merely claimed by Ukraine. It is controlled by Russia, which implies de facto control, or occupation. This does not reduce Ukraine's ownership to the status of "claim". WP:NPOV has a provision against improperly giving equal weight to minority viewpoints, which is what this boils down to. The wording that you suggested is improper, and restoring it requires community consensus. AlexEng(TALK) 04:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Alex is absolutely correct. -HammerFilmFan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.6.149 (talk) 21:45, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
I don’t see a diff or what text is being referred to. But indeed, Crimea is internationally recognized as Ukrainian territory, and the Russian Federation’s status is legally “occupying power,” and is treated as such in international courts, according to recognition of its legal and treaty obligations, and by UN agencies. If we’re also talking about the non-government controlled eastern Donbas, the entire Donbas oblasts, or “New Russia,” the RF doesn’t claim sovereignty or control over any of that, and the Russian proxy republics are not states recognized by anyone, including the RF, nor in the text of the Minsk agreements.
But it wouldn’t hurt if there were a secondary source confirming this, wherever the disputed text is. —Michael Z. 00:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

alley of angels

According to UNICEF data released in October 2018, mines have killed at least 149 children since 2014 in the armed conflict in eastern Ukraine since 2014

Russian Wikipedia and links to sources there, please translate, at least with Google, and add to the article

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%8F_%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2

+

https://yandex.kz/search/?text=%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%8F+%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2&lr=163

--2.132.84.87 (talk) 03:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@2.132.84.87: we have an article on this subject: Alley of Angels in Donetsk. I will consider whether any of the content is appropriate to add to this article, but I am making no promises. If you have something that you would like to add specifically, please feel free to make the changes yourself. AlexEng(TALK) 04:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
With regard to landmines and to the UNICEF report (Dec 2019) I've added these contents to the War in Donbas article. There is a "Humanitarian concerns" section there. Here, however, I don't know if and where such contents could fit in. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Here Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War @Gitz6666: Cloud200 (talk) 07:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, done Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC

27?02/2022 - The Pope requested that "humanitarian corridors" be created to provide medical supplies and evacuate the wounded.

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2022

I want to fix the grammer Dream4206969 (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

This event never occured

There was no Russo-Ukrainian war in 2014. The war, if such it be, was an internal conflict within the Ukraine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.92.107.127 (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Russia moved forces into Crimea in 2014, which was a Ukrainian territory. That means Russia invaded the Ukraine, and is an act of war. Although they are not formally at war, they are still fighting one another, and it certainly isn't an internal conflict. ― Tuna NoSurprisesPlease 21:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Reliable sources agree the Russian Federation’s military, intelligence, and mercenaries have been in Ukraine’s eastern Donbas too, since 2014. If we act coy about it to avoid an argument, then it becomes self-censorship, and perceived as a subject for a valid argument. —Michael Z. 22:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
This is an understandable confusion, within reason. The term "war" evokes thoughts of trench warfare and tanks blowing each other to smithereens. But that's the "war" of the 20th century. Now, war is often undeclared; it can be fought with proxies, or through political moves, or sometimes entirely online. This was a war, and the article is correct and reliably sourced. AlexEng(TALK) 03:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
FYI, in 2014–15 more tanks were destroyed than some European states own.[2] Since then, it has been non-stop trench warfare. More importantly, millions have been displaced, thousands killed, and tens of thousands wounded, in both phases of the war, in fighting involving two countries, that has been found by the International Criminal Court to be an international conflict. At the same time, part of the conflict comprises an occupation of territory, which international law considers an act of illegal aggression and applies the laws of war (Geneva Conventions, especially regarding treatment of civilians in wartime).
It occurs to me that the article should make clear the status of this conflict in these terms. —Michael Z. 14:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Niether Ukraine nor Russia declared war. Ukraine trading with Russia, fight to transport russian natural gas to Europe. Russia is not take part of the war in Donbass in the main documents signed by Ukraine, Germany, France and Russia - Minsk protocol (it's agreement between Ukraine and separatists). This article is definitely does not comply with the "Neutral point of view" policy, not neutral and is provocative to say the least. And most likely it can be seen as pro-Ukrainian propaganda. The source(#60) of this term is written by Demian Shevko, "political science researcher" from Ukraine. It isn't a neutral source. AstroAntares (talk) 08:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

So why all these sources about the 2014 russo-ukranian war? Kuolex (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

This subject reveals the fundamental error of Wikipedia relying on "sources" instead of reality. None of the "sources" citing an invasion by Russian forces provide any actual evidence of such an occurrence. No photos of Russian columns, no Russian military casualties, no reports of civilians interacting with Russian troops, no damaged hardware left behind -- literally nothing. But captive to its "sources" Wikipedia can only reflect narrative, like the shadows on the wall of Plato's cave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.92.107.127 (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

No photo? Maybe you should search at least \abs little bit - and you will find not only photo, bit video, and even graves of Russian soldiers? Constantinehehe 14:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
"Graves of russian soldiers" as "source"? That's the real level for Wikipedia sources? AstroAntares (talk) 08:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Fakes, rubbish and NPOV

The allegations about the shelling of the kindergarten turned out to be false or not very clear. For some reason, different opinions about this event are not given, for example, the authorities of the self-proclaimed republics talk about shelling from Ukraine: [3] [4]

It is not clear why the opinion of Western countries was inserted there that this could be a reason for the "invasion" - this opinion turned out to be false. If we insert every opinion about some event, then the articles will turn into a dump of an infinite number of groundless statements of some people. Every day there are new versions of the "invasion" date and other things that turn out to be false. So why include them in the article?

The article does not mention (or mentions very rarely) the opinions, actions and statements of the authorities of the self-proclaimed republics, as well as the statements of Russia:

The article should be neutral, there's no place for propaganda statements. 178.163.92.71 (talk) 21:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Please see our policy on reliable sources for guidance on determining whether a source is reliable and appropriate for use on Wikipedia. (hint: Russian state media doesn't meet the criteria, and will also rot your brain) Jr8825 • Talk 21:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Regarding the kindergarten shelling, see sources I linked in the previous talk section.[21][22] The shelling was real, and caused wounds to adults at a kindergarten while 20 children were in another room. The false report was Russian separatists claiming it was a shelling by Ukrainian forces on territory they hold, and then trying to deny the event after the truth came out.
For reliable sources, please check whether they are listed at WP:RSP before using them. Russian state media like RIA, Sputin, RT, and TASS are not considered reliable on factual information regarding this conflict. —Michael Z. 22:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
  • So you are saying that almost every media resource in Russia cannot be used in an article. I can only agree with such sources as Sputnik and Life.ru. However, TASS, RIA, RBK are some of the most reliable sources in terms of Russian official statements. Also, there can be no questions to Kommersant, Meduza, Interfax, as these are one of the most reliable sources in Russia at all.
This article also contains The Daily Beast, New York Post, and Rolling Stone that have been deemed unreliable and should not be used in articles. So it will be necessary to remove these sources and replace them with more reliable and independent ones. Sputnik and Life.ru may not be added because they are unreliable, but the rest of the sources cited by me may well be used in the article to reflect the opinion of the other side. 178.163.92.71 (talk) 07:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Don't bother, they've already made up their mind. Prinsgezinde (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
I know, they are clearly trying to whitewash Ukraine and make it look like they are being attacked without reason. It is also convenient that any Russian source is considered based and not reliable while some questionable Western sources are included. Also, no mention of the continuous fake invasion dates that the US government provided: first the invasion date was set for the spring of 2021, then summer, then autumn, then winter, then it was January 2022, then early February, then February 16th, now they are talking about the early march. For God sake, even Zelensky told the West to stop increasing tensions https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/biden-zelensky-call/index.html. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.20.164.184 (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
If there are any unreliable sources (Western or not) that are in this article and you feel they shouldn't be (per WP:RSP) then we can and should remove them. However, state Russian news will almost always never be reliable as they are propaganda outlets there to tout the Kremlin line. — Czello 07:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Recent shelling by the UAF against the separatist republics and mass evacuation to Russia

I find it strange that there is no mention of recent shelling by the UAF against the separatist republics and the mass evacuation of their civilian population to Russia. No mention of the sabotage groups that blow up a car two days ago either. I know that this article is anti-Russia but denying or not reporting that in these days Ukraine is heavily shelling the Donbas and that the separatists are shelling themselves (like Zelensky said) is just false. Two shells even fell on Russian territory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.20.164.184 (talk) 12:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

This is discussed in detail in OSCE SMM report from 19 February 2022[23], and comes out to be a bit of a Radio Yerevan because OSCE has 1) recorded dozens if not hundreds of outgoing projectiles from Russian-controlled areas towards Ukraine and three projectiles the other way around, 2) confirmed that the school in Vrubivka was shelled from Russian-controlled areas. Cloud200 (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
That does not reflect a neutral POV. Ukraine reported increased shelling from the Russian side, much of it confirmed, while the Russian side spreads blatant disinformation about shelling and their pre-planned evacuation. See, for example:
The allegation deleted by anon is not exactly true: OSCE daily report says they attended but had to conduct its evaluation from behind the fence due to police crime scene.[24]
 —Michael Z. 15:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Yeah both sides are engaging in shelling but just by looking at the very same map that the OSCE provided (https://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/reports) it is clear that it is the Ukrainians that are doing most of the shelling. Two Ukrainian vehicles have even been engaged by Russian forces. Ukraine still denies that it is even carrying out shelling operations in Donbas while just by looking at videos online these can be disproven. The while article lacks one side; it only considers Ukraine and the West. It simply doesn't give the whole picture and renders it impossible for a newcomer to get an accurate broad picture of why the Russians are doing what they are doing. The breakaways republics didn't evacuate their population just for the sake of it but in consequence of continued breaches of the Minsk Agreement by Ukraine. Ukraine, Russia France and Germany signed this agreement in which: Russia is not even considered an active part in the conflict and a way to resolve a conflict by diplomatic negotiation between Ukraine and the breakaway republics is outlined. It is Ukraine fault for the escalating situation that is currently developing since they are the ones that don't even want to start negotiations with the LPR and DPR but there is almost no trace of any of this in the whole thread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.20.164.184 (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
This is WP:NOTCHAT. For improvement to the article, please propose concrete changes and cite reliable secondary sources per WP:RS. —Michael Z. 15:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2022

Change the title of the article to conflict or tension or intervention. War hasn't broken out. Simple as that. 79.168.249.28 (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Russia invaded Ukraine in early 2014. The war has been ongoing since then, with varying intensity. Please look at the multiple sources given in the text. If you look carefully, you'll see that the Russian invasion of Ukraine started on 22 February 2014, eight years ago. Any proposal to change the name of this overview article would be overwhelmingly opposed (except on minor technical issues such as hyphen versus en dash). Boud (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

States are occupied (like Japan's occupation of Fengtian Clique/Manchuria) without them being wars. Furthermore, the occupation of Crimea wasn't part of a war either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.249.28 (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The International Criminal Court found that the occupation of Crimea is part of an international conflict between the RF and Ukraine. I believe it meets the UN’s definition of international aggression, including at least points a, e, and g.[25] It falls under the rules of war, specifically Geneva Conventions regarding treatment of civilians during an occupation, etcetera, as the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea found in the case of the Ukrainian navy vessels attacked in international waters. —Michael Z. 15:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

nothing new here

A wholely left-ist euro article with non-leftist ideas and facts canceled. I think there is a problem. No treaty with Ukraine was cited and the statement "russia gave it away" is suspicious. It's true that it was big news in 1991 - it's true Russia's economy was difficult and succession challenges were not something central russia was able to challenge as they wished. As far as what is true today "some people protested in Russia" means "everybody in Russia is protesting". The authors seem to have deployed logic fallicies single sidedly - as they do in most wiki articles. Lastly, there isn't a single paragraph citing russia's positions and how many in russia hold those positions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:143:480:A4C0:4ECC:6AFF:FE8E:47D (talk) 16:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Mostly anti-Russia?

I have to agree with the previous "nothing new here" 2601:143:480:A4C0:4ECC:6AFF:FE8E:47D anon IP. This article reads grossly pro-West and anti-Russia, when equal or about equal, weight should be afforded to both sides. Also, why is the article titled y give undue weight to one side or another. I think the largest problem here is that there aren't any good, reliable sources that are pro-Russia because pro-Russian sources tend to be state media, which isn't independent and shouldn't really be trusted by anyone.

Russo-Ukrainian War applies because Russia occupied Crimea (a former Ukrainian territory) and has been directly involved in fighting in various places. I'm not that knowledgeable on the cyberattacks, but all of these show that Russia is pretty much directly attacking Ukraine, in which case I think it's fair to call the article "Russo-Ukrainian War". ― Tuna NoSurprisesPlease 05:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Tunakanski "the largest problem here is that there aren't any good, reliable sources that are pro-Russia because pro-Russian sources tend to be state media." Or, perhaps the largest problem here is that the community, composed disproportionally of Americans (a fact) who happen to be disproportionately anti-Russia by birth (a fairly certain fact), has chosen to view anything that's Russia-based as "government-controlled" and "state-controlled", without evidence, while at the same time refusing to admit that even its state-funded media outlets like VOA are government-controlled by the US. If this last one wasn't so, why then is it everything you hear in VOA pro-US and anti-Russia. That's hardly a sign of a neutral organization, isn't it? In addition, there are 1000s of newspapers and magazines in Russia, as in any other major world economy, yet, as in virtually any other free, democratic, and Christian country, only the official government publications receive state funding. Clearly, there is a bias against Russia which, then makes it difficult to use independent Russian publications because the mere fact they are published in that country makes them, in the biased Western minds, automatically state-controlled and therefore, again in the biased Western mind, unreliable. That is, the most likely scenario here.
Regarding "Russo-Ukrainian War applies because Russia occupied Crimea", the ordinary definition of a "war" is where shots are being fired, but it's my understanding (and the article supports this) that not a single shot was fired when Russia occupied Crimea. Nothing is said in the article about the fact that a democratic election did take place in Crimea before Russia formally annexed it, and which election resulted in the residents of Crimea overwhelmingly choosing to join Russia. Yet to this day Ukraine, and the Western world oppose the fact that the people of Crimea want to stay with Russia and they would rather force them , against their free will, to be part of Ukraine. The Crimean election is a fact little made public in the West, perhaps because whether democratic or not, it brought forth a result the Western bloc didn't like: a reduction in the amount of pro-Western territory. They are news that are not convenient to Western governments so they (the so-called, "free world") would rather keep these inconvenient truths from its citizens. Again, seems like a blatant denial of what reliable sources really means when you (again, not the personal you) call something reliable only if it fits your political views, tendencies or preferences, in this case the views of the West. Mercy11 (talk) 03:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Some of the above is factually incorrect. Taints the argument that the article’s WP:POV is not neutral. Articles are based on WP:reliable sources, not a WP:FALSEBALANCE between “pro-West” and “pro-Russian” political positions. —Michael Z. 15:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia, not an opinion poll; here we we deal with supported facts, not unsupported allegations of incorrectness. Mercy11 (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

In the event a full scale war breaks out in the coming days, rename this page back to 2014-2022 Russian Military Intervention

I cite the historical example of Japan and Manchuria here. Japan invaded an area that was legally part of China in 1931 during an internal conflict, but it didn’t evolve into a full scale war. We don’t call THAT the Second Sino-Japanese War, we save that for the full scale invasion in 1937-1945.

So if full scale war breaks out, I’d suggest saying it started…on whatever day it starts, and give THAT the full blown name of Russo-Ukrainian War, and give this the more mild name.

I think I agree that something will have to be done with the naming of this article in the event of a full-scale Russian invasion. While the previous conflicts and a potential future war would arguably be part of the same 7-8 year conflict, a full scale Russian invasion would mean the beginning of a war which would deserve its own separate article. Leaving this current article named as "Russo-Ukranian War" would cause a lot of confusion. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
A hundred different things can happen in the next days, weeks, months—or not. If there’s a new offensive, the main article on the war still remains the main article on the whole war, and WP:summary style would have us make new articles for individual phases. Without a WP:crystal ball, I think we shall assess the need to rename or split much better some time after the events that prompt it than before. —Michael Z. 04:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Michael, a full scale war would highlight how ridiculous this article's name change was. Prinsgezinde (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:48F7:77BC:3B5:6E9B (talk) 03:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC) Do it

Suggestion to opening text

Following the events of February 24, it should be noted that Russia has fully invaded Ukraine in the last sentence of the opening paragraph. 2600:387:F:4515:0:0:0:B (talk) 06:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

them restrictions on editing

anyone else think that this article should be locked/partially locked for editing or something? y a know. just in case. like the ukraine article or the russia article. --2001:569:55C8:D500:A57F:7684:D136:E47E (talk) 07:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@2001:569:55C8:D500:A57F:7684:D136:E47E: Wikipedia's page protection policy, including any edit restrictions, are not preemptive measures, but are used in response to violation of policies & guidelines, like vandalism or disruptive editing. If these issues arise, a request for protection can be submitted to administrators at WP:RPP. Feel free to reach out with any questions. Bgv. (talk) 08:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 24 February 2022

Being bold and speedy closing this, clear WP:SNOW oppose. (non-admin closure) — Czello 12:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Russo-Ukrainian War → Russian intervention in the War in Donbas (2014–2022) – Now that the real war between both countries started as several sources stated (https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/ukraine-crisis-live-updates-un-to-hold-emergency-meeting-on-ukraine-russia-standoff-today-2785839/amp/1, https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2022/2/23/22948534/russia-ukraine-war-putin-explosions, https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/ukraine-shifts-to-war-footing-tells-citizens-to-leave-russia-11645616181, https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/24/russia-attacks-ukraine-news-vladimir-putin-zelenskiy-russian-invasion) Can we please move this article and avoid causing confusion and the under-reliability of wikipedia? Wikiman92783 (talk) 06:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Wikiman92783 (talk) 06:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Can a brand new account with just few edits even propose such a move? Volunteer Marek 06:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
No idea. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 07:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
There is no such ban, but [26] has "if it appears unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move". Author of that proposal at least seriously misjudged situation Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose since a lack of reason given by the author of this change request, and even then, it doesn't really make much sense imo. The intervention in the War in Donbas is a piece of the entire conflict. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 07:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Do not, I repeat, do not consider this change. This is an explicit change proposed by a Kremlin funded individual, looking to slant the reality to an "intervention", rather then an Invasion by President Putin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silver24shil (talk • contribs) 07:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Are you retarded? I said the main ongoing war started just now. Sad to see wikipedia be run by people like these Wikiman92783 (talk) 07:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Please do not use profanity or slurs to attack other users. A standalone article for the crisis in Donbas already exists. If you don't understand how a certain part of Wikipedia works, you can opt to learn more instead of being uncivil. TangoFett (talk) 07:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose, war started in 2014. --Thesmp (talk) 07:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose. We already have an article on the current conflict in the Donbass, and this article describes the wider war happening since 2014. Trying to downplay it as an "intervention" is not only completely without precedent in Wikipedia articles, it's a laughably transparent attempt at pro-Putin propaganda. There are no Wiki policies that support this move. TangoFett (talk) 07:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose, this is the main article on the war itself. If necessary this should have been a split request instead of a move req.  Nixinova   T   C   07:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose – per TangoFett and all above. Bgv. (talk) 08:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose – per all of the above RobertEves92 08:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose – this article documents the entire Russo-Ukrainian conflict, and includes Crimea which is not a part of the Donbas. The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is not the "real war", the war has been ongoing since 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owen250708 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose as per above -Kpddg (talk • contribs) 10:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose as per above 163.116.192.120 (talk) 11:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose and propose speedy closing and removal of banner (is it OK to do this?). This rename proposal is either confused or a blatant pro-Russia propaganda completely mismatching reliable sources (and actual situation) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
See [27] who can close move proposal (I cannot anymore as I commented, though Wikipedia:Snowball clause likely applies and this would benefit from speedy closure) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
I opened https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Highly_embarrassing_rename_request_of_article_about_ongoing_Russian_invasion Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:02, 24 February 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.

Is there any proof that North Korea is supporting Russia?

I've noticed that in the belligerents section, the DPRK is listed as supporting Russia. Has this been confirmed? Because I can't seem to find any evidence that North Korea has even said anything about the war at all. 2001:BB6:1E54:858:F401:D6FF:FE11:384D (talk) 12:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

No source, I've removed it. Thanks. — Czello 12:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Is there a better source for Iran supporting Russia?

Because this one urges both sides to show restraint and blames the West (US/EU/UK/CA/etc) for the situation in Ukraine, which seems to be anti-West but not pro-Russia/anti-UkraineAngele201002 (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

"Russian invasion of Ukraine" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Russian invasion of Ukraine and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 24#Russian invasion of Ukraine until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 17:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Chernobyl NPP Exclusion Zone Captured according to several official sources, add it to the map

The NPP-EZ, as pictured here (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Chernobyl_Exclusion_Zone#/media/File:Map_of_Chernobyl_Exclusion_Zone.svg ) was confirmed captured by both Ukrainian, Russian, and neutral forces. Add it in pink — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.216.170 (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Nuetral forces?Slatersteven (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Move page?

The title of this article should probably be changed to Russo-Ukrainian crisis (already a redirect to this page). The namespace for Russo-Ukrainian War (since 2022) will likely need to become its own article in the coming days. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 04:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

What seems the most reasonable at this current juncture would be moving this page to "First Russo-Ukrainian War", "Russo-Ukrainian War: First phase", or "Donbass War" in order to clearly differentiate it from the apparent full-scale war that began today (as opposed to the limited war followed by frozen conflict with punctuated escalations this page covers.) Reyne2 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Agree, making Russo-Ukranian War (2016-2022) and Russo-Ukranian War (2022) separate articles seems like a good cut off point. Yeoutie (talk) 04:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The events between 2014 and today's invasion have clearly not been that of war between Russia and Ukraine. What we are seeing now is the Russo-Ukrainian war. This page should be moved to "Russo-Ukrainian crisis" or something along those lines and 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine should be moved to Russo-Ukrainian War. The only war that has been happening before today is the Donbas War between Ukraine and DPR and LPR. --eduardog3000 (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Rename this page to Russo-Ukrainian Conflict and make the current invasion Russo-Ukrainian War

I cite, among MANY other examples(Yemen, Libya), Nagorno Karabakh. We call the overarching cold conflict the 'conflict', and save War for the hot war in 2020 206.174.216.170 (talk) 16:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

As this is part of the same conflict I am unsure this is valid.Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
"save War for the hot war in 2020" there was active war with attacks also at other times, for example in 2021 and 2022 Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Where did you get 2020 from? Prinsgezinde (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Dates in Infobox

I feel like we should change the dates in the infobox similar to War in Afghanistan. The state of war between 2014 and February 23, 2022 is far different from the full out war that exists as of today. --2601:446:400:7F10:BCB0:770F:1601:38F2 (talk) 21:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2022 (2)

Bpeh9508 (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
You need to make a request.Slatersteven (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 00:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis § Hatnotes and similar articles

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis § Hatnotes and similar articles. Jr8825 • Talk 04:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2022

Change on the Beligerents list, Ukraine side, supported by, is missing some Latin American countries that are officially condemmning Russian invasion. Namely: Chile, Colombia, Uruguay, Mexico (also on the UN Security Council 2021-2022 and actively joining Ukrainian and UE efforts), and Ecuador. Below the link for the official statements that support the claims:

Chilean President Gabriel Boric: https://twitter.com/gabrielboric/status/1496877105484808202?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet Colombian President Iván Duque: https://twitter.com/IvanDuque/status/1496856138909954053 Uruguayan President Luís Lacalle: https://twitter.com/LuisLacallePou/status/1496846677986070531 Mexican Minister of Foreign Affairs Marcelo Ebrard: https://twitter.com/m_ebrard/status/1496999666902355976 & https://twitter.com/m_ebrard/status/1497015476370747392 Ecuadorean President Guillermo Lasso: https://twitter.com/LassoGuillermo/status/1496884482686824451 192.141.244.137 (talk) 03:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Please see the above thread discussing the list of belligerents. Jr8825 • Talk 04:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Add Albania as a supporter of Ukraine

Albania has proved to be a strong voice for Ukraine in the UN Security Council.

https://www.barrons.com/news/us-albania-call-for-un-vote-friday-on-resolution-condemning-russia-diplomats-01645743906?refsec=afp-news AlbionOfAlbania (talk) 06:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

done ✅ Srijan Suryansh (talk) 08:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2022 (2)

Add Albania as a supporter of Ukraine. Albania is a strong voice for Ukraine in UN Security Council.

https://www.barrons.com/news/us-albania-call-for-un-vote-friday-on-resolution-condemning-russia-diplomats-01645743906?refsec=afp-news AlbionOfAlbania (talk) 06:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)


Done Srijan Suryansh (talk) 08:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

New articles

Why is everyone creating a new stub for every single military action? We're only on day 2. Imagine World War II having 10000 articles on every single time any village anywhere got attacked. ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2022 (4)

There is a problem with the dates as the war begun on the 24th, not on the 20th I like Potatis (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

It looks as though your concerns have already been addressed by recent edits to infobox. Jr8825 • Talk 23:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2022 (3)

The country of Belgium also supported Ukraine. (source: tweet PM Alexander De Croo) 81.82.235.38 (talk) 07:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/alexanderdecroo/status/1496723852164018184?cxt=HHwWkMC58buat8UpAAAA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.82.235.38 (talk) 07:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Also, International reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine may be a more appropriate article for this type of information. Jr8825 • Talk 23:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2022

Remove "Crimean Tatars" from belligerents category. Tatars are an ethnic group and are not monolith blindly in support of one side or the other or even a coherent faction/military force in the conflict Татары (talk) 13:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the list of supporting/belligerent groups from the infobox, per the concerns raised in this thread above. Jr8825 • Talk 23:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

China’s Support For Ukraine

Take China out of the “supporting Ukraine column” they have refused to condemn russia, met with the russian leadership during the conflict, and has even said they will not impose any sanctions on the Russian Federation. Them simply saying Ukraine has a right to self-determination doesn’t mean they “support” the Ukrainian military. It’s a fictional narrative that the editor is trying to create. 173.71.144.242 (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I've already removed the list of supporting countries from the infobox, per the concerns raised in this thread above. Jr8825 • Talk 23:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

/add supported albania Argentina Brazil United States United Kingdom Taiwan Germany Poland France Lebanon

/add supported Albania Argentina Brazil United States United Kingdom Taiwan Germany Poland France Lebanon Jonathan555568 (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

added Brazil

added Brazil Jonathan555568 (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

added France added United States

added France added United States Jonathan555568 (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

added Brazil

added Brazil Jonathan555568 (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

added Brazil Russo-Ukrainian War

added Brazil Russo-Ukrainian War Jonathan555568 (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

China Does Not Support Ukraine

There’s too much confusion, just remove the “supported by” column but it is obvious China backs Russia but wants to remain neutral so it doesn’t get hit with sanctions. 173.71.144.242 (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Belarus as a direct participant of the war in the first sentence

While there are obviously questions about Belarus' status as belligerent (see this talk page thread on the invasion article), this article's first sentence, "...an ongoing war primarily involving Russia, Belarus, and pro-Russian forces on one side, and Ukraine on the other" seems to go too far. Are there any sources supporting it? Jr8825 • Talk 00:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Serbia's stance

Serbia does not implicitly support Russia and stated that it "respects territorial integrity of Ukraine" so I believe it should not belong to the list of countries that support Russia. It also offered to accomodate all Ukrainian refugees, so I think it belongs more to the list that support Ukraine than Russia. Serbia should be removed from both lists in my opinion. (Redacted) 09:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

"Serbia does not implicitly support Russia and stated that it "respects territorial integrity of Ukraine"" - not true at all. Serbia supports Russia. Renat 11:43, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, true. That link was from 2 years ago. Glasslibrarian (talk) 13:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russo-Ukrainian_War/Archive_18&oldid=1082473586"