Talk:Prelude to the Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Twitter diplomacy

I know this is minor, but shouldn't the Diplomacy section also include the use of Memes by both the official accounts of Ukraine and Russia? There has certainly been enough coverage, even internationally. 1 2 3 4 5 6 a (german) b (german) c (India). Also, articles about "meme warfare" regarding the 2014 invasion 1 2 jonas (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I support this, but only if we don't give this info too much relevance. A few sentences should be enough. Super Ψ Dro 22:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to include Sweden as a co-belligerent

According to Swedish and international news, hundred of Swedish soldiers and armor have been deployed to Gotland to counter Russian threats. This is the only other country that has deployed active duty combat units against Russia. While troops are not to Ukraine, the threat coincides with the broader context of the Russian-EU dispute over Ukraine, Sweden is not a NATO member, and is not included in the NATO-led diplomatic and military support push. The deployment is also described in analysis as a buffer against Russian aggression toward the Baltic states.

Reporting on the matter:

• France24: https://www.france24.com/en/video/20220119-ready-to-defend-our-values-tensions-rise-in-sweden-s-gotland-amid-russian-threat
  
• The Local Sweden: https://www.thelocal.se/20220115/sweden-rolls-out-tanks-on-baltic-island-over-russia-tensions
  
• Euronews: https://www.euronews.com/2022/01/15/sweden-redeploys-troops-to-the-island-of-gotland-near-russia
  

ItsGrrreat (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose I don’t think so. Adjusting one’s defences to potential threats is not participating in a conflict, nor is it directly supporting Ukraine. (A number of NATO states have deployed active-duty troops in the Baltic and Polish reassurance missions: not an example of participating in the conflict, either.) The active conflict is between Ukraine and the Russian Federation.

  On the other hand, the RF has conducted poisonings and bombings in Bulgaria and Czechia, directly attacking Ukraine’s supply chains; should these states that suffered attacks on their territory be included?:

  • 2014 Vrbětice ammunition warehouses explosions
  • Poisoning of Emilian Gebrev

   —Michael Z. 01:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: Gotland is a Swedish territory. Other countries have moved or put troops under high alert too. That doesn't mean these countries are co-belligerents as they are neither in a direct military conflict nor they are the primary targets of the main military threat described in this article. Sweden also didn't announce military support for Ukraine so far. This may change at any point, but I see no basis to include Sweden at all as it stands right now. --Mindaur (talk) 11:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Videos here could be migrated

• https://www.dvidshub.net/video/828804/secretary-blinken-delivers-remarks-crisis-ukraine
• https://www.dvidshub.net/video/828785/secretary-state-antony-j-blinkens-joint-press-availability-with-german-foreign-minister-annalena-baerbock
• https://www.dvidshub.net/video/828691/secretary-state-antony-j-blinkens-joint-press-availability-with-ukrainian-foreign-minister-dmytro-kuleba
• https://www.dvidshub.net/video/828190/meeting-nato-russia-council-b-roll
• https://www.dvidshub.net/video/828188/russian-officials-arrive-meeting-nato-russia-council

Victor Grigas (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Re-evaluation of the importance of the article

It is listed as a low-importance article. Is it really low? I believe it should be higher. PenangLion (talk) 10:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

You're right. I've changed the importance parameters. Super Ψ Dro 18:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. PenangLion (talk) 06:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Excessively Confident

The article currently contains the line "Russian fears of Ukrainian accession into NATO and the rejection of Russian demands that the alliance would not admit new members has led to the current tension.". To me, this seems extremely over-confident. I admit that Ukraine-in-NATO is a contributing factor, but it's definitely not the sole factor and it being the main factor is at least debatable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsnider3 (talk • contribs) 11:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Original Research

@51.37.20.241: Hello! Thank you for trying to contribute to wikipedia, however you have not provided any citations for the symbolism you have mentioned. The NYT source you provided does not mention any of this. Please see WP:OR for wikipedia's policy on original research. Flalf^Talk 20:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I though the links to the Wiki pages were enough. The links I added were relevant to the symbolism and if you looked at the pages in question, you would see it's verifiable. You'd understand that the hackers were against Ukraine and showed disapproval of it by showing its symbols crossed out. I linked to the "no symbol" page (which is the page about the symbol used to cross out the other symbols) and the pages to each of the other symbols. While I showed that three of the four symbols indeed represent Ukraine, I admit I don't understand the symbol of the pig's head (because I'm not Ukrainian, Russian or any nationality living near there) so I left that unexplained. The citation I added was for the content of the message itself because once I saw the notice looking for a citation, I thought it was for that (because it was unsourced before then) so I just linked to the NYT story. I hope you accept my apology for any problems I might have caused that I've explained it will. Thanks for reading!--51.37.20.241 (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

It's totally fine! Good luck in future editing! Just remember to provide reliable citations! :) Flalf^Talk 13:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Reactions to 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis

Hi, I created the page Reactions to 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis for moving the section "Reactions" in this article and make it more slender --P1221 (talk) 10:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Would suggest to correct the title to "Reactions to the 2021-2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis". PenangLion (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Union State

Hi, I have some doubts in considering the Union State as a main belligerent. There are few sources that links directly this organization with the current crisis, and the articles used as references have either Putin or Lukashenko speaking on behalf of their own country, not of the whole Union. What is your opinion? P1221 (talk) 08:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Generally, we should look whether there is any evidence of material and substantial involvement of an organization in the context of this crisis. However, "Union State" has been mostly a paper organization which de facto served more as a framework for some bilateral treaties but otherwise it's not really a lively project. Moreover, the Russian and Belarusian actions were not carried out under the umbrella of this organization. Also, as per WP:WEIGHT: pretty much no sources represent the viewpoint that "Union State" is involved here. I think it should not be listed. --Mindaur (talk) 11:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The Union State has not been referenced widely. I've seen more references to the CSTO as a representation of the Russo-Belarusian partnership rather than the Union State itself. Agreed per Mindaur. PenangLion (talk) 11:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Mindaur, PenangLion, I fully agree with you P1221 (talk) 11:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

What Ukrainian government does?

I do not see much about it on the page. Just looking at the map here and knowing that Putin spent years to prepare attacking Ukraine by making huge improvements training of Russian Army, getting rid of any political opposition and journalists, and even changing the laws (to make it illegal to report about military losses, for example), it is pretty obvious that the invasion is imminent. Did the Ukrainian government at least declare a large-scale mobilization? Any other country would do. But perhaps they actually did something? If so, this should be included on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Ukraine has been rebuilding its military since the Russian intervention in 2014. It has also been reforming and developing its domestic defense industry. The country has also formed Territorial Defense Forces and they have been increasing the training: [1][2][3]. I guess some of this could be covered in this article. --Mindaur (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I see. It says [4]: "The latest escalation has sparked a similar response, with the Ukrainian Government announcing a new law that permits the use of hunting rifles in acts of territorial defence.". And the reservists say they do not want to fight. My very best wishes (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Article rephrasing pastebin

While doing the scheduled rephrasing of the article, I stumbled across this sentence which doesn't really make sense to me.

"...The assessment also reported intensified Russian intelligence and combat sustainment units, such as movements of ammunition and field hospitals."
- Second Russian military buildup

May someone enlighten me and help in the rephrasing of this sentence? Most of the sources are in Ukrainian, so it's a bit of a headache for accuracy. This article is perhaps the one with the most grammatical errors I've ever encountered.
PenangLion (talk) 07:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Guessing that’s “combat support units.” —Michael Z. 03:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I looked at the source, and I think that might be current military jargon in English. Combat support is something other than hospitals and logistics. —Michael Z. 03:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Timeline

Could a Timeline Section be included at the end of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 08:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Technically the article right now is a massive timeline. I can see why we need one, but I do think a separate article would be better. PenangLion (talk) 10:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Background

Hi Molkaka, why do you consider the "Background" section not WP:NPOV? No reasons were given on why you added the template and I don't see ongoing discussion on this section... Thanks P1221 (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit war and name change?

We have an edit war right here. To those who are involved just calm down. Plus, name change? I thought we should've been using "Russo-Ukrainian" instead of "Russia-Ukraine"? Are the people involved even getting touch with us for a consensus before deciding on a name change?
PenangLion (talk) 13:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I reverted the name change. Super Ψ Dro 14:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the move. Much appreciated. Cheers, PenangLion (talk) 14:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

El Pais Documents

El Pais published some leaked documents from this. That story can be found here => https://english.elpais.com/usa/2022-02-02/us-offers-disarmament-measures-to-russia-in-exchange-for-a-deescalation-of-military-threat-in-ukraine.html

It's probably worth a subsection at least. Jsnider3 (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Overzealous attribution in the support column for both sides

So, I've noticed that the support columns for each side, especially the 'declarative support' columns (which are not usual at all for articles of this type) are hosting overzealous attributions of support. This is an article about a specific diplomatic crisis. Portugal stating that it has a "relationship of excellence" with Ukraine does not equate to them involving themselves in this specific diplomatic crisis on Ukraine's side. Likewise, China declaring that is concerned over what it considers as western interference in the country also cannot automatically be extrapolated to equate to support for Russia in the context of this crisis. I propose that we keep to the established consensus in other similar articles and for this reason limit the support columns to only including nations that are directly supporting either side - through real, actual political, economic, or military support. Vague statements about relationships or hosting of military equipment that isn't involved in the conflict shouldn't make the cut, as they misinform readers. Less important and relevant statements, that nevertheless have at least a tangential relationship with the subject matter, can instead be relegated to the reactions section, not the infobox. The infobox should only contain the key players and their direct backers. Goodposts (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• I support this proposal--Artemis Dread (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I support this proposal as well. The side column is becoming unmanageable. P1221 (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The articles on the war are more important in this regard. Real material support is what matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.34.214 (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. These lists should be reduced. This is WP:OR. My very best wishes (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I think only the countries which provided (or committed i.e. the decision to support has been made) military, financial or other substantial material support should be listed in the infobox. --Mindaur (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I oppose removing everything that is currently collapsed. This is not a military conflict but a geopolitical crisis. Everyone who has lent support or weighed in in some way is a part of the picture now, so including the various countries is reasonably due. On the other hand I support removing all the currently collapsed leaders. (On both sides.) tw^sabin 22:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, I think that a country merely giving an oral statement of support is not enough to include it as one of "Belligerents" in infobox Military Conflict. If it gave something more material, like providing a few instructors or weapons, even yes, probably. that hardly makes a country a belligerent/side in a military conflict. Turkey sold drones. Does it make it a "side"? No. My very best wishes (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

There are no belligerents (yet...) in this situation, so it's just wrong semantics as consequence of template uniformity. We shouldn't try to interpret reality through the lens of the "Infobox military conflict" template. In a political crisis words can still have a bigger effect than physical gestures. tw^sabin 03:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Direct and actual political support (eg. Nation X pledges to intervene/send military equipment in case of war) could still be listed. However, many of the presently listed 'supporting' nations are doing little more than declaring vague notions of wishing for peace, or stating that they have good relations with one of the sides, which means very little. Likewise, moving an insignificant number of troops or military equipment to a third, uninvolved nation, as a show of 'alliance solidarity', is also irrelevant within the context of the infobox, as it can only be interpreted as a mild statement of NATO cohesion, not having an actual impact on the crisis itself. After all, this is an infobox about this specific crisis, not NATO-Russia or Russia-Ukraine relations in General. Goodposts (talk) 12:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Support. Belligerents column should be restricted to belligerents. Imperator Storm (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support per Mindaur, P1221 and My very best wishes. PenangLion (talk) 04:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support, the expanded infobox is too long. --BlackShadowG (talk) 07:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Why are there “belligerents” listed in a diplomatic whatever-this-is? Can we change the label in the infobox?

The Russian Federation has delivered ultimatums to NATO and the USA and demanded written replies, so those 31 states plus Ukraine are involved parties, as well as Belarus which has now become a part of the military buildup. (In Russo-Ukrainian War listed supporters are states that have given concrete military aid to Ukraine.) —Michael Z. 03:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I am looking at Template:Infobox_military_conflict. Belligerents are typically combatants. Therefore, I think that including any "supporting" countries (those do not participating in combat) in the part for belligerents is misleading. So, I would suggest to exclude them in all infoboxes, such as one on page Russo-Ukrainian war and this page. My very best wishes (talk) 03:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Well does this article about a “crisis” which is a sideshow to an actual military conflict warrant a “military conflict” infobox? On the other hand, I see the template does have a field to change the header text “Belligerents,” and its docs advise “In case of Coup d'État, use "Government-Insurgents",” so it could be modified to suit this diplomatic standoff.

(Vis-a-vis the other article, it isn’t misleading if it is clearly labelled. States that provide concrete support are supporters. We have decided not to list states that give statements of support.) —Michael Z. 04:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, if this page is not about an open military conflict (yet), this is yet another reason to not include these countries as belligerents. My very best wishes (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I consider this decision redundant. Displaying supporters in crises (not military conflicts) is common in other articles as well. Examples: 2017–2018 North Korea crisis, 2019–2021 Persian Gulf crisis--Artemis Dread (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I added the parameter that enables us to avoid calling the sides "belligerents". Now they are the "parties involved in the crisis". tw^sabin 22:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Then OK, but if should be better sourced. Ref 5 just gives a link to WP article. This is not an RS. My very best wishes (talk)

Reverts

@Artemis Dread: You enacted this suggested change in good faith, but it was too soon. Once discussion has started it isn't so much about bold editing anymore but more about letting the discussion develop a bit to get as much quality input as possible. Give it a few more days. To add, you also removed the content on one side only, which is... a bit strange? tw^sabin 21:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Newspaper leaks confidential US and NATO responses, attach on page?

The Spanish newspaper El Pais just leaked the complete confidential documents of the US and NATO responses to Russia's draft treaties. The pdf file containing the responses are here. Should the responses be posted on the Wikipedia page? Since the US government made a response, it is under the public domain yes? Or since it was meant as confidential and published by a news outlet, copyright issues still apply? Phillip Samuel (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

yes, sure [5],[6]. My very best wishes (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Public domain, yes. Boud (talk) 03:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Syria

Syria

According to Daraa24[7], 2,400 to 4,000 Syrian soldiers will arrive in Rostov-on-Don in the coming days to participate in the Russian military buildup near Ukraine. Should Syria be added to the infobox? 85.108.174.213 (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• • This is unofficial information. The source refers to anonymous informants, information from them cannot be verified.--Artemis Dread (talk) 11:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Needs more confirmation. tw^sabin 11:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

New ominous info

• [8] - the number of battalion tactical groups of Russia in the border regions has risen to 83 from 60 as of Friday, and 14 more battalions are coming. Kiev will fall within 72 hours in case of full-scale attack according to US estimates [9]. This should probably be included to the page. My very best wishes (talk) 03:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

  I will find a way to add them later. PenangLion (talk) 06:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

unsubstantiated and provocative introduction

The first paragraph states "highest force mobilization since the country's annexation of Crimea in 2014." This implies that a massive regular Russian military mobilisation was instrumental in the Crimean takeover. However, all that I could find was that "Russian troop deployment in Crimea included six helicopter landings and three landings of Ilyushin Il-76 with 500 troops". Later in the year, there was the Russo-Ukrainian_War with more soldiers involved. 200.68.170.12 (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC) baden k.

No, it does not, that's just the spin you are putting on it.

The Russo-Ukrainian War has no direct involvement of Russian military in the neighboring country, therefore there were no forces mobilizing specifically in relation to those events. During the Crimean annexation, however, unmarked forces occupied key positions in the peninsula, and since most RS refer to those "green men" as Russian military without insignias, it is presumed that they were part of the mobilized forces back then. So the lede statement is correct IMO. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Background – Enlargement of NATO

This information was reverted here by My very best wishes, with the following edit summary: "Wrong narrative for background. This is Russo-Ukrainian crisis; none of these countries is a member of NATO." I think it is relevant and should be included. NATO became a flash point in the Russo-Ukrainian crisis.[10]

Russia is strongly opposed to any eastward expansion of NATO. In May 1990, Soviet Union's reformist leader Mikhail Gorbachev visited the U.S. for talks with President George H. W. Bush; there, he agreed to allow a reunified Germany to be a part of NATO. He later revealed that he had agreed to do so because U.S. Secretary of State James Baker promised that NATO troops would not be posted to eastern Germany and that the military alliance would not expand into Eastern Europe. Privately, Bush ignored Baker's assurances and later pushed for NATO expansion. In early 2008, President George W. Bush, the son of former President George H. W. Bush, vowed full support for Ukraine's and Georgia's bids to join NATO, despite Russia's opposition to NATO expansion. Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin warned that any incorporation of Ukraine into NATO would cause a "deep crisis" in Russia–Ukraine relations and also negatively affect Russia's relations with the West.

References

-- Tobby72 (talk) 22:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

We already explain the NATO issues in the article. We cannot rely on the pre-2021/2022 sources to explain the current unfolding events, as those are WP:SYN. This cobbles together some old sources (which, incidentally, repeat a rather selective narrative). There are ample good recent sources that explain the historical background with specific reference to the crisis. Neutrality^talk 23:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

First of all, anything that had happen between NATO and USSR (another state/country) is irrelevant to this page. Secondly, Putin's administration does claim that they want to prevent NATO expansion, but this is an obvious propaganda nonsense because Ukraine is not going to be accepted to NATO any time soon, and Putin's administration knows it very well. Hence misleading. My very best wishes (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• Since the end of the Cold War, the main NATO enlargements occurred in 1999 and 2004. Russia was not particularly happy about that, but it did not issue demands, threats or ultimatums at that time (moreover, it signed numerous bilateral and international treaties recognizing the status quo, but that's a whole separate topic). However, more to the point: there was no Russo-Ukrainian conflict at that time. When you look at some event in history, you look at cause-effect relationship. NATO enlargement did not cause this conflict. Euromaidan in 2013 and the subsequent Russian loss of influence on Ukraine in 2013 did (although the cracks began even earlier, with Orange Revolution in 2004). That is why your proposed narrative is wrong and misleading.

Yes, Russia did issue its demands about NATO in the recent escalation (note that they didn't do that during the first military build up in Spring 2021). That is mentioned in the last paragraph of the background section and is covered further in the article. However, the demands on NATO are part of a strategy rather than background or build up of the conflict, as explained above. So, while it should have WP:DUE coverage, please don't construct a misleading narrative just because sources merely write about these aspects or just because Russians suddenly, after all these years and numerous signed treaties, issued a demand.

--Mindaur (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• It is relevant to add the context for the fact that the entire conflict had started from an anti-Russian movement opposing a pro-Russian president. Russia is objected to any eastern expansion of NATO, which they feared that the Euromaidan movement would lead to Ukraine being entirely pro-EU and NATO or worse, joining NATO as a whole. NATO became an option for Ukraine after 2014. Russia is losing its sphere of influence on Ukraine after 2014. Giving them the fact that NATO is indeed encroaching on former-Soviet states gives some (not all) context to why the entire conflict spun into this stage (not the cause, but why it became such a mess). Sure this is about Ukraine and Russia, but it doesn't justify the fact that multiple respected sources have noted that the eastern expansion of NATO has made Russia immensely uncomfortable. It has swayed their diplomatic tactics and has affected a large factor to why this conflict is still embroiling. The Russo-Georgian War that occurred only 15 years ago stems from a multitude of reasons, one of them being how the Georgian government of that period heavily campaigned to join NATO (you have a section talking about that). If you have an example as such, shouldn't it be justifying that Russo-NATO relations play a big part in this conflict and the decisions of the Russian government? Even if it's not the reason, the main reason, you can't simply remove 25 years' worth of background history. It's background, still. Starting from Euromaidan isn't really enough to invoke a certain context to why this event happened, and to why Russia feared Ukraine joining NATO. - PenangLion (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

The issue between Russia and NATO should certainly have its WP:DUE, but mentioning it in the background section is misleading and, in a way, it's an anachronism. I already mostly explained why -- please see above. In fact, Yeltsin administration initially wasn't even opposed to Poland joining NATO back in 1990s and the Russian position nowadays contradicts a bunch of treaties they put a signature on. Let alone plenty of other contradictions: why now, after decades of status quo? why Ukraine? why there were no grand demands when Poland or Baltic states joined NATO? why Russia is not concerned about the currently neutral Finland (with more than 1300 km shared border) which has a much closer relationship with NATO than Ukraine ever had? However, none of these details belong to this article. You can expand the Enlargement of NATO article, but it doesn't belong in the background section here.

Is it a narrative? Yes, it is a Russian narrative that NATO is "encroaching" Russia. However, NATO would say that those countries have to voluntarily apply for membership, meet a certain criteria and only then they might (or might not) be admitted by a unanimous decision. Russia says it has legitimate security interests, but the Russian neighbours say they have a right to choose the alliances. Russia demands security guarantees, but the Russian neighbours say they would be deprived from their own security guarantees. And so on and so forth. You assumed, however, that the real reason why Russia is in conflict with Ukraine is based on their narrative, though. --Mindaur (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tobby72. Please do not remove materials about Budapest memorandum and other things that have been discussed in RS right now (not years ago), specifically with relation to this crisis. For example, [11], [12]. My very best wishes (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I think Tobby72 was making a point that it's not backed by the references covering this conflict. While it's a valid point, there are indeed various sources covering it. Couple more in addition to yours: [13][14] --Mindaur (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. Your first source provides some background as it should appear in Background section on this page. According to your 2nd RS, "The UK has a legal duty to defend Ukraine's territorial integrity." Same with other signatories of the Budapest memorandum, like USA and yeh, Russia. However, it say "The memorandum is not a treaty and lawyers dispute whether it is legally enforceable. But it is a formal, public and written commitment by the UK to support Ukraine.". I have seen a few discussions about it on Youtube, the analogy with German occupation of Czechoslovakia, etc. For example, Yuri Felshtinsky said: "Can Russia be stopped? Yes, sure. That is if Biden promise Putin to declare a war on if Russia invades Ukraine. But he will not do it.", and so on. My very best wishes (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreements/Alliances

Has a Mutual Assistance Agreement been mentioned between NATO and Ukraine that runs along similar lines as the Anglo-Polish Agreement which was signed just prior to the start of the Second World War? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 10:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think a similar Agreement has been signed for now. A deal like this one isn't similar to the Anglo-Polish Agreement at all. Do you have any reference on the contrary? Thanks P1221 (talk) 11:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Structure of table on structures

@Mindaur: My motivation was to select the treaties and fora based on what the RU and NATO/US statements refer to. Whether the RU/NATO/US diplomats made arbitrary choices is not our problem (some choices are obvious: RU doesn't like the OSCE's focus on human rights and grassroots NGOs and civil society as part of integrated security, so excluded it). Without a table like this, it's harder to get one's mind around what acronym or name means what and involves who and when it was created.

We now have a question of ordering: should it be ordered by the creation of the treaty/forum, or by the dates of the RU and NATO/US statements? My motivation was ordering by the RU/NATO/US statements, but unless we re-order the columns (to put the RU/NATO/US statements earlier), it would probably be more readable to order by the creation date of the treaty/forum. Even with a column re-ordering, ordering by the creation date of the treaty/forum would make sense. Since you (I think) added the extra rows, feel free to choose one ordering or the other and implement it, at least for the moment, so that there's one coherent ordering. Boud (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to comment that I like the table and feel that it's very useful. I think the primary sorting criterion doesn't matter. It's fine as it is. tw^sabin 22:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Boud: That is an arbitrary pick. Why only the these treaties as opposed to treaties which concern this conflict in general?

Russia is attempting to change the current European security architecture it agreed (signed up) to in the past, including Helsinki Final Act 1975 (note: Russia is a legal successor of the Soviet Union, as per the international law), Paris Charter 1990, NATO-Russia Founding Act 1997, Charter for European Security 1999. It's discussed by multiple references covering this conflict: [15][16][17]. For those less familiar, generally these legal documents enshrine some fundamental principles: the right of the countries to choose their political and military alliances; respect for sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all states (but that is in the UN Charter anyway); inviolability of borders in Europe. The section and table doesn't really cover any of this background.

Moreover, there are some treaties which specifically concern Russia and Ukraine: Budapest Memorandum 1994 and, much less referenced in this context, Russian–Ukrainian Friendship Treaty 1997 (but e.g. mentioned in [18]). It's worth pointing out that with the annexation of Crimea and direct involvement in the War in Donbas, Russia broke literally all of these commitments. Also, the table lists some negotiation forums for resolving this conflict, but it fails to mention the most relevant and important agreement: the Minsk Protocol 2014 or rather Minsk II (2015) (plenty of references on this). There are even more treaties concerning arms control which, while discussed in this context, are arguably irrelevant here (as per WP:WEIGHT). Perhaps you can now see why this table is a rather arbitrary pick in a general context of this conflict.

P.S. If we do keep this table, then I certainly think it should be ordered by the date these treaties were signed. --Mindaur (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I support the creation of this table. If any help is needed, please do notify me, I will oblige my full effort for it. PenangLion (talk) 06:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

The table is very helpful. But I think one should only include agreements with Ukraine after dissolution of the USSR. Agreements where only Russia or USSR, but no Ukraine were parties arguably do not belong to the table. My very best wishes (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mindaur: The restriction of the list to those treaties and negotiating forums referred to in the Russian proposals and US and NATO responses may seem arbitrary, but this criterion keeps the list focussed on this particular crisis. Axxxion is worried about the list being too far from the main theme of the article; a more complete list would risk going beyond the specific crisis itself. The role of the table is to help readers make sense of the rest of the article and sort out SSD vs NRC vs OSCE vs CFE vs the non acronymised treaties and forums, and being able to understand the chronology. Seeing the comments above, this limited table seems more likely to achieve consensus in this article than a more complete list. Boud (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Boud: I don't have a strong objection to this table, but I do think it is a little bit misleading, because it might create an impression that this is a Russia-NATO crisis. If you read the sources by various security experts and analyss, they are pretty much unequivocal that this is primarily about Ukraine. The stakes are high, so Russia pulled out its Christmas wishlist on NATO as a certain strategy and a way to broadcast their narrative. However, the issue between Russia and NATO is not central here (please also see my comments in the sections above on this talk page). --Mindaur (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mindaur: It seems to me that the introductory paragraph for the table (and section title?) could be improved to make it clearer these are the treaties and negotiating forums of the "Russian narrative" around its threat to attack Ukraine and of the written responses to that narrative. This is within the diplomatic negotiations section of the article. Diplomacy includes the narratives of the parties involved. A brief comment that Ukraine was not even invited (by Russia) to respond would be justified, it seems to me, since otherwise the reader may wonder why Ukraine's choices of relevant treaties and fora are ignored. Please anyone go ahead and try improving the wording. Boud (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

See this edit for a suggested improved wording. The expression "draft treaty" can probably be given scare quotes since it's a text prepared by one side, prior to any negotiations, and without involving the country likely to be attacked to be a party - or we could use italics for draft treaty to be considered as MOS:WORDSASWORDS rather than something with its ordinary English meaning. Boud (talk) 01:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Whether or not it's ethical, there are treaties and forums that affect (or would affect) Ukraine while excluding it. Two examples: (1) Russia didn't state that Ukraine had a right to participate in deciding on the two Russian "draft treaties", but they obviously affect Ukraine. (2) If you look through United States–Russia Strategic Stability Dialogue#Meetings and read through what is currently ref [4] there, you'll see that refusing to exclude Ukraine from NATO was a strong point of the January 2022 SSD discussion (according to the US representative). Boud (talk) 23:42, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps this belongs to Backgroud and needs to be rephrased just to provide some info for reader. That makes sense because such treaties frequently appear in publications on the subject. Please fix that part a little. My very best wishes (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me to overlap between background and main content: most of the treaties and forums started a long time before March 2021, but it's the Russian proposals and US+NATO responses that make them relevant here. However, shifting to a subsection of the Background section might achieve consensus.

Any objections to shifting the table to the Background section? Boud (talk) 23:42, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. This is absolutely not the background, please see the discussion in a section above. --Mindaur (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to restore earlier treaties, move it back or whatever you think would be best. My very best wishes (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

The info therein may be useful, but it is not clear how it fits in the narrative about the ongoing events, which is the subject matter of the article. It probably belongs to "Background" of "Ukrainian crisis".Axxxion (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

...or, rather, to Russia–NATO relations. I have removed the bit, this discussion pending. My main objective is that it is off-topic. Also, should any of these treaties be mentioned in the text of the article (which has hardly happened yet), there will be a link to the relevant article. Meanwhile, creating the whole subsection on the issue distorts the narrative here and steers the subject elsewhere. This partly reflects the actual situation with the ongoing crisis, which is indeed much wider than merely "Russo-Ukrainian crisis", as the sides (Moscow and Washington) essentially talk at cross-purposes: while Washington urges halt of "Russian further aggression into Ukraine", Moscow demands halt to NATO expansion towards itself, saying the Ukrainian crisis is an internal matter. This much has to be explained, but giving a sheer catalogue of treaties serves no purpose here.Axxxion (talk) 22:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted the removal. Wikipedia is WP:COMPREHENSIVE, and the section provides valuable context while avoiding pitfalls such as relying on sources that predate the events to synthesize a background, so to speak. The table is explanatory. It's like a reading aid. It enhances the readers' understanding of the subject. Editors have said positive things about this section on the talk page, while discussing how it can be improved. Please follow WP:BRD, and discuss incremental changes. tw^sabin 22:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

This is a notice to participants of a 3RR report pertaining to the content that is being discussed here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Axxxion reported by User:Twsabin (Result: ). tw^sabin 23:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

If it is "explanatory", how does it fit in as a whole subsection under the section′s heading "Diplomatic negotiations". If we treat it as "a reading aid", it should be made into a footnote once any actual mention of those treaties is made in the text. When a reader reads the sections′ headings in the table, this subsection′s heading has one stumped and perplexed, simply does not make sense, needs an explanation to itself.Axxxion (talk) 23:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I've said what I had about your idea of removal. I have supported this addition since February 5 (first reply in this section). If you think a footnote is better, that's still not a reason to remove. It would be upon you in that case to convert the section into footnote(s). Since the edit war has hopefully stopped, others can comment on any of your specific suggestions (outright removal / "procedural removal" pending discussion / conversion to footnote). I am against, and prefer the status quo. tw^sabin 23:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Axxxion: @Twsabin: Now this whole section doesn't make sense after one of the editors removed/rewrote the first sentence which referenced historical treaties. I think it would be indeed more logical to state Russia's position (and NATO's response) textually instead of drawing the table. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 03:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Whydoesitfeelsogood. Reading the section as of now, it is not clear how the table and the whole section fits in the narrative about the ongoing events, or the reason why these treaties are referenced. For instance: Russia makes reference to the Charter for European Security in its 18 December draft agreement with the USA. Apart form letting the reader know that this treaty was referenced, it doesn't provide any information about what Russia is asking to the counterpart. Also, the wikilink redirects to a 1999 Summit, which doesn't explain what this Charter covers. As of now, I would vote to remove the table... P1221 (talk) 08:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The reason for keeping the table is to allow the reader to easily find the more substantial peace-process facts of treaties and negotiation forums that have been referred to rather than limiting the diplomacy section to the "narrative" of Western mainstream media (WP:RS). The problem with "fits in the narrative", "what Russia is asking to the counterpart", "doesn't explain what this Charter covers", is that these all require interpretations and the compression of information into a simplified choice of narrative. We want readers to be able to easily find the more substantial facts of the diplomatic negotiations. We also provide narrative, but let's not force readers into narrative alone, especially given our fundamental difficulty in finding a balanced set of WP:RS in this situation (there's no magic solution to this fundamental problem). Remember (or learn about) media coverage of the Iraq War#Criticisms of pro-invasion bias from 2003. Boud (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

My apologies Boud, but as reader I find a bit difficult to understand the table... At the moment it seems just a repetition of the text which precedes the table itself. If the scope of the table is to give a general view at a glance, probably the text preceding the table is redundant. Otherwise, the table doesn't provide more insights than the text itself and some expansion might be needed P1221 (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I support abandoning the table. Altho, i keep thinking abandoning the entire subsection would be best. All those treaties are mentioned in the U.S. response that was made public by El Pais, and how authentic is this document, in the fist place? The purported document is lengthy and verbose, it mentions all sorts of things going back to Peace of Westphalia, in essence if not by name (as that was when the concept of a sovereign nation state was formally introduced in international affairs). So what? The gist of the response was to repudiate all those demands that the Kremlin had put forward, in essence saying that the current reality is different from that in 1974, or 1997. BTW, one of the concepts that the kremlin has been making much of in the context of this crisis is the so called "indivisibility of security", which the article, methinks, overlooks. And that one would more worthy of textual mention, in my opinion (a recent source on that is here

https://www.ft.com/content/84a43896-2dfd-4be4-8d2a-c68a5a68547a ).Axxxion (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The table ought to be meaningful as an illustration or at least present something coherent. For example, we didn't reach a consensus whether 1975 Helsinki Final Act should be in the table, but it is actually a cornerstone document which established many of the principles parties now seem to disagree about (subsequent treaties, including Charter for European Security, primarily reaffirmed what was agreed in Helsinki). Another example is Minsk II agreement from 2015: Russia has been trying to force Ukraine to implement Russia's interpretation of this agreement, but it's generally deemed as a failure (and some sources claim that Moscow is now considering a military option because of that). The agreement seems quite essential to this conflict, but it's not mentioned in the table/section. I am not sure what the reader can learn from this table. Might be interesting for the enthusiasts of the international law, but otherwise the table neither provides a good context nor a coherent picture on the European security architecture (e.g. what were all these treaties about, what they tried to achieve, what was the rationale behind them, how exactly Russia wants to change the status quo, etc). --Mindaur (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, of course Minsk II agreement is important and must be mentioned, but it probably belongs to "Background". My very best wishes (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

"First" and "second" crisis in the infobox?

This does not sound right if the article's name were to stay. I propose either renaming the article "2021-2022 Russo-Ukrainian crises" or changing those parameters to "First phase" and "second phase" (although tbh the "phases" sound off as well, it's just one long crisis with intermittences). --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I should apologize right here first, I was the guy that added the "first" and "second" crises. Since I saw another editor separated the dates with a clear 5 month gap + the article lacks any information between May - October 2021, I just assumed we had two different stages. So I did the edits. Should've asked for a consensus :/ PenangLion (talk) 05:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@PenangLion: so you wouldn't mind me changing the "crisis" word for, say, "tension"? --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

"Tension" gives the impression of being unimportant, in my opinion. I do think "escalation" would work. PenangLion (talk) 07:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

"Escalation" might indeed work if employed in singular. I used the plural "tensions", though. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Can a change be done? It doesn't really matter on the use of words, but it needs to tell the readers that the event has split into two distinct parts. PenangLion (talk) 13:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Sources for Vienna Document activation?

There's a tweet suggesting that the three Baltic states have invoked Vienna Document 2011 Chapter III (risk reduction) in relation to the Russian military buildup in Belarus. Do we have any WP:RS for this? Boud (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Boud, it seems to be hitting the news: Baltic nations launch OSCE appeal over Russia-Belarus drill. —Michael Z. 02:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

And a response: Russian ambassador: Allied Resolve exercise does not exceed Vienna Document limit. —Michael Z. 03:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Not related to Belarus, but it might be worth pointing out that Russia has recently cancelled OSCE inspections (scheduled by Latvia) in its territory: [19][20] --Mindaur (talk) 11:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion on archiving the talk page

I would suggest adding an archive for the talk page, given how the growing amount of discussions (and abandoned ones) has clogged up the page as a whole. There are no indications for me that the talk page will subside with the heightened progress of the confrontation related to the articles. PenangLion (talk) 13:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I need responses; if there are objections then I will do it in the next few days. PenangLion (talk) 15:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I see that Twsabin added an automatic archive bot with this revision of the talk page. P1221 (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh I see. That should do the trick I guess. Thanks for informing. PenangLion (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

100,000 troops - Are there any reputable sources for this?

This article immediately states that there are 100,000 troops amassed near Ukraines borders, but I can't find any independent verification of this. All the linked sources and most popular online news articles cite government and military sources. Is there any independent primary verification of these drastic numbers or is this just unverified state claims? If not then I'm not sure it should be stated as fact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Synikalle (talk • contribs) 16:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the claim should be attributed as it normally is in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 17:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

That’s a good question. I believe similar figures have been stated by Ukrainian, UK, and US officials, and the numbers are also being not just quoted but stated as fact by WP:reliable sources, including in this article’s references. There are also analysts’ reports, and we should see what they say. Another question: has the Russian Federation denied the number? —Michael Z. 17:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

A post by Rochan Consulting updated February 6 says “this gives a total of 74-76 BTGs [battalion tactical groups] excluding DPR and LPR forces.” (I believe a BTG may be about 750 troops, or 1,000 with their supporting elements, and it would exclude brigade and higher-level combat and support assets, things like pipeline and railway troops, and air force and navy which are included in total numbers.) —Michael Z. 19:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

As of a few minutes ago, ex-members of the JCS stated on a television interview that that figure is now around 175,000 - and they are expecting the Russians to attack. Shrug. 50.111.56.58 (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

175 thousand? That is exactly according to their plan made public two months ago: [21]. My very best wishes (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Most of the reliable sources I have read do not state it as fact. And what do they mean by "near Ukraine's border?" Apparently that includes troops just outside Moscow or on the border with Belarus. TFD (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Of course it matters which types of forces have been deployed, where and how equipped. Please see some refs: [22], [23], [24]. This is currently not 100 thousand, but a lot more. They can attack today, but will move some forces and bring more during a couple of weeks. If they start, that will be probably on February 22, just before the Soviet Army Day. My very best wishes (talk) 03:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

What improvement to the article is being proposed here? These are numbers stated in reliable sources, and the only ones we have (I believe a more recent Ukrainian estimate is “127,000”). It can be stated clearly that they are estimates and what their sources are, and more details can be provided: I believe I have seen estimates from Ukraine, the UK, and the USA, and breakdowns as to arms of service, by location, and counts of the Russian military units, and the origins throughout the Russian Federation that they have travelled from. Sources also provide their current disposition, including units that have travelled many thousands of km, and that are now encamped in occupied Ukrainian territory, in the RF just minutes away from Ukraine’s border, and in Belarus, extending a potential front against Ukraine.

Are other WP:RSs disputing this? Is Russia disputing his or providing it’s own figures?

What specific article edits are being proposed here? —Michael Z. 14:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Speaking of specific improvements, I would suggest to clarify that the "First Russian Military buildup" (i.e. Russian military exercises conducted in March-April 2021 near Ukraine’s borders) were essentially a rehearsal of the invasion (one that is now planned to happen). According to Ukrainian officials, [25] “The Russian troops worked out the issues of creating strike groups near the borders of our state, mobilization measures, logistical support of groups, [and] transfer of significant military contingents, including by air,” from Russia to the border with Ukraine", etc. Otherwise, the logical connection of different sections here is not clear. My very best wishes (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

And a prepositioning of equipment and troops. Recall, the “withdrawal” constituted (from memory) 10 or 15 percent of the initial buildup. Presenting these as two independent events is a POV that would have to be supported by the sources. —Michael Z. 01:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, sure, there was no significant withdrawal of forces. This is because they wanted to preposion forces (right), and it makes sense to use same forces trained in same area during the actual invasion. Please also see interview by Felgenhauer linked below. My very best wishes (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment: Unfortunately, under Russian foreign agent law, which got even worse in 2021, Russian sources independent from the government who would like to publish a Russian - non-government - POV on the numbers would put themselves at risk of criminal prosecution. See Union of the Committees of Soldiers' Mothers of Russia who had to limit their direct contact with the army last year. Diversity of sourcing is fundamentally difficult here. Boud (talk) 15:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

This is not entirely true. There are independent military analysts like Pavel Felgenhauer. And he tells this: [26], based on openly published materials. Russian military were making extensive preparation specifically for this war for many years, since 2015, including even building a new rail road, specifically to attack Ukraine. He explains what exactly and why Russian ships in Black Sea will do, depending on the orders; why they are keeping fleet in Mediterranean Sea, and other aspects. He explains why the exact numbers of forces near the Ukrainian borders are not that much relevant ("Воздушно-десантные войска не должны выдвигаться из Иваново к украинской границе, они отправятся непосредственно из Иваново на самолетах, куда нужно. Так же и другие части: Первая гвардейская танковая армия, Кантемировская и Таманская дивизии. Им необязательно заранее выезжать к границе с Украиной, они просто сходу пойдут в бой со своих баз в Подмосковье. Необязательно всем идти в одной волне, всегда идет несколько последовательных волн."). According to him, the decision should be made very soon, possibly in a matter of days because everything is ready for the war. My very best wishes (talk) 01:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this example; just to clarify, I used the words risk, and difficult (which differs from impossible). Felgenhauer is Wikipedia-notable, and would seem to be usable as a WP:RS, based on a quick look at his WP article (I didn't check the sources). Boud (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

That brings the case of Russian war on Georgia [27]. This is exactly same playbook. All of that was carefully pre-planned in advance, and executed under fabricated casus belli. Same with Second Chechen war, same with attacking Ukraine in 2014. Actually, according to Felgenhauer [28], the planning of military actions with regard to Ukraine by the General Staff started already in 2012 under orders from Putin and Shoigu, i.e. right after the appointment of Shoigu to his current position. And BTW, Shoigu believes that his direct ancestor was Subutai and he is proud of that [29], which does sound strange given the Battle of the Kalka River where Subutai defeated Russian Army. My very best wishes (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

RS for fallback capitol?

Has anyone run across any decent sources stating where Ukraine might move the capitol/headquarters further west in the event of an invasion by the Russian Federation? I think that would be an interesting inclusion for the article. 50.111.56.58 (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

No such plans was reported by Ukrainian government. However, it was indeed described in publications that one of most likely plans by Russian forces would be quick capture of Kyiv. The objective would be quickly putting a puppet government. Some of the plans allegedly included even using special forces to take over government buildings, just as during Operation Storm-333 and annexation of Crimea. My very best wishes (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

After source 242

It is supported by the source numbered 242 that the White House would no longer describe an invasion as imminent. However, U.S. Intelligence this that there could be an impending assault on Kyiv. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncanny Valley1 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry Uncanny Valley1, I can't understand well your comment. If for "source 242" you mean this news, it was published on 2 February. The news you link was published yesterday.P1221 (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The Meme

Ukraine posted a meme and I think it is important to history if this is remembered.

<twitter.com/ukraine/status/1468206078940823554>

<washingtonpost.com/world/2022/01/26/ukraine-russia-memes-social/>

<businessinsider.com/ukraine-twitter-account-meme-russian-invasion-border-2021-12?IR=T>

The Greatest Wiki Dude who ever lived. (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Not remotely notable imo EvergreenFir (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, it's not as if everyday some 'country' posts a meme on the verge war. Or has that happened before?And now that I think about it, this might just be the most based move in the history of based moves.The Greatest Wiki Dude who ever lived. (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

A 'country' is neither a moral nor a physical entity to refer to in this case. I believe this specific account belongs to the President's Office, so let's start with this. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 19:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, but still, when has a president or whoever on the verge of war ever post a meme directly poking fun at the fact of what might happen? I believe this is a once in a lifetime moment that should be documented.The Greatest Wiki Dude who ever lived. (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps. I would put it under "Reactions" -> "Ukraine", following the chronological order of events. Not answering for every editor involved, though. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Just put in the suggested area, but I feel I did not use the proper wording, so any help in that area would be needed.The Greatest Wiki Dude who ever lived. (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOT. Not every nonsense (that was a stupid joke) on Twitter belongs to WP. Reverted. My very best wishes (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

That is where I disagree. Even if they posted the meme on 4CHAN of all places, it should still be on here for the historical significance.The Greatest Wiki Dude who ever lived. (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it say "Ukraine's official Twitter account poked fun at the idea...", but what is the "historical significance" of this joke, exactly? If your point is that Ukrainian leadership are fools, that may be true, but you still need multiple RS saying that the joke was historically significant. My very best wishes (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

"What is the Historical Significance?" Well, that is the fact that Ukraine has been (to my extent of knowing) been the first country to go and post a meme on the internet about what seems to be a historical event.

Secondly, here are a few more sources as was asked of me.

indy100.com/viral/ukraine-russia-official-twitter-meme-b1972039

hitc.com/en-gb/2021/12/08/twitter-users-cant-believe-official-ukraine-account-tweeted-this-meme/

newsweek.com/ukraine-trolls-russia-meme-about-living-next-it-tensions-flare-1657463

businessinsider.com/ukraine-twitter-account-meme-russian-invasion-border-2021-12?IR=T

The Greatest Wiki Dude who ever lived. (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@The Greatest Wiki Dude who ever lived.: if this meme has created an unprecedented reaction inside the government's office and has garnered enough media attention as to become the subject of a couple of RS's, then I don't have a problem with it being included properly in the appropriate subsection following a chronological order of events by date (in due format). I suggest you familiarize yourself with how other editors contribute to the article next time, instead of asking others to correct your edits. Regards, --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

While amusing, it's not encyclopedic material; it has little to no significance or notability. --Mindaur (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Mindaur, the meme doesn't appear to be a notable news.P1221 (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Has this meme actually resulted in anything important/significant happening? It's funny but it doesn't seem much different than, say, back when Ted Cruz posted a tweet about Baby Yoda. Do we need to mention Cruz's tweet in his Wikipedia page? Dunutubble (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2022

Edit citation:

"On 15 November, acting German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas and French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian expressed concern in a joint communique about "the movements of Russian forces and military equipment near Ukraine," calling both sides to "show restraint".[citation needed]"

Citation should be: ""Ukraine - Joint Statement - France/Germany (November 15, 2021)". 2021. Brussels: Permanent Representation of France to the OSCE. https://osce.delegfrance.org/Ukraine-Joint-Statement-France-Germany-November-15-2021."

Edit citation:

"On 16 November, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg called on the West to send Russia "a clear signal calling for reducing tension, avoiding any escalation in and around Ukraine." Stoltenberg added that the alliance records an "unusual concentration" of Russian forces near the Ukrainian border.[citation needed]"

Citation should be: "Cook, Lorne. 2021. "NATO Chief Wary Of Russian Military Moves Near Ukraine". ABC News. https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/nato-chief-wary-russian-military-moves-ukraine-81178711." 73.86.199.115 (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the sources. P1221 (talk) 08:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2022

Lithuania has sent lethal aid to Ukraine, while the wiki page claims otherwise. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-will-receive-stinger-anti-aircraft-missiles-within-days-lithuania-pm-2022-02-10/ 78.58.3.21 (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Will look further. Thank you for the notification. Cheers, PenangLion (talk) 13:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Lithuania did not send weapons. The source speaks of intentions to send in the near future, but does not state the fact of sending--Artemis Dread (talk) 12:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Artemis Dread: It seems that you didn't follow the previous discussions in this talk page and didn't check the references in my change:

1) Lithuania has repeatedly sent ammunition and light weapons to Ukraine since 2014 and I provided references for that. If we put Turkey into the list for selling drones in the recent years, then Lithuania should also be included.

2) The PM of Lithuania announced that FIM-92 Stinger are about to be delivered. I believe that in itself is sufficient, as countries might not want to reveal the logistical details. In fact, Boeing C-17 had a flight from Zokniai military airbase in Lithuania to Kyiv yesterday (you can see it on open-source radar data); even if there was no public confirmation, I think it's pretty that shipments are happening. In general, I think we don't need to wait for a formal confirmation of shipment if the countries made a documented government-level decisions (rather than promises or just considerations).

3) I provided a reference in my change which indicates that Estonia has already transfered FGM-148 Javelin missiles. Why did you ignore it?

Given the above, I kindly ask to restore my changes, thanks. --Mindaur (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

In fact, Lithuanian Minister of Defense has just confirmed that the missiles were indeed delivered (and so did the local media): [30][31]. --Mindaur (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

This page is about the current crisis, not the entire Russo-Ukrainian war. I am not against the removal of Turkey. However, weapons from Lithuania arrived just today - https://www.facebook.com/reznikovoleksii/posts/347376380732053. All logistical details are well covered by Ukrainian sources

Regarding Estonia, I ask for a quote. Maybe I didn't see it in the source. --Artemis Dread (talk) 16:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

And again about Turkey. It seems to me incorrect to indicate in one row the countries that sell and that transfer weapons for free--Artemis Dread (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Artemis Dread: I already provided a reference about Estonia: [32]. Please pay more attention to the changes.

Regarding Turkey and other countries: I think we should include countries which privided weapons after 2014, because that is a relevant context/background and Ukraine has been requesting modern weapons since then. --Mindaur (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The transfer of weapons now is a response to the possibility of expanding Russian aggression, which has been going on for 8 years. Previous deliveries are relevant to the conflict in general - see Russo-Ukrainian War.--Artemis Dread (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Artemis Dread: I am well aware of the background and greater context of this conflict. However: 1) please get familiar with the points made in the discussion here; 2) in such case, Turkey, Czech Republic nad Poland would have to be removed from the list as we don't yet have a confirmation of deliveries during this crisis. I do not have a strong position on this, but we should come up with a consistent criteria for inclusion. --Mindaur (talk) 18:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

1) You did not come to a consensus? 2) Regarding Turkey, I already wrote. Poland and the Czech Republic supplied military equipment and ammunition to Ukraine during the crisis, but these were weapons purchased by Ukraine [33][34][35]. Should this be regarded as support?--Artemis Dread (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Artemis Dread: The main point of contention was labeling of the lists.. :) Otherwise, the editors seem to be flexible on these points. I suggest to just keep things as-is. Ukraine has been asking for advanced/modern weapons to be sold, not necessarily just donated, since 2014; yet many countries refused. So, I'd say it's significant, especially the cooperation with Turkey on modern drones and warships (frigates). --Mindaur (talk) 15:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

 Note: I'm closing this request while it is under discussion. Looks like almost everyone involved in discussion can edit the page, so there's no need for the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Question

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.

---

Has Ukraine begun any sort of mobilization of its armed forces? I haven't seen any indication in my usual sources and nothing in the article suggests a mass call up of military reservists. Has this not happened or am I missing something? -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

All I saw was that [36], i.e. a few civilian volunteers are preparing to die for their country. There was nothing about total mobilization. The question is why? My very best wishes (talk) 03:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree. It seems very peculiar. According to our article, Ukraine has a theoretical military reserve of 900k. If I were the PM of a country that feared imminent foreign invasion, I'd have called out every able-bodied citizen who had a squirrel rifle and a box of .22 ammo. Hmmm... -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

That source [37] tells: In addition to Ukraine’s more than 200,000-strong standing military, the country can mobilize some 300,000 soldiers, 130,000 of whom would form new territorial defense battalions... Yet, even as Russia’s colossal war machine musters around three sides of Ukraine’s borders, no mobilization of military reservists order has been given... plans for an insurgency or guerrilla-style resistance movement led by Ukraine’s military are now the government’s primary strategy. I am not expert, but they are wrong. This is not Afghanistan; it is enough to look at the photos. My very best wishes (talk) 04:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I concur. This is a mistake. You don't throw away your army in the opening of a war. Maybe they are hoping to avoid giving Putin a pretext for invasion. But it didn't work in 1939 and I doubt it will today. If there is any hope of deterrence, at this point I'd say it lies in how much pain Ukraine can inflict on Russia as the price of a serious invasion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

If they focus on insurgency, then the Ukrainian state must provide weapons and ammunition to every member of reserve and every volunteer today. But I do not see anything about it in news. All their large weapons depots will be destroyed anyway by rockets and aviation during the first wave of attacks. My very best wishes (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem:, @My very best wishes: The problem isn't the troops, they have enough men and women. The problem is they don't have enough weaponry. And if I were the PM of that country I'd resign, because the ongoing crisis clearly demonstrates Zelensky's inability to run the country. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

They have a lot of old weapons [38], but not enough modern weapons. In particular, they have just a few anti-ship missiles; having a lot of those could be a game changer in Black Sea. However, in the context of insurgency/sabotage operations, low-tech weapons like AKMs and munitions could be very much sufficient if there will be a lot of people using them. But this is very big "if". It is more likely this will be just as in the eastern part of Ukraine already occupied by Russian forces. BTW, they have mobilized already Russian National Guard and Kadyrovites with "avtozaks" for prisoners to "handle" the civilian Ukrainian population, pretty much as they do it in Russia. See here [39]. My very best wishes (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Nope, no mobilisation yet. Just some rudimentary voluntary training by militia groups.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Yes, the Ukrainian military forces are running a big scale military exercise, and now the UA and BY defence ministers have agreed to mutual visits to the military 'exercises' north and south of the border. I put Zametil 2022 as a red link in case someone wants to split it off - this article is already much too big. Some sources include 1 2 3. Apparently Заметіль means snowstorm, although I didn't find it in the wiktionaries. The article could be renamed later if a common name evolves. Boud (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC) (I don't know the military jargon well enough to distinguish between a 'mobilisation' and an 'exercise'. My impression is that the Russian-Belarusian 'exercise' is being interpreted as a 'mobilisation', since otherwise it wouldn't be a threat.) Boud (talk) 22:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Folk, calm down, pls. Invasion is virtually inevitable and imminent indeed, but this does not mean there will be actual fighting. Any one who has first-hand understanding of the psyche of the population in the country, will tell you that virtually no one will fight IF there should be an overwhelming massive force advancing. And Putin definitely has no plans to go as far as Lviv. So all this talk is idle. Truss and other warmongers in London haven′t the faintest clue about what they talk.Axxxion (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Of course he has plans to take Lviv and occupy the entire Ukraine. According to sources I read (like [40] or cited above on this page), Putin or a group of people behind him are trying to control the former Soviet republics using a combination of frozen conflicts and corruption, and he actually succeeded with Armenia, Georgia and Belorussia. That did not went so well with Ukraine and Moldova where he tried the same approach. Hence the military solution with these two countries is inevitable according to his strategists. My very best wishes (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

"trying to control the former Soviet republics using a combination of frozen conflicts and corruption" What for? These countries are bereft of any possible interest to all political powers. If you invest in Crimea you are at least reviving its former glory of health-oriented tourist resort. Even the current Western regions of Ukraine are a total industrial disaster, moreover they never were successful in providing USSR anything besides lumber and zirconium dioxide. When you look at the regions NATO is trying to control they are at least following the logic of Atlantic trade, but this... --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 05:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Don't know about regular forces, but at least Ukrainian police has now been put on alert or "enhanced mode" as it is translated in the media, though even that appears to be a short-term measure only being in force "February 14 to 19". The Russian/Belarusian exercises are supposed to conclude about the same time, of course. Probably not worth including, there are all kinds of developments within Ukraine and as to the confusion: Keep in mind a) the current (political) leadership is about as inexperienced as it gets with generally rather idiosyncratic moves and b) with the happenings on Crimea and in the east the Ukrainian forces surely would have been in some constant state of hightened activity and readiness since 2014 anyway. This is a country already under attack and if anything they sometimes have to remind (some of) us, not the other way around. -188.108.202.217 (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, My very best wishes: We are no longer in the era of WW1 or WW2 mass mobilizations. The basis of the modern armed forces consists of the professional and the volunteer forces. You can also build an active reserve, something Ukraine has been working on with its Territorial Defense Forces, but I think it's in a state of "too little and too late" at this point. My impression is that the Ukrainian leadership is torn between disbelief that the Russian military action is likely and a lack of strategy or clear idea what to do. The latter is partly due to incompetence, which plagues many institutions in general, largely due to poor governance and deeply rooted corruption (and this is in no way specific to Zelensky's administration).

The scholars of the international relations and the defense community are quite divided whether the invasion will take place. MILINT crowd is more convinced that it will happen; they see that Russia has deployed over 100 BTGs at the Ukrainian border, out of ~170 or so they have in total (excluding the paramilitary units and whatever they can conscript); there is exhaustive and detailed OSINT on this; and that is a very strong argument. However, apart from the military might and feasibility, there are so many other aspects: political objectives, sustainability, economics, etc. So, many are not convinced. Just some thoughts on this: [41][42][43][44][45][46][47]. Keep in mind that a full-scale invasion would be the riskiest and probably the most challenging military operation for Russia since the World War II (as it would be bigger than the Soviet–Afghan War). Personally, if I'd have to put a number, it would be 51:49 that the invasion will occur; still a very good chance that it won't. We will see very soon.

Anyway, WP:NOTFORUM. I made this comment just to say that despite things looking pretty bleak -- do not get too pessimistic thinking that it's inevitable. Just keep calm and carry on. --Mindaur (talk) 12:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Guys, guys, guys. The invasion hasn't started. We're not Kremlin officials or Zelensky's staff, we're not going to know what is going to happen in the near future. Even tomorrow. Instead of being speculative and acting like online generals, why not we just be pragmatic and see how this goes. Invasion or not, the article is still going to be updated, and we should in some ways push this article's quality for the sake of being informative. Let's get back to work! Cheers, PenangLion (talk) 12:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mindaur: It is. Zelensky's incompetence (governing and personal) has led to this crisis. Ukraine saw different presidents up to this point, but even Poroshenko wasn't this unhinged. The guy doesn't know the slightest of what he's doing. I'm actually surprised he wasn't ousted yet by his "loyal" servants, because as much as NATO loves putting puppets in "counties-in-distress", they lost control of his actions about a year ago when he started silencing the media, charging people with ridiculous and convoluted (not to say unjust) "government treason" and sentencing them without trial. I hope he runs like a dog when Russia shows its teeth. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 14:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

This last comment deserves a lot of citation needed... :-) However, I think this discussion drifted too much and now it's time to remember that WP:NOTFORUM, as some users already pointed out.P1221 (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Global Picture

• Have potential invasion routes been mined?
• Are there any build-ups of NATO forces in Alaska, Scandinavia or Turkey?
• Has China agreed to trade more with Russia in the event of sanctions?
• What is the current 'DEFCON' status in the U.S. Armed Forces?
• Is there any unusual activity taking place along the 38th Parallel in Korea or across the Taiwan Strait?
• Is the I.S.S. secure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 06:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

* No sources report that potential invasion routes have been mined.

* Build-ups of NATO forces in Alaska, Scandinavia or Turkey are not reported.

* Russia and China continue to sign trade deals (the last ones during the 2 February meeting). However, nothing is directly linked to possible Western sanctions.

* Current global DEFCON is 3 (https://www.defconlevel.com/); DEFCON alert for European Command is 2 (https://www.defconlevel.com/current-alerts.php). I can't see however when they were raised at these levels.EDIT Oops, I think that this link doesn't show the actual DEFCON level...

* North Korea launched 7 missiles in the past weeks, but they don't seem related to this ongoing crisis.

* No direct threats have been done on ISS, but looking at this past test, I personally fear about its security... P1221 (talk) 10:29, 14 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.

Biased removals from the infobox

@Notchlaos: any kind of provisional contribution to one of the parties in conflict automatically makes a given party allies with that side of conflict. Call it a "belligerent" if you will. Plus, like stated in another revert, nothing says belligerents provide only lethal aid to the party they are supporting. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 09:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Before changing or reverting, please get familiar with the previous discussion we already had here. --Mindaur (talk) 11:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I've simply put it in its old form before most of the countries providing political and "verbal" support were removed. Countries which supply weapons cannot be considered providing the same level of support as the countries who provide "condemnations" and "concerns". So now there is a title that separates them. Notchlaos (talk) 11:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I invite everybody to avoid edit furthermore this infobox until a consensus is reached. I personally believe that the section should be limited to list military support only (being it supply of arms, military instructor or cyberwarfare): medical equipment and field hospital IMHO hardly make a country a direct supporter of one party only (otherwise NGO's might be listed as well...). P1221 (talk) 12:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• We seem to have a consensus that the list should include "military support" (in terms of equipment or aid), but the disagreement is whether the "military support" should be exclusively lethal-aid (e.g. ammunition, weapons, etc) or it can also be non-lethal aid (e.g. helmets, field hospitals, instructors). In such case, I think it's fine to split the list into "Lethal aid" and "Non-lethal aid" as it is right now.

Also, I would urge to include the countries which have decided (not just in declarations, but government-level decisions) and committed to supply weapons, but did not yet ship them. It seems that some countries made announcements, but they might not disclose the details of the logistics/shipments (yet, those who observe this crisis will notice that there are more military cargo planes visiting Kyiv). --Mindaur (talk) 13:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Support Both Mindaur and P1221 proposals. Support should be, as is already in most conflict articles limited to miltary aid. With humanitarian, political and other types of aids being completely removed from the conflict infobox. Notchlaos (talk) 14:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppose I simply fail to see how distinguishing the types of support could facilitate the reader's comprehension of the matter. And I don't believe we have a consensus here because IMO a country that sends humanitarian aid (medics, provisions, etc.) to one party of conflict and not the other automatically sides this country with said party. Canada, for example, sent medical expenses to Ukraine, but not to Russia. How is it not a belligerent? The only entities (governments, organizations, etc.) who are not belligerents in this case would be neutral countries, either having no position on the conflict or consoling both sides at the same time.

Another point I would like to bring is that I fail to see an organization providing cyberwarfare as any aid. Hacking is illegal in most countries, be it Ukraine or Russia. An aid that is illegal cannot be seriously considered since it will be a crime. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Belligerent by definition means: "A nation or person engaged in war or conflict, as recognized by international law". Sending humanitarian aid to one or multiple parties does not make a country a belligerent. According to that logic the Red Cross would be a belligerent too. 95.8.174.149 (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Whydoesitfeelsogood: If you look at the infobox, there are no uses of the world "belligerent", so the whole discussion on the meaning/definition of this is irrelevant. The infobox contains "Parties involved in the crisis" and we have a separate labeling for the supporting countries. I believe we try to differentiate the level or degree of support, with the lethal military aid being considered the most significant (since that is what Ukraine has repeatedly asked and many countries refused to sell or provide such aid in the recent years and even during thhis crisis; again, multiple sources are covering this). --Mindaur (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mindaur: I purposely italicized that word because another editor (Notchlaos) was using it in their edits' description. Personally I don't fancy the word at all because we are not at war (yet). But how is lethal aid (what is this, btw?) more valuable than non-lethal? Why should one prevail over another? I don't understand this argument. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Whydoesitfeelsogood:Russia can consider sending ammunition and weapons to Ukraine a provocation (see for instance here); I doubt it can consider provocative sending a field hospital instead... Said that, I agree with your suggestion to simplify the infobox. We might reconsider this if a broader consensus is reached in future. P1221 (talk) 08:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Update: I just noted that the current list is somewhat confusing, too: Lithuania supplying ammunition is considered non-lethal aid?? P1221 (talk) 13:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I think the confusion was introduced after recent moves and reverts. Also, reverts were made since some countries announced a decision to supply weapons, but didn't not yet physically ship them (so we are waiting for confirmation of shipment). On the other hand, Lithuania has shipped ammunition to Ukraine in the recent years, before the current crisis, but perhaps some editors don't take that into account. In any case, the Lithuanian PM has announced today that the Stinger missiles will be shipped in the next few days, so that will settle it for sure. --Mindaur (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Whydoesitfeelsogood: Lethal aid is the military equipment which has destructive power; in the layman's terms, it's weapons designed to kill. It is relevant because Ukraine has many gaps in its military capability (especially vis-a-vis Russia's military might). The country has repeatedly asked for modern weapons (before the current crisis too, pretty much since 2014) from the Western countries, but they have been reluctant to provide or would provide only small quantities. This changed only recently, but some capabilities are still discretely denied (e.g. long or even medium range air-defense). Sources: [48][49][50][51][52][53][54] --Mindaur (talk) 11:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mindaur: Okay, but all this merits its own paragraph, perhaps even a subsection somewhere in the article. There is no need to specify it in the infobox because infoboxes are intended to familiarize the reader with the general idea of "who sides with whom". I've browsed several articles about recent conflicts and most of them use the template country's name -> supported by. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 12:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Whydoesitfeelsogood: Given that (and this is backed by above and other sources): 1) Ukraine lacks crucial military capability to resist Russia; 2) Ukraine explicitly requested modern weapons from the West; 3) the Western countries have responded very differently; I think the objection from some editors is that a general list of "who sides with whom" doesn't reflect the significantly differing degree of support. Just to illustrate the point, I'll again give an example: while USA has been shipping significant quantities of weapons, Germany has been openly refusing to supply any lethal aid and allegedly even blocked a NATO ally from supplying it. There was a considerable coverage and criticism on this: [55][56][57][58][59][60]. The degree of support is simply not the same. --Mindaur (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I am concerned that these distinctions and arbitrary thresholds may constitute WP:original research. A military field hospital is as much military equipment as are encrypted radios, night-vision equipment, counterbattery radar, or reconnaissance drones, isn’t it? There is international rhetoric and press coverage of lethal, defensive, and non-lethal aid, but also statements along the lines of “everyone contributes to Ukraine’s defence in their own way,” as well as, I think, funding aid from Canada that can be spent on anything. Also, commercial deals for weapons and ammunition are part of normal commerce between states: are we categorizing this as lethal military support? Are Czechia and Bulgaria “belligerents,” because they supplied ammunition and their citizens on their own territories were attacked with bombings and chemical weapons?

We need to define our terms consistently, based on wp:reliable sources. I don’t think that necessarily means adding more categories. The category label(s) should clearly define their content, so we don’t have edit wars and arguments over their content.

Why not have one simple category of “providers of military aid” that includes all concrete support? —Michael Z. 14:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, there is WP:WEIGHT and let's put it this way: 2000 modern anti-tank weapons supplied by the UK has an immensely greater impact to the dynamics of this conflict than a single field hospital donated by Germany. Various sources have also been focusing on lethal vs non-lethal aspect (e.g. German blockage of lethal weapons has received a considerable coverage). Hence, some differentiation makes sense. In a similar way like we don't want to have an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of all statements and declarations made by every country in the world, as many of them are just immaterial diplomatic lingua. --Mindaur (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Who says NLAWs have greater impact than a hospital, and what is that impact? You think a list in the infobox should capture certain dynamics? I’m not suggesting a list of statements, but a list of concrete supporters. —Michael Z. 17:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Examples:

• [61]: "U.K. shipment of some 2,000 short-range antitank missiles to Ukraine “significantly raises the calculus” for a Russian tank invasion, said Jack Watling, an expert on land warfare at the Royal United Services Institute, a British think tank. “It might lead Putin to believe that it won’t be an easy win,” he said."
• [62]: "Germany, which has refused to provide weapons to Ukraine in the face of a possible Russian invasion, offered on Wednesday to send 5,000 helmets instead, a move slammed as an “absolute joke” by the mayor of Kyiv."

--Mindaur (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Question was the military hospitals, as provided by Estonia and Germany (I think)? Is Klitchko an analyst? What did he say about Canadian military intelligence and cyber aid? Counterbattery radar? You are applying categories of your own making to all aid, which is WP:OR not supported by quotations of the Kyiv mayor. Lethal vs. non-lethal might be supportable, but I haven’t seen a comprehensive argument. —Michael Z. 18:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mzajac: I illustrated the significance of lethal vs non-lethal aid, giving an example which ought to be obvious for anybody who has some familiarity with the conflicts of military nature. You asked for references about specific cases and I provided an example (field hospital vs helmets doesn't matter; it's the Germany's refusal to supply weapons is what's significant). Instead, you attacked the references about these details rather, as you pointed out yourself, the main argument: lethal vs non-lethal aid. It's not particularly constructive. Nobody is going to provide you a source with a list of every supplied aid and an assigned score of significance, but that wasn't even the point.

So, to get get back to the main point: please see my latest reply to Whydoesitfeelsogood at 11:21 above which explains why lethal vs non-lethal issue is significant. --Mindaur (talk) 11:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• Removing that section of the infobox until we can get this figured out, as such incompleteness is not good inside the article. It should immediately be added back in upon consensus being reached on how to implement it, with the nations changed to whatever the discussion deems fit. EDIT:Broke the template trying to do as such, can someone else please do it?☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 18:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I suggest we simplify things. Put "Ukraine" and then "Supported by" followed by an alphabetical list of countries which offered help period. It doesn't matter who exported weaponry and who didn't, we are not at war. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Who is "we"? Ukraine and Russia are at war in Donbas, to the tune of 14,000 dead Ukrainians. 50.111.56.58 (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

This article is not about Donbass. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose the inclusion of countries supporting Ukraine without the separation of lethal and non-lethal aid. WP:WEIGHT is a huge issue here. 95.8.174.149 (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Regarding due weight, the USA committed over $200M of non-lethal aid under Obama, while some countries are providing a few hundred K of weapons. I suspect the Ukrainians are grateful for every bit, despite public statements by some intended to shame Germany into releasing more (the mayor of Kyiv, of course, has little to do with international relations or military procurement). —Michael Z. 22:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I personally find it utterly ridiculous to put a blame on Germany for not providing weapons in support to the situation in Ukraine. In fact, I think that the support should be sorted not by "lethal" and "not-lethal" aid, but rather by the overall amount thereof. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 02:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mindaur: why would we want to highlight the degree of support? Wouldn't that compromise the article's neutrality? --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 02:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Whydoesitfeelsogood: We kind of discussed this already. It is significant, because this crisis is not diplomatic or economic; it is, currently, an unprecedented military escalation, so the crisis is already of military nature. Ukraine has repeatedly asked for the weapons it lacks. Personally, I find certain similarities to e.g. US neutrality in the wake of World War II which resulted in the Battle of Britain being fought by the British almost utterly alone.

Regarding the neutrality: we are not stating whether lethal aid is positive or negative. We distinguish this to: 1) show which countries responded to the Ukrainian request; 2) which countries decided to be more involved in helping Ukraine to defend itself (keep in mind that weapons/arms are pretty much the last resort in diplomacy, next to the direct military involvement); as per WP:WEIGHT.

P.S. Regarding Germany: it doesn't matter whether you agree, disagree or find it ridiculous. There has been significant coverage by many sources of both foreign and domestic criticism of the German policy, so that in itself is WP:N. --Mindaur (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mindaur:@Mzajac:@Notchlaos: here's my suggestion (references removed for ease of format):

Side one

• Russia

Supported by:

• Belarus
• Donetsk PR
• Luhansk PR

Side two

• Ukraine

Military support:

• Czech Republic
• Poland
• Turkey
• United Kingdom
• United States

Humanitarian support:

• Canada
• Estonia
• Germany
• Lithuania
• Sweden

I would remove "Belarusian opposition" because they have not actually supported Ukraine yet, only offered aid. And you can't transfer cyberware as you would transfer arms, money, instructors, etc. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Whydoesitfeelsogood: Some corner cases and inconsistencies:

• Denmark intends to provide (or perhaps already provided, it's not clear) €22 mln to "strengthen Ukraine's security sector" (so, supposedly, the money is for defense purposes): [63][64]. Would that be under the humanitarian support?
• Lithuania has repeatedly provided ammunition (lethal aid) and other military equipment to Ukraine since 2014: [65][66]. Does it still belong under the humanitarian support?
• Poland, Czech Republic and the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) have made decisions to supply weapons (lethal aid): [67][68][69][70][71][72]. However, there is contradicting information whether they have been actually shipped yet. Do we want to wait for some confirmation?
• Apart from the United States, Turkey has been the only other country which sold to Ukraine advanced/heavy military equipment after 2014. Specifically, combat drones and warships: [73][74]. It did not provide lethal aid since this crisis began, though. Does it belong in the list of military supporters?
• Sweden and various other countries, including the EU itself, provide financial support for non-defense/security purposes: [75][76][77]. Do you want to include all of them?
• How about Red Cross and plenty of similar organizations? [78]

IMO, "Humanitarian support" makes the scope too wide; focusing on defense-related support seems more appropriate given the context and the nature of this crisis.

--Mindaur (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

You seem to forget WP:CRYSTAL: any country or organization which has yet to provide anything does not belong in the list. There needs to be factual proof of help, if you happen to seek medical attention while I pass buy saying "Oh sure, I will help you", that would not make me a helper. These are, at best, promises of solidarity, which belong in the "Reactions" section. As per Turkey and countries that did provide ammo, drones, etc. (this is military equipment, your definition of "lethal aid" seems to be convoluted and unencyclopedic, even if stated by RS) the answer is yes, they do fall under "Military support". This is so simple yet so many an editor make it so needlessly complicated :) --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Whydoesitfeelsogood: WP:CRYSTAL is not applicable here, because those are not speculations, allegations or predictions. For the countries I listed above, it wasn't something reported by Daily Mail, but rather announced by their prime ministers and defense ministers, backed by formal government-level decisions. In your analogy of medical help, it would be more of a letter sent to your mailbox which says that you have an appoinment with a doctor. It's a different level of commitment than "yeah, I'll help you". There are other countries which sources (even reputable and reliable ones) reported that they are "considering" to provide military aid; but I am not suggesting to include those.

You missed the point on Turkey and Lithuania. It was about the chronology and time: some editors moved these countries because they didn't (yet) provide military support during the crisis. Perhaps they don't consider military aid since 2014 but before the formal start date of the crisis as relevant, or perhaps they are just not aware of that. I propose to include the countries which provided military aid after 2014.

You also ignored the question about various other types of financial support and organizations like Red Cross, i.e. what exactly goes under the "humanitarian aid".

P.S. Definition of what is a lethal weapon is really simply and perfectly encyclopedic: it is used by the militaries. If you cannot distinguish a thing which is designed to kill (e.g. a rifle) from the one which isn't (e.g. a periscope), then ask a nearby 12-year old one. They most likely can. --Mindaur (talk) 12:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mindaur Changes must be made. Lithuania has confirmed a shipment of missiles to Ukraine, as reported by Reuters (I'm not brave enough to make a change).
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-will-receive-stinger-anti-aircraft-missiles-within-days-lithuania-pm-2022-02-10/
PenangLion (talk) 13:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mindaur: both the rifle and the periscope are weapons, the ultimate goal of both is to serve in the military designed for combat, which may or may not kill individuals. All this is completely irrelevant to this article. So Ukraine has been asking other countries for guns and projectiles ever since 2014, so only now has it gotten some. So what? This is the first time in my many years on WP that I see sheer stubbornness to be willing to simplify the goddamn infobox for practical reasons. RS don't say that, you say that. You're trying to force your opinion over facts and I'm trying to keep it neutral. "Lethal aid" is unencyclopedic period. This article is not about types of military aid to have that term up there. Have a 12 year old read this infobox and then ask them whether they understand a thing. We (the people of the world, who are not at war because this is a local conflict, not WWIII) have "military support" and "humanitarian support", but feel free to include a paragraph or two specifying the "lethal aid" Ukraine recently received somewhere in the article itself, I'm not against that. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 15:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Whydoesitfeelsogood: You wrote an entire response focusing on my "P.S", ignoring my main (and repeated) questions which merely ask to clarify the inclusion criteria under your proposed labeling (it seems that you didn't even notice that I didn't object to it, at least yet). Can you please stick to the main point?

Regarding "lethal aid" and "unencyclopedic": it's your subjective opinion, no better or worse than mine. I'd like to point out that it's not me who used the "lethal aid" and "non-lethal aid" labeling in the infobox in the first place (in fact, I don't recollect changing these labels at all; they went through multiple iterations and reverts by other editors). So, there are clearly other editors who are of a different opinion that yours.

I suggest to calm down, read this thread again and think how can we reach a conclusion on this issue. --Mindaur (talk) 16:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry @Whydoesitfeelsogood:,@Mindaur:, but I disagree with both. When speaking about humanitarian support, I think to something similar to what it is described in this page. Military instructors, sent by Canada, Lithuania and Sweden, can't be classified as such. At the same time, I can't consider them non-lethal: instructors do not directly shoot at the enemy, but they clearly teach other soldiers how to shoot at the enemy. Probably the best solution is not to have a classification at all. P1221 (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Lethal vs. non-lethal military aid is definitely a subject of politics[79] and the law,[80][81] and thus constitutes an encyclopedic subject. Same goes for defensive weapons, defensive lethal aid. It’s trade language in international affairs and military affairs, and comes up in discussions of ethics surrounding these. In contrast, “I can’t consider [military instructors] non-lethal” is merely one editors’ opinion. Canada had public debates over the delivery of lethal aid years after it started military training, for example (it had also approved the sale of certain lethal weapons to Ukraine years ago). And incidentally, “non-lethal weapon” is a separate category, meaning riot guns and such, and I recall it comes up too, in the USA supplying Georgia in the 2000s, and in the Israel–Palestine conflict. —Michael Z. 00:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Anyway, if you impose lethal/non-lethal distinctions on training, then you have to start evaluating the particular training. Consider training in combat first aid or medicine, removal of mines and IEDs, electronic warfare, or military logistics, for example. But reliable sources are not evaluating training this way, and we won’t indulge in WP:original research. —Michael Z. 01:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@P1221: How about "Supplied arms" and "Other support"? We can try to use common sense for the latter. --Mindaur (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

It makes sense. OK for me.P1221 (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mindaur: problem is, they haven't just "supplied arms". Again, ammunition, weaponry, projectiles, periscopes, tank tracks, instructors and camouflage are all (para)military support. Provisions, finance, medications, nurses and such are all humanitarian support. If you want to go by country then let me see your questions and reply to them directly so together we can fit each country better, however I would like to find an agreement on categories first. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I expressed my concern that "humanitarian aid" is too wide scope (and the criteria for inclusion is not quite clear); another editor, P1221, also voiced a disagreement. I think the ball is now in your court to propose something better.

Regarding the countries: I already listed questions with bulletpoints a few posts above. It would have been nice to receive a response to each bulletpoint. --Mindaur (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, no, I'm not going to do it, sorry. My editing is style over substance, I just pointed out the terms of the infobox, I'm not going to review with you every source regarding these countries, that's not my itch with this article. Still think "Non-lethal military aid" sounds convoluted, the usual wording for it is "...something... support". Cheers, --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Night-vision equipment, counterbattery radar, military field hospitals, helmets, body armour, military training are not humanitarian. Actual humanitarian aid, like food, medicine, rehabilitation, landmine clearance, blankets, social services, housing, accessibility, might be broader in scope than the conflict: e.g., the International Red Cross sends humanitarian aid, and it doesn’t pick a side. —Michael Z. 23:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Infobox additions

Apparently, it was known as the Dutch will be sending military equipment. Source: https://nos.nl/collectie/13888/artikel/2417915-nederland-levert-oekraine-geweren-radars-en-helmen
Please make adjustments (too afraid)! Cheers, PenangLion (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Source in English: [82]. --Mindaur (talk) 13:34, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian-Polish-British Security Pact?

Any opinions on this? Do we need a change in the infobox for belligerents?

https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2022/02/17/ukraine-uk-poland-announce-security-pact-amid-heightened-tensions/ PenangLion (talk) 06:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, the source says that this security pact "is meant to deepen Ukraine’s relationships with the two European nations in matters of cyber security, energy security and countering disinformation". In my opinion, this is not a real military alliance... P1221 (talk) 08:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Correct. It's enhanced cooperation (which is worth mentioning in the narrative), but not a military pact (i.e. no mutual defense). --Mindaur (talk) 14:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

A reference has been added in the article. FYI, this pact has already its own page in Wikipedia (which IMHO requires some cleanup...)P1221 (talk) 14:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do to the page, and thanks for the replies. Cheers, PenangLion (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Putin′s decree on call-up of reservists

signed 18 Feb: http://publication.pravo.gov.ru/Document/View/0001202202180067

The fact in itself is probably not extraordinary but needs to be followed up for context and consequences.Axxxion (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

They do it every year; nothing strange. Except that they usually defined the period of training for the reservists (up to 2 months) in the past. Not so in the orders issued in 2020-2022. How many reservists will be called up is a good question. My very best wishes (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

France and Romania

Should France and Romania be counted in the belligerent's section in the infobox on the side of Ukraine since France is sending troops to Romania? And Romania is agreeing to host them? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Romania is a NATO member - they 'agree' to 'host' all sorts of Western military.50.111.36.47 (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so: as you wrote, the troops are sent to Romania, not Ukraine. P1221 (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

But they were sent during this crisis unless the NATO mission isn't entirely related to this current crisis. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

No (we discussed this already multiple times); this doesn't constitute support to Ukraine; NATO is not a directly involved party. --Mindaur (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

February 16?

• [83] - "Russia will start a physical assault on Ukraine as soon as Feb. 16, multiple U.S. officials confirmed to POLITICO, and Washington communicated to allies that it could be preceded by a barrage of missile strikes and cyberattacks." - Include it? My very best wishes (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, just more neutral language as other sources report that US intelligence assesses that Russia "could" attack on 16 February. It's just a prediction.

There are some other notable developments in this context. As a result, many countries have urged their citizens to leave Ukraine: [84][85]. Some countries also began evacuation of their embassies or reduction of the diplomatic staff: [86][87]. Some airlines suspend flights to Ukraine: [88]. Ukrainians rally for resistance: [89][90]. --Mindaur (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, maybe they will attack another day just to prove US intelligence wrong. So, am leaving this to you and others. This is too painful for me to edit. My very best wishes (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Added a paragraph to the "Second Russian military buildup" section. --Mindaur (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this is not a prediction, but an intercept of communications [91]. The message allegedly assigned "specific tasks to the various Russian invasion units". It is very difficult to change such date on a short notice, but possible. My very best wishes (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Is "debka.com" a WP:RS? Has this been confirmed by other sources? The US administration later clarified that they still don't know whether Putin has made a decision. On a general note, the US is aggressively releasing intelligence information: [92][93][94]. It's a part of the US strategy (of deterrence as well as countering the Russian disinformation). My point: we stick with the WP pillars and that includes neutral and balanced view, without sensationalism.

It is worth noting that if Russia will go for a full-scale invasion, then we will enter the fog of war. That means a lot of unreliable information and the WP editors will have to maintain a high standard of WP:RS. --Mindaur (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mindaur: same story covered 1 (may not be RS, actually), but also 2 and 3. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

According to Politico and other sources, "Joe Biden told Western leaders about the Feb. 16 date on an hourlong call". That is significant. That must be serious sources. Will it happen? We will know it in a few days, but so far all new info points in this direction. My very best wishes (talk) 03:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Trimmed evacuations and warnings as those do not belong to that particular section. As for "the prediction", do not see any problem writing that up with proper attributions, which is not to "US intelligence" (unknown to us), but certain media, primarily Der Spiegel, allegedly quoting anonymous officials who were "briefed". I think all that ought to be taken and written up with a very big pinch of salt.Axxxion (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Axxxion: You removed my [95] reference. The US officials openly stated that their view is based on the US intelligence (there are other references on this too); they just refused to provide the details of the intelligence. Note that I deliberately avoided mentioning a specific date, as that is based on "three officials — based in Washington, London and Ukraine — [who] told POLITICO".

I disagree, however, that diplomatic evacuations, dozens of countries issuing warnings to their citizens to leave Ukraine and flight uspensions should be in the reactions section. It's not a fragmented actions some countried said or did. It is a significant shift in assessment of the situation by many countries and that deserves at least some narrative. Diplomatic evacuations are not usual reactions. --::Mindaur (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Mindaur: My point is that WE (editors) have no access to any of "the US intelligence". All we have access to in this case are publications in news media that refer to some incognitos who allege to be officials who do. Besides, as all who are over 35 know that "the US intelligence" is shorthand for "we know nothing but we are eager to tell you something that we have been ordered by our masters to tell you", such reference looks pretty much like a jest, or a self-refutation indeed. (A disclaimer: the above is not MY view, as I personally believe that all they say is always very serious and entails grave destructive consequences, i.e. for ordinary people, of course).Axxxion (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

How would you know it's false either? What proof is there for/against these allegations? --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Axxxion, your unfounded bias/agenda on the matter of the intelligence services of the Americans makes you unfit to be editing this section. If the RS says 'US intelligence,' then so do we. 50.111.56.58 (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Please don't tell editors with autoconfirmed accounts they're "unfit to be editing" anything. Their editing style can be discussed on their talk page (or do request an admin to look into it if you feel like their behavior is disrupting WP). --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

We don't need to "access" the US intelligence material. If a US official made a statement in a press conference. said it is based on the intelligence and it was reported by several WP:RS, then it's perfectly fine to attribute this to the US intelligence in a WP article. This is how WP works, as you must certainly be aware, so I am surprised we even discuss this. I understand you might have strong personal views on "US intelligence", but we write based on WP:RSes. --Mindaur (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Whydoesitfeelsogood: I do not mind being accused of "bias". Every one has a bias and it is always NOT "unfounded", i.e. based on our experience. AGAIN, as peeps fail to understand plain English: I do not question "the U.S. intelligence" — I simply state the obvious fact that we do not know any of it. On a broader point of the value thereof, any intelligence (the data gained by espionage, i.e. through criminal activity, including murder) always serves the purposes of those who order it. In the U.S. the sole customer is the POTUS, in the RF it is Putin, not the public. When "intelligence" IS made public, it always serves the purposes of those who ordered it made public. Just plain logic. CNN lately ran an analysis asserting that "a Russian invasion could have a significant domestic blowback inside the United States in a way that would impose more economic pain and ultimately hurt the prospects of Biden and his Democrats in November's elections". Which struck me as utterly bizarre: one does not have to be an analyst to understand that any major military conflict GREATLY boosts the U.S. standing, virtually by default, without the U.S. having to do anything much. For the U.S. is the center of the global financial system, runs the global reserve currency, is the world′s lender of last resort and the safe haven of last resort (for both assets and people), and is by far the mightiest military power, excepting the nuclear capability, which is assumed to be unusable. Any sane person will read the constant flow of "U.S. intelligence" made public in the last several weeks as an attempt to put Putin in a situation where he has no other option but invade indeed (altho it is obvious his original plan was to create a plausible threat in order to blackmail, with an actual invasion being an undesirable Plan B). That is not to say "the intelligence" is false: it may well be true and objective, but the way it is used by the respective political masters serves the purposes quite different (usually contrary) to those proclaimed. My point being ATTRIBUTION is key to us being unbiased and not looking foolish too.Axxxion (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

"U.S. intelligence" made public by Colin Powell holding a model vial of anthrax while giving a presentation to the United Nations Security Council in February 2003

Irrelevant. The 'bias' is only of concern when it enters your editing. WIKI follows 'verifiability, not truth.' We go by what the Reliable Sources say. 50.111.36.47 (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

All fake. Moreover Ukraine attacked first Russian territory not so long ago. 2A00:1FA0:2BB:1CBE:EDCA:79BD:DABE:F83D (talk) 05:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Second Russian military buildup: Paragraph with duplicated sentences

I just read large parts of this article. In the section Second Russian military buildup I noticed a paragraph with duplicated sentences. However, the duplicated sentences cite different sources.

Here is a copy-paste of the specific paragraph:

Following these announcements, the US ordered most of its diplomatic staff and all military instructors in Ukraine to evacuate.[156] The US, the UK, Japan, a number of European and other countries also urged their citizens to leave Ukraine immediately.[157] Next day, Dutch KLM suspended its flights to Ukraine, while other airlines reduced their exposure to the country.[158] Following these announcements, the US ordered most of its diplomatic staff and all military instructors in Ukraine to evacuate.[159] The US, the UK, Japan, a number of European and other countries also urged their citizens to leave Ukraine immediately.[160] Next day, Dutch KLM suspended its flights to Ukraine, while other airlines reduced their exposure to the country.[161]

Unfortunately I don't have the capacity right now to fix this issue myself. Maybe someone can have a look at this and fix it. Thank you! --Soluvo (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Kindergarten story is fake

Not only that, but no one even died officialy, because "officially" Donbass bomb did not blow up, but it is widely percieved as a fake. Also the fact Ukraine bombed Russian territories, where Donbass region is being evacuated into. That is declaration of war from Ukraine to Russia. Also I see no mention about Blinken lies (kindergarten+Minsk agreement) debunked in UN S. C. (only a meme picture about it with that fake chemical), I also see no mention how 16 January date was wrong. 17, ah I am sorry, 18 intel. agencies were wrong, as always. 2A00:1FA0:2BB:1CBE:EDCA:79BD:DABE:F83D (talk) 05:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

User was blocked - anon acct created for block evasion.

This is not the place to parrot propaganda. Provide sources, not opinions. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The first six edits are related to this section. Good job, propagandists. PenangLion (talk) 08:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

There are insane amount of addresses in ipv6 network. So everytime you edit + 1 hour, there is a new address. It is normal. 213.87.133.90 (talk) 10:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Always good to hear from Moscow trolls. Not. As EvergreenFir stated, the rules here are to discuss Reliable Sources for the improvement of the articles - not forum-bait. 50.111.36.47 (talk) 12:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

You did not block a user. You blocked the whole Russian ipv6 network of biggest provider MTS. This is insanity to block /23. Wow. Still it does not change the fact that Ukraine attacked first, when they bombed Russia. Stop the blocks. This is not a block evasion, Acroterion, and this is certainly not a payed "bot" (as if this is written by AI, LOL), or russian Kremlin-payed persona. Maybe you still think there was a Russian collusion not from Clinton? As for sources, I did try to find all sources in English, but failed. I can provide sources in Russian, in RSPS. I will also remind you that there is an evacuation going on right now, so you also blocked some DNR and LNR people. This is a disgusting behaviour from you, Acroterion. And yes, this is a personal attack per WP policy. 213.87.133.90 (talk) 10:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think when the first 8 edits you have provided relates to this talk page certainly aids in justifying yr point. PenangLion (talk) 11:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Because more than 3x smaller in population and nearly 7x economically weaker Ukraine chose to attack Russia at the exact moment when Kremlin deployed 190,000 soldiers at max combat readiness on their border? :) Kremlin propaganda is getting pathetic. --Mindaur (talk) 11:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine did not attack Rostov region using soldiers, it used bombs. What? Just like Russia is not going to attack using soldiers, however many are on the border with Donbass (not the line of connection where the conflict happens). Thermonuclear strike on Kiev or Kyiv or whatever. Are you people insane in USA (or if you are not from USA, sorry) or something? Invasion of Russia will be mutual annihilation of the whole world. Also, this is not a Kremlin propoganda, again. Also what 8 edits? I did not do any edits to the article, what? 213.87.148.189 (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

"Genocide" accusations

There are a wide variety of reports saying that Russia is accusing Ukraine of "Genocide" of Russians in East Ukraine. Should this accusation be addressed in the article? Victor Grigas (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

It should as a certain pretext but neutrality must be preserved. PenangLion (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

He first dropped the word on 10 Dec 2021: "I have to say that Russophobia is a first step towards genocide. You and I know what is happening in Donbass. It certainly looks like genocide." And then on 15 Feb 2022 in a more direct way. But presenting such claims (which are purely rhetorical at this stage) "as a certain pretext" in the WP voice would violate our neutrality. As this is an official line of the US State Dpt and should be presented as such (see the latter ref).Axxxion (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Victorgrigas, Axxxion: I don't see why it couldn't be addressed in the article, but it's not really a new allegation. Here is the article by an agency of the European Commission on Russian disinformation (which covers the previous "genocide" allegations): [96]. It's also worth pointing out that neither the United Nations Human Rights Office nor the ongoing multi-national OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine found any evidence of this in their latest reports: [97][98]. So, I think these observations should be included, if we cover this aspect in the article. --Mindaur (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me that the main article should be humanitarian situation during the war in Donbas, which is severely lacking in info from 2016 to 2022, or even better, WP:SPLIT off the War crimes section to a separate article. Putin's comments seem notable as rhetoric about human rights in Donbas during the war in Donbas, but obviously not as information about human rights. Boud (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

All the points above seem valid to me - does someone want to be bold and start a section called '"Genocide" accusations' or something like it? Victor Grigas (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

This just another propaganda stunt by Putin. It does not deserve a separate section. Probably belongs to "subversion" because this is an attempt to find casus belli to attack Ukraine. My very best wishes (talk) 04:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Should it be instead part of a new section related to Russian attempts on finding a casus belli for war? PenangLion (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Somebody created a section, but I think it should be in the narrative for now. It's a baseless claim (as evidenced by the reports of multiple international organizations and other observers). We also do not know whether this is going to be the casus belli yet. Basically, I think it shouldn't get more weight than other pieces of disinformation for now. --Mindaur (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Why do we need a causus belli? This will mean third world war, and thus we do not need to adhere to UN Charter. Ukraine attacked first Russian people in Rostov (causus belli) and was killing for last 8 years pro-Russian people with Russian passports that vote on our elections and thus is a friendly nation (thus we have it even more strongly), anyway, per UN Charter we already have both causus belli's and can attack using thermonuclear strike. We the people of United Nations, by the UN charter, the Constitution that overwrites all other Constitutions "1) as a means of defending themselves—or an ally where treaty obligations require it—against aggression" are allowed to attack. 213.87.148.189 (talk) 14:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

On what goes to "Reactions"

Axxxion: You removed my sentences with some points from the Zelensky's statements at the Munich Security Conference 2022. You have a certain point that it might belong to the "Reactions" section, but this section does not have chronology. For example, Biden's statement that he now believes that Putin made a decision is a significant shift from the previous assessments; that's why it belongs to the narrative. Zelensky's statements were at a critical moment following these developments, including the increased shelling and general escalation (two soldiers died); it incudes his response that Ukraine won't respond to provocations. We cannot easily convey this response in the reactions section, without sufficient context and chronology. Do you see my point? --Mindaur (talk) 14:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Mindaur: I hear what you say, yet it is hard to see how it would fit into the "Russian buildup" section (narrative). The sectioning of the article is certain to be reformatted later on, especially if an actual war begins (all we have written until now will likely go into "Background"). Honestly, i do not view his phrase "won't respond to provocations" as truly meaningful as this is a threadbare line of smb who is in a weaker position. All sorts of comments are being made by top officials. Rarely do they carry real significance: just war of words, propaganda, deception, or intimidation. Really meaningful things are done without words, or with succinct understatements such as today′s statement by Khrenov. I think this last announcement is of utter significance as it shows that Luka is fully on board (enlisted) and is probably rarin′ to go. But my gut feeling they will also invade Lithuania, as occupying a part of Ukr makes no strategic (geopolitical) sense for them. Perhaps the bit in question could go into the "Ukrainian defenses" section?Axxxion (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, did not mean anything personal. Did not know you are from there. Just my personal reading of Pu′s and Luka′s minds.Axxxion (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, let's keep things as is for now, as the situation is rapidly developing. If the war actually begins, we will certainly need to restructure the article (and we will probably need to introduce a separate section on the casus belli).

P.S. The troops in Belarus are postured for the offensive on Kyiv. I wouldn't worry about the Baltic States; Lithuanian military is on high alert, NATO Enhanced Forward Presence is reinforced, VJTF is on go/no-go and there are more things happening behind the doors. --Mindaur (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

If a further invasion (beyond the Donbas line-of-contact) happens, then better start off a new article 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and leave this one as an article on the lead-up (a "prelude"). The current article is already getting huge. Unfortunately, this is a good time to start an informal preliminary search for a name for the new article ("... further invasion ..."?), and a possible rename for the current article. Given the intense interest in the current article, getting a good candidate for consensus before a formal {{RM}} could be helpful... Boud (talk) 06:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Boud: I think 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine would be a suitable title. However, in that eventuality, I think it should be created on a basis of the current article. At that point, the "crisis" is no more and it will not make sense to leave the "crisis" as a distinct event, separate from the war. We can move out some of the content into separate articles (e.g. there is already Reactions to the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis; we could also create Preparations for 2022 invasion of Ukraine). Let's hope, though, that will not need to change the title of this article. --Mindaur (talk) 12:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mindaur: It's true that the event would no longer be a crisis, but a war. It seems to me that there should then be three main articles (plus Reactions ..., maybe other sub-articles too), because the current content, which is a lot, is already huge, and adding in the invasion details would make it even huger and un-navigable.

• overview - name = 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian war?
• leadup - most of the current content of this article - name = Preparations for 2022 invasion of Ukraine? (problem: the US/EU/NATO role, per most WP:RS, was mostly not "preparations", but rather "attempting to prevent") or Leadup to the 2022 invasion of Ukraine?
• invasion - the new events once the WP:RS agree to call the events an invasion (or a "further invasion") - currently 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is the proposal

So then the question, apart from the choice of names, is in terms of moves/new articles. Should the current article be moved to the 'leadup' article or the 'overview' article? I don't think that moving it to the 'invasion' article would make sense, since the current content is mostly about the 'leadup'. I would propose that this article be moved to the 'leadup' article - and a fresh 'overview' article would have to be created. Keeping an eye on https://liveuamap.com, it looks like we may not have much time (hours?) before there's a deluge of editors jumping in based on mainstream media headlines, so better that we have a plan that has a chance of achieving consensus. COVID-19 pandemic title battles consumed a lot of editing energy... Boud (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Boud Previously, I would not be willing to discuss about the possibilities of war prior to this, but I'm forced to concede that war is highly likely. I have concerns using the "2021-2022 Russo-Ukrainian War". On paper, the war from 2014 has not ended, and given the likeliness that the war would spill to other regions, very likely we need alternative names in case that happens.

However, is there a possibility that this article could be similar to the July Crisis? PenangLion (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

You are right that technically this is a re-invasion or a (full-scale) re-escalation. War in Donbas was directly orchestrated by Moscow and it hasn't ended. However, the intervention in Donbas is militarily of a bit different nature: Russia has been officially denying involvement and has been trying to maintain plausible deniability (although, by now, there is an overwhelming evidence by many organizations proving their involvement). What is going on right now could bring the conflict to a whole new level (a country openly attacking its sovereign and independent neighbour). Anyway, feel free to make proposals! --Mindaur (talk) 13:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be more rational to rename the current article and add the "Invasion" section. There are various sections, like "Background", "Ukrainian defenses", "NATO reinforcements" and a lot of the build up content would still be relevant and could largely stay as is. After all, we are volunteers with limited time, so an incremental approach might be easier than scrambling a whole new article. I think splitting the current article into Leadup to the 2022 invasion of Ukraine and 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine sounds good. I don't think we need a separate overview article, because it is a part of the longer conflict which already has an article: Russo-Ukrainian War. Also, please create a new section in the talk with the proposals. --Mindaur (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I support renaming the current article Leadup or Prelude instead, keeping it separated from the article which will be created for the war. Otherwise, I would consider splitting this article in various different articles, like it was done for "Reactions". P1221 (talk) 13:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

What? No, Donbas war in 2014 was not orhestrated by Moscow. It was orhestrated by Hunter Biden who laundered 22 billion $USD for Kolomoisky and Zlochevsky armies and Voice party of Ukraine that fully consists of Soros' people, "sorosyata" and thus is foreignly governed by USA. Did you even watch the first impeachment of Donald Trump? That is why he was impeached and aquitted. I understand that there is some kind of blindness on Biden family. But that is obvious. Re-escalation happened because USA people reelected Biden into office and everyone has predicted it on January 6th, when election was certified, even though even by not observed ballots Trump won. 213.87.148.189 (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Any admins please resolve this issue, ASAP, thanks! PenangLion (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Too US-biased. Add another POVs.

Noam Chomsky: https://chomsky.info/20211223/

NATO expansion to the East promises: https://www.euroweeklynews.com/2022/02/20/has-nato-reneged-on-a-1991-agreement-with-russia/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.29.161.183 (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The Russian view is already presented in the article. Your source on NATO enlargement doesn't seem reliable; there are plenty of other sources on this subject, though: [99][100][101][102][103][104][105]. Nevertheless, no matter what was discussed in formal and informal meetings ~30 years ago, there is not a single legal document where such a promise, assurance or even non-binding declaration was given; that's pretty much all what matters. However, more to the point: it is simply irrelevant, as this crisis is primarily about Ukraine's sovereignty. --Mindaur (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The article is excellently balanced. With some 190K troops on Ukraine's border, the RS material is going to swing a certain way - that's just common sense. 50.111.36.47 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

While Russia indeed has concentrated quite a lot of troops near the border and may well attack, the coverage in the Western media has its peculiarities. As an exercise, try finding any information about the locations or plans of the Ukrainian army which is presumably not sitting idle. I'm not saying that you should believe in RT's reporting of Ukrainian hordes massing to attack DPR and LPR at any time, but we are still getting a partial picture at this moment. Hopefully in a few years time we'll have some good research on this. Alaexis_¿question? 21:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Alaexis: You made a good point. But this particular "peculiarity" is easy to explain: we supposedly know much about Russia′s deployments because the relevant info (secret and otherwise) is being released into public domain virtually in real time. Apparently, there is a standing order from Biden to release it as soon as it crosses Avril Haines′ desk. Meanwhile, Russian agencies and their political masters have traditionally been exceedingly tight-fisted in this respect. There lurks a suspicion that this intel may have been deliberately planted ("The sources cautioned that orders can always be withdrawn or that it could be misinformation meant to confuse and mislead the US and allies"), though. I should think that the Kremlin does not really care: they have been doing the deployment virtually demonstratively and apparently gave orders to invade in a similar manner. What do they have to be afraid of? This may well be part of their psy war, would be quite clever, in fact. For they likely assume that the majority on the Ukr side will not fight and the Ukr defences will implode in the first hours.Axxxion (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that there are good reasons for that. My point is that we are getting a partial picture as the information (even if we make a generous assumption that it's 100% true) is released strategically. Alaexis_¿question? 06:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

"try finding any information about the locations or plans of the Ukrainian army which is presumably not sitting idle. " Wow, just wow. No, it is very simple to find how Ukraine is attacking us Russians and DNR, LNR. I mean mass media of all above are reporting on it with details, even classified in some cases. Wow. 213.87.148.189 (talk) 14:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Where are the Russian satellite photos of the supposed Ukrainian buildup? I think the Russian MOD and Russian Union of Engineers has posted such photos after they shot down flight MH17, but they were mostly photoshopped Google satellite images. This might explain why a reliance on WP:RS looks “US-biased” to some. —Michael Z. 18:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Pushilin asked to sign into law "DNR as a sovereign nation"

Putin is right now considering it on our TVs in the first ever (!) public hearing of Security Council of the Russian Federation and other stuff. He just mentioned the "annexation". This may be a real one, not like with Crimea, where people voted. 213.87.148.189 (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The hearing by the Security Council has been openly televised [106]. That was interesting. One can see that participants and especially Sergey Naryshkin are extremely uncomfortable with such decision (to declare the independence of the territories), but Putin beats them into submission and enjoys the performance. I wonder what is next? Are they going to blow up buildings by "Ukrainian saboteurs" (as they did in 1999 to justify Second Chechen War) or something else? My very best wishes (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

That was very Russian. The Tzar invites Boyars to stamp his decision, so that people will blame bad Boyars later if things go south. My very best wishes (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

We just killed diversants in Rostov apparently and after that russian ruble crushed. Fiat is 💩. Oogh. RS: https://www.interfax.ru/russia/823442 As for Council, Putin just said he will decide whether to declare it in 2 hours, by signing the law. And your analysis is hillariously wrong about that SVR guy, he was the one who even mentioned the annexation, no? 213.87.134.1 (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Putin just accepted Donbass as suvereign. Putin also mentioned 22 billion $USD Hunter Biden laundered and said "we know who they are and we will PUNISH them" (emphasis his). Finally. He also mentioned that" USA embassy controls ALL UKRAINE". Finally. This is so over for you, USA and for Biden family. He also mentioned Ukraine positevely planning on creating nuclear weapons. Nice. He said Ukraine is controlled by NATO digitally, because the master systems of NATO are connected. Wow. Ukraine has access to NATO sea technology in Ochakovo and can use it against Russia. 194.154.66.69 (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Merely an annexation of the already occupied territories might be actually a good outcome for Ukraine and people who live there, but this is probably just a step in a bigger game. Some commenters, like that one still believe Putin might not pursue occupation of the entire country because his Chinese comrades said they do not support it. My very best wishes (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@My very best wishes::Yes, Naryshkin′s gig was jaw-dropping. I do not remember ever laughing more watching smth supposedly serious (in Russian it is from 1:22:38 on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFowAABiFXM ). Actually proves that Putin was probably honest when prefacing the talks by saying the whole show had not been scripted, or cleared in advance. But I would disagree with you on how to parse Naryskin′s performance. No chance he needed being browbeaten into "submission". I had been watching Naryshkin online for some while now, that is in rare instances when SC sessions were (partially) downloaded. And I noticed long ago that he often comes across as immensely nervous (uncomfortable) manifested by feverish small gestures, even when he does not speak. I tend to think it stems from his psychic state, irrespective of the subject matter. The guy is obviously out of his depth as a chief of the country′s main intelligence service and shows signs of what looks like the onset of Alzheimer's disease. In fact, that gig was a PR disaster for the SVR. Makes me wonder why Pu keeps him in that position. My guess is that Pu is directly in charge, with Naryshkin being a mere frontman for administrative work.Axxxion (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Our fake propoganda already said that Naryshkin gig was planned. I think a lie but I did have such an impression when watching it live. 194.154.66.69 (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I will also mention that his speach lasted for a effing hour was essentially a declaration of war to NATO. Insane. 194.154.66.69 (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Where should we put this paragraph?

On 19 January, Biden predicted said Russia "will launch an invasion" on Ukraine, but stated that Putin would pay "a serious and dear price" for an invasion and "would regret it". Biden remarked, "It's one thing if it's a minor incursion and we end up having to fight about what to do and not do. But if they actually do what they're capable of doing with the forces amassed on the border, it is going to be a disaster for Russia if they further invade Ukraine." Biden's comment hinted the division between NATO's allies on the question of responding to a possible "minor incursion" into Ukraine. The remark was criticized by Ukrainian officials, several world leaders and members of the US Congress, as it was implied that low-level Russian aggression would not be met with a forceful response. Zelensky wrote, "We want to remind the great powers that there are no minor incursions and small nations. Just as there are no minor casualties and little grief from the loss of loved ones." The Biden administration later clarified Biden's comments, mentioning, "he has been 'absolutely clear' with President Putin. He has no misunderstanding. If any - any - assembled Russian units move across the Ukrainian border, that is an invasion... It would be met with severe and coordinated economic response."

I still believe this paragraph is pretty important, but I still need to poll a consensus. Which section should I add in? PenangLion (talk) 08:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Considering the current structure of the article, it should belong to US "Reactions". P1221 (talk) 09:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the reply. PenangLion (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@PenangLion::...that is except the first sentence therein, which mutatis mutandis is where it was.Axxxion (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Alright, noted. Thanks. PenangLion (talk) 05:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Putin's speech, and captions

Hello everyone, I am in the process of converting Putin's speech to webm to upload to Commons, but in case my connection goes out or my conversion fails, I wanted to share the link here first: http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67828 Proof it's cc-licensed: http://en.kremlin.ru/about/copyrights If a major historic speech like this is referenced, I believe it should be in the article and we should make an effort to provide captions in multiple languages for this speech.

Victor Grigas (talk) 01:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Victorgrigas Can you help select some quotes deemed, memorable or important by Putin? This is in reference to Talk:2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis#Suggestion_on_addition PenangLion (talk) 05:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Here it is:

Putin's speech

Rapid Trident military exercise

I recently created a draft for the Rapid Trident military exercise between Ukrainian, American, and other countries forces. Seems like it would be helpful to have as it has been going on for a number of years. Thriley (talk) 05:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

War has started?

A new page was created, stating that the war has started. I think it's better to keep calm and let stick to the sources, which still define the Russian operations as "invasion". P1221 (talk) 10:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I called it that because this will obviously be a war. But I feel strongly that there should be a seperate page for the 2022 invasion of Ukraine itself and the war in this stage, which is by all accounts sepearate from the one that happened in 2014 with the invasion of Crimea. Several sources also say that invasion/war has started. --Aubernas (talk) 10:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your point, but I think it is better to reach a broader agreement on creating a new page and on how to call it. As you can see few threads above, there is already a discussion on how and when to split this article. P1221 (talk) 10:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

It's obvious, but no actual battles have taken place. Save everything as a draft first. PenangLion (talk) 12:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Aubernas: That may well be your analysis of the situation, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, we are not in the business of making predictions or speculating about future events. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@P1221: Yes, that article should just be deleted (and it seems that we already have a general consensus on the action plan in a section above). Having said that, it is highly likely that what happen yesterday is just the beginning (nobody deploys 190k combat-ready troops just to recognize some territories). While some predict intense and very destructive war [107], there is also a chance of "crawling" invasion from the puppet territories, without a very clear starting point. --Mindaur (talk) 12:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I suppose our tipping point is when some worthy personage calls this "The [Whatever] War"...

Is 'deploy' the right word?

The word comes from the Guardian, BBC does not use it.Xx236 (talk) 11:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Need more detail about what you are talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.36.47 (talk) 13:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

So apparently it was all fake news: Putin ordered as part of NATO-like agreement, but it did not happen "yet". See (maybe they just revealed some already present people there): https://www.rbc.ru/politics/22/02/2022/6214d5689a7947ada23780c0 2A00:1370:8184:C98D:942F:AB87:B4D2:F402 (talk) 14:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Your English is so bad it is difficult to determine exactly what you are saying, but Wiki follows what the Reliable Sources state. Russian government-controlled organs are not qualified to be RS's. 50.111.36.47 (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

5 Ukrainian soldiers allegedly killed

According to Russian sources, 5 Ukrainian soldiers were killed making them the first casualties of this ongoing crisis. A casualties section should be made. https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-claims-ukrainian-soldiers-killed-after-invading-territory-2022-2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.238.67 (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

This was mentioned above. And false flag was false: no, NATO level agreement was achieved today and thus the invasion happenes as per it. It is insane step of Putin. 2A00:1370:8184:C98D:4989:51D8:CA15:54C5 (talk) 00:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Could someone please ban this Russian troll? It's clear that it's only here to mud waters.--Karma1998 (talk) 12:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

^ Agree with Karma. 50.111.36.47 (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

sanctions

we need a section on sactions and other current reactions not stuff from january. --2602:306:BC74:6240:441F:FD97:AEDC:2539 (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

add about foreign support to russia

several countries like syria, cuba, nicaragua, venezuela, belarus and transnistria have supported russia in the crisis, so i think that this should be added. EpicWikiLad (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Misinformation/false-flag article

The RU-UA war navbox has a cyberwarfare section with five articles, but false-flag attacks are not purely in cyberspace. The COVID-19 pandemic navbox has a Misinformation section pointing to COVID-19 misinformation and six more specific sub-articles. People who find that there is notable coverage of false-flag attacks (quite a few happening since the last few days) might want to create a sub-article with an initial title such as Misinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis or False-flag attacks in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis, so that only brief summaries would remain in the broader articles. This would help reduce the volume of the broader articles such as this one (2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis). Better to have meta-information about misinformation once it has become notable, rather than no information at all, but in a place where readers will expect to find it. And more modularity of article structure tends to be better than just single huge articles (even with sub- and subsub- and subsubsub-sections).

Obviously, many individual items might need individual debates and checking of sources, and might have to switch between "information" and "misinformation" articles, as editorial consensus evolves regarding the WP:RS analysis of what is information and what is misinformation. Boud (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Boud: Just some sources on this: [108][109][110][111][112][113][114]. I'm sure there is plenty more and the Russian disinformation campaign is probably worth at least a section. --Mindaur (talk) 14:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I think that could work. PenangLion (talk) 14:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mindaur and PenangLion:  Done Misinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis. Thanks for the refs. Interesting to learn about StopFake - a Ukrainian fact-checking group. Boud (talk) 01:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Death toll and casualties?

Should we include the death tolls and casualties from the recent escalations as part of the casualties list in this article? PenangLion (talk) 13:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@PenangLion: I am not sure. I am a bit reluctant to create the article on invasion just yet (per our discussion in a section above). Russian troops entering Donbas is an open and material breach of the international law; Russia is no longer covert, but overt [115] belligerent in the War in Donbas. However, de facto, the situation on the ground has not yet changed substantially (i.e. no major offensives yet). The hostilities in Donbas continue [116], but it's difficult to determine whether they are different from hostilities before 22 February and whether casualties should remain under the War in Donbas article. Looking at WP:RSes, some still use "Ukraine crisis" e.g. Politico: [117]. Perhaps we should just wait a little bit, as situation is fragile and still developing. --Mindaur (talk) 14:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mindaur:I'm only referring to the infobox of the crisis, i.e. the 5 troops allegedly killed, 2 killed by shelling, etc. PenangLion (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

In principle yes, but wait a few more days. tw^sabin 21:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The invasion has started

WP:NOTFORUM; RT is not a WP:RS full stop (WP:RSP); discuss specific changes twsabin 22:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It has been confirmed that Russian forces are entering DNR and LNR.--Karma1998 (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC) That is not Ukraine. Also a source is needed besides "Putin orders troops into separatist-held parts of Ukraine" from CNN. They are like Bloomberg. 2A00:1370:8184:C98D:49C9:6700:846A:E7E4 (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC) OF COURSE it is Ukraine - what is wrong with you? Stop posting garbage on the TP.50.111.36.47 (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC) Not an invasion since the republics allowed it. Wiki must not be a place for emotions or cyberwarfare for pro-western sentiments, If you want, a segment within the section can added going: "Ukraine and etc etc have called this an invasion". Nebakin (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC) Nor should it be a place for pro-Russian sentiments. 119.74.177.38 (talk) 02:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC) Yep, RT just confirmed it, as part of NATO-like agreement. 2A00:1370:8184:C98D:4989:51D8:CA15:54C5 (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC) RT is a Russian gov't-controlled organ, and is not a Reliable Source. 50.111.36.47 (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC) How would a Russian govt-controlled organ not be an unreliable source on Russian troop deployment especially when it admits it? Nebakin (talk) 06:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC) Wikipedia does not consider RT a Reliable Source. That they might occassionally state a fact is not germaine.50.111.36.47 (talk) 06:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC) I shall repeat myself: How would a Russian govt-controlled organ not be an unreliable source on Russian troop deployment especially when it admits it? What's next? The MoD or Kremlin being unreliable sources because it is controlled by the Russian government? Nebakin (talk) 01:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC) I perfectly know it is excluded from WP:RSPS. I just have some obvious concerns over CNN. 109.252.169.138 (talk) 12:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC) https://www.newsdaily.com.ng/us-moves-all-embassy-staff-out-of-ukraine-after-putin-orders-troops-into-rebel-held-territories/ 109.252.169.138 (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone here speak Russian?

Is there any valuable info here about the Transnistrian stance on the crisis? [118]. If so, please add the info into the article or translate it so that I do so. Super Ψ Dro 16:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

No, this is not an RS, and this content should not be included. My very best wishes (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus: "We are advocates of peace. Transnistria is not a place of aggression, it has never been and never will be. Therefore, all of the speculation surrounding us is baseless. We are marking a great anniversary this year: 30 years of Russian peacekeeping on the banks of the Dniester. It is thanks to this mechanism, this element, that we were able to achieve peace in the Pridnestrovian land, in order to prevent war and civilian deaths" ... doesn't seem very valuable. tw^sabin 22:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Alright, thank you both for your help. Super Ψ Dro 23:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Illegal annexation of Crimea

That term shouldn't be used in wikivoice, especially as the actual linked article does not assert in wikivoice legality; pointing out instead the nuances of what is legal and illegal in international customary law. 142.157.234.234 (talk) 02:10, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Rubbish. The entire free world has claimed it to be illegal, as per the Reliable Sources cited in this article. 50.111.36.47 (talk) 00:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Tentative split proposal

This informal proposal aims to search for a consensus on how to WP:SPLIT in the currently hypothetical case that the crisis gets named by WP:RS as an "invasion", which seems highly likely on a short time scale, but is not yet the case.

• overview - name = 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian war?
  • against: continuation of 2014
  • against: subsection Russo-Ukrainian War#2021–2022 Russian military buildup already exists as an overview (but could be improved as a summary rather than timeline)
• leadup - most of the current content of this article - name = Preparations for 2022 invasion of Ukraine or Leadup to the 2022 invasion of Ukraine?
  • against Preparations: the US/EU/NATO role, per most WP:RS, was mostly not "preparations", but rather "attempting to prevent")
• invasion - the new events once the WP:RS agree to call the events an invasion (or a "further invasion") - currently 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is the proposal; an alternative would be 2022 further Russian invasion of Ukraine
  • against further: technically more correct, but sounds cumbersome as a title, and 2022 distinguishes this phase from the ongoing invasion since 2014
• successor of this article: current proposal - rename this article (2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis) to the invasion article (and then split out the leadup components, leaving brief referenced summaries in place)

Boud (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine already invaded yesterday, are you nuts? This is not WP:CRYSTAL, this is just a lie. 213.87.148.189 (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Take your crazy talk somewhere else. Read what this page is for at the top of this and every other TP.50.111.36.47 (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

No need to reply. Let the admins handle it. It wastes time. PenangLion (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I will just point out that I was right: see below, we killed 5 Ukranian diversants in Rostov. 2A00:1370:8184:C98D:49C9:6700:846A:E7E4 (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support the following variations: the overview should really remain within Russo-Ukrainian War (this is part of the same conflict); leadup as Leadup to the 2022 invasion of Ukraine seems suitable; invasion/war as 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Obviously, we would take into consideration WP:RS, but given the significant escalation in Russian disinformation and propaganda, it seems that we are indeed hours away. --Mindaur (talk) 14:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Mindaur Not sure if you have read it / not, but another article exists: 2022 Russia-Ukraine clashes

  Should we need a merger and list the casualties under the infobox of the main article? PenangLion (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I just renamed the section to "Alleged clashes between Russia and Ukraine". It's not independently verified, denied by Ukraine and is currently just an a accusation/allegation from Russia. The article is way premature, especially since there is a lot more disinformation flowing in today. --Mindaur (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the changes. PenangLion (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support Hi guys, I've started the article 2022 Russia-Ukraine clashes after reading about the Russian claim of killing 5 Ukrainian soldiers. I believe the clashes, which allegedly began since early Saturday between Russia and Ukraine (not including the clashes between Ukraine and Donbass separatists) should have their separate article. In case the clashes turn into an invasion or a war between Russia and Ukraine I believe that should have a separate 3rd article as well to separate the early clashes from the actual war phase. Viewsridge (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
• The invasion hasn't even started yet and you're already writing about it? Please read WP:FORUM, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTNEWS and don't try to run ahead of the train. Keep a neutral style and do not use articles for propaganda purposes. 178.163.92.71 (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

  Preparations come better for a smoother process in editing. We're not betting for it to happen, we're preparing for what might and might not happen. PenangLion (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Why not leave the current title of the article in that case? The July crisis is not called "Preparing the great powers of Europe for war among themselves." But "Ukrainian crisis (2021 - 2022)" would be the most appropriate name, the crisis is in both Russia-NATO and Russia-Ukraine relations, and not just Russia-Ukraine. The Caribbean Crisis, the Bosnian Crisis, the Berlin Crisis are named after the geographic center of the crisis, so why not do so in this case? 178.163.92.71 (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

We are merely preparing for the eventuality as things are developing fast. It may happen or may not. If Russia will not proceed with the attack, then the title will remain. --Mindaur (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support Mindaur's proposal P1221 (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support per Mindaur. Although I do think we need some time (in case it happens, preferably within 12 hours) to see how the media names it. They might give another popular name, we might not know. That is my concern for now. PenangLion (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - given that 2022 Russia-Ukraine clashes was created, which of leadup and invasion should be the successor of the current article? Technically, renaming this one to leadup, and clashes to invasion, would be simpler, and better preserve editing history for those wishing to trace that. Boud (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

  You have a point. I think its perfect. PenangLion (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. Support. Keep this page as it is for now, and see how the events will develop. One can create additional pages as needed (no problem), but it does not mean this page should be split. My very best wishes (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: We are keeping fow now; we are just trying to come up with an action plan if things escalate. --Mindaur (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I see. What I meant was actually "supporting" creating other pages, supporting what you meant by the split.My very best wishes (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - I think the new article would also need edit protection. Lots of Russian IP addresses are trying to interfere already. --Mindaur (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

  I have an account with more than 500 edits, so even extended will not help. 194.154.66.69 (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support per Mindaur. Russian forces really are beginning to escalate near Ukraine, and we are on the ledge of destruction. If, however, Russia does not invade Ukraine, the split can wait until they actually invade Ukraine. Taking into context that Russian forces have literally been dancing on Ukraine's border and not yet invading, however, a split is neither likely nor unlikely. Thank you. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 19:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

BTW, you were wrong. The actual declaration of war is effectively against NATO or will be against NATO. 194.154.66.69 (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• Terminology of the invasion article:
  • 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine SMH NYT Thomson Reuters Biden said. "This is the beginning of a Russian invasion of Ukraine."; or
  • 2022 enlarged scope of Russian military intervention in Ukraine [119]; or
  • 2022 Russian military crossing into Ukraine up to the frontline [120]; or
  • 2022 Russian undeniable movement against Ukraine [121], Two European officials said Tuesday that Russia had sent troops into the area, but Russia's Foreign Ministry denied having done so.
  • 2022 Russian sending of what Putin calls peacekeeping forces into Ukraine' [122].
  • @Mindaur: (or someone else who can edit carefully, per consensus): It seems to me that plain English descriptions agree on "invasion", and three RS agree that Biden used the term "invasion", so I propose that you be bold and go ahead with your version of the proposal, which appears to have rough consensus, i.e. rename this article to Leadup to the 2022 invasion of Ukraine and un-redirect 2022 Russia-Ukraine clashes and rename it to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. And then you and or others can start seeing what material should be shifted/summarised to minimise overlap. This will allow people to edit efficiently in a modular way, and formal rename proposals can be made if people disagree with this rough consensus. (There's already some apparently sourced material in the lead of Russo-Ukrainian War, on the further invasion that started on 22 Feb 2022, which could be used in the invasion article.) Boud (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Boud, PenangLion, P1221: The article on clashes doesn't really have a meaningful history, so we might as well create a new one. Okay, I can try to create a basic structure, copy-paste the relevant sections from the current article, adding/rephrasing some sentences about the actual invasion. Basically, start with the minimalistic article and then we incrementally improve both. --Mindaur (talk) 11:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Boud, PenangLion, P1221: Please see 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. --Mindaur (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

      @Mindaur I personally still have doubts whether the invasion has actually occurred. However, there are news reports that Kharkiv might be attacked in the next 2 days. Would the background section in the invasion page be better off linked to the background section of this "crisis" article? PenangLion (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@PenangLion: I have been torn on this question myself and thought quite a lot. De jure, legally, in a sense of international law: what happen yesterday was an invasion, with military equipment being officially ordered and actually pouring into a territory of a sovereign country [123]. The situation de facto is more blurry; if you insist, we can change the title to "intervention". However, I am afraid (and I sincerely hope I am wrong) the situation on the ground is not getting any better.. and the title might have to be changed back in the next 24-72 hours. We can keep the current article on "crisis" with the present title for now.

Regarding the background: it would be good to de-duplicate it in some way. Proposals welcome! We should probably also have some degree of separation of reactions to the events yesterday from earlier actions. Also, sections like "Ukrainian defenses" should also be reconciled in some way. --Mindaur (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mindaur@Boud@RGloucester Comment - It has been reported that several cities are facing unknown explosions, at Mariupol, Kharkiv and Kyiv. News will probably come soon on the verdict. Currently, wait for now. PenangLion (talk) 03:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support Length of this article is getting a bit unwieldy, and the invasion itself makes a natural source for the split. --Jayron32 17:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose at this time – It is simply TOO EARLY to be splitting out 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine at this time. We still don't know what has actually occurred on the ground, and it is not yet clear that an independent article will have sufficient content to stand on its own. If anything, I would argue that a RENAMING of this article would be more appropriate than a split, as there is very little benefit from dividing information that is directly connected. Another possibility is splitting out content related to the 2021 events. Of course, if we see all-out war in the coming days, that would be a quite different scenario, but let us not forget that Russian forces have been present in the Donbas areas since 2014. In that context, does a new article, AT THIS TIME, make sense? I think not. RGloucester — ☎ 17:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• @RGloucester: You should really participate in the discussion before making late objections and reverts. Also, we do know what happen on the ground, there are sufficient sources of that. --Mindaur (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid the person who has not followed the appropriate processes is yourself. This proposal was made two days ago, and given its gravity, has not had nearly enough time for adequate discussion. Outside comment has not been solicited, either. The sources given in the article do not provide adequate justification for a new article at this time. You are presuming that something more substantial MAY happen (see WP:CRYSTAL), but if it were not to do so, the new article would not have sufficient content on which to stand. Again, as I said above, Russian troops have been present in the Donbas areas since 2014. This is widely documented, specifically at War in Donbas. The mere entrance of new Russian troops into the area, without any substantial other change, hardly constitutes a new development worthy of a new article. RGloucester — ☎ 18:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@RGloucester: We followed the usual process. You could have raised your concern here and we would revisit the decision. Instead, you chose to storm in and just overrule the consensus. It's not constructive and disrespectful to the editors who already put a great deal of work into this. --Mindaur (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The usual process would be to wait seven days, and post notices of this discussion on the relevant WikiProject Talk pages, etc. Then, one would need an uninvolved party to determine consensus. You are not uninvolved. While there are many people who support a split, most of those supports are conditional on the timing of the invasion itself. It is not up for you, yourself, to decide this timing. Again, an uninvolved party must do this. Furthermore, when reliable sources, such as as the BBC, write "It is not yet clear if any Russian troops have yet crossed the border into Ukraine" as of an hour ago, your unilateral action simply does not stand up to scrutiny. Wikipedia does not jump the gun. It doesn't rush to be first. It waits for reliable sources to come to a consensus. RGloucester — ☎ 18:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:CON does not appear to have a seven day requirement. The process we followed is WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS and no, it doesn't require uninvolved party if there is no dispute. Nevertheless, we still waited a few days. Please at least attempt to engage in a constructive discussion (especially when the consensus appears to have been reached) before stomping on the editors.

There are other sources which have been reporting troop movements e.g. [124][125]. --Mindaur (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

If there is a conflicting information in RS, that's all the more reason to wait. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and there is WP:NODEADLINE. Finally, please take a look at WP:BREAKING. It is WISE to delay, it says...and indeed, it is wise here. However, again, in as much as a gold-standard source like the BBC says the situation is not clear, it simply is not possible to proceed at this time. RGloucester — ☎ 18:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

It would be conflicting if BBC would have denied the reports or said there is no evidence. It merely said it couldn't verify those reports (yet). With a great respect to BBC, their processes are a bit slower. However, the lack of confirmation by BBC does not disqualify other WP:RSes. --Mindaur (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Except, that very CNN article says "CNN has not independently verified the presence of additional Russian troops in the Donbas". You can use that article to cite the what the Latvian prime minister has said, but you certainly can't use it to state that an 'invasion has begun' in Wikipedia's voice. That would be a fundamental mis-use of the source. Again, wait, per WP:BREAKING. RGloucester — ☎ 19:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• I would like to propose the following alternative to what is proposed above. Namely, splitting out 2021 content into a 2021 Russo-Ukrainian crisis (or similarly named) article, and renaming this article as appropriate (perhaps 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine), depending on what happens in the coming days. At present, it really does not make sense to have the 2021 content in this article. If anything should be a target for splitting, it should be this stuff. RGloucester — ☎ 17:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: You seem to suggest splitting the content by year rather than the actual events; it has no rationale (history doesn't roll by calendar years). Moreover, we already had several discussions on this (you seem to have just ignored them). --Mindaur (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it can be said that the first military build-up last year can logically, historically, be separated from the build-up this year. There is no obvious justification for documenting it here. It is also, I might add, documented at Russo-Ukrainian War, so we are having a duplication problem as well. The solution to this problem is not an endless series of FORKS, but actually a consolidation and trimming of the existing articles. RGloucester — ☎ 18:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

It is a continuation. The only obvious split between both phases under the same crisis occurred between April and September 2021. However, the buildup never dismantled itself entirely, it went dormant. The latter hasn't ended when the troops returned to the region en masse. The characteristics of both timelines should be grouped into a single definition. Tensions remain high during the period, while the buildup went higher and higher. There is no separation in military buildups. Even Shoygu's declaration in April only involved the retreat of "a portion" of troops that was sent to the front lines for the buildup.

Although, I do agree, some components on the split has some ambiguity whether it is a pragmatic stance on technical terms, or an unintended violation of Wikipedia:CRYSTAL. What is confirmed, however, is that this movement into Donbas is unusual - this recognition of the DPR and LPR, is on paper, a violation of territorial sovereignty, and hence, it is considered an invasion. This is also aided when several world leaders from NATO has already voiced their opinions that this incursion should be considered as an "invasion", no matter how it went.

I admit the consensus is rushed (where it was done in 4 days, not 2, note the discussion above this section; rather than your standard 7), but given the uncertainty of this event, where any day could be a possible start date, it wouldn't be a wrong thing to do it first under preliminary comments and suggestions. PenangLion (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@RGloucester: I don't think this alternative is a good option. Splitting by year seems too arbitrary. @everybody, RGloucester is correct that there's no rush. The section above is titled a "tentative" proposal; once there seems to be a general agreement. Once we've got it narrowed down to a couple of best options, then we have the actual split discussion. The section above isn't remotely close enough to a well-formed consensus to be talking about the split discussion in the past tense. VQuakr (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

We have an article that has already got much too big. Waiting a full week while a huge number of new editors become active trying to edit it risks making the article more and more unmanageable. Just for the record: Mindaur did not start the shift on his/her own, and I'm fairly sure that we two had some editorial disagreements for this article, so it's unlikely that we two form a WP:CABAL. This article has about 400 kb of content altogether, and most of it is prose (maybe 1/4 to a 1/3 or so is references?). WP:SIZESPLIT says that an article of 100 kb (or above): Almost certainly should be divided. Boud (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Boud: Using the page length tool, readable prose size is currently 60 kB. I don't think anyone disagrees that some sort of reorganization is warranted, though. There's no rush, and "in the midst of breaking news events" is a poor choice of time to hurry a restructure. No one said cabal. VQuakr (talk) 21:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@VQuakr: Which tool? Boud (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Boud: WP:Prosesize. Looking over the highlights many of the lists weren't included in that 60 kB and probably rationally would be considered "readable prose". The point that there's no emergency action needed is still the same, though. VQuakr (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Boud: I don't doubt that you have the noblest of intentions, but please stop and think for a moment. In the first place, I would like to draw your attention to WP:HASTE, from the guideline that regulates article size. It reads As browsers have improved, there is no need for haste in splitting an article when it starts getting large. Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage. So frankly, your plea that the article must be split NOW is uncalled for. There is no hurry, no emergency. Secondly, even if this article must be split, article size is not the prime consideration. We must take into account Wikipedia notability and content guidelines, per WP:WHENSPLIT. In such a case, there can be no justification for creating the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article at this juncture, as Mindaur did, when reliable sources are still unclear on the subject (see the above discussion). Certainly, article size is not a justification for creating such an article. See WP:BREAKING, as I cited above. Such a creation is WP:CRYSTAL, because we don't yet know if such an article will have the content or notability to stand alone.

Rather than consider creating a new article about something that may or may not be necessary depending on how the cards fall, why can't we focus on trimming uncontroversial parts of the article? A prime example is the reactions section, the vast majority of which can easily be removed to Reactions to the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis rather than duplicated here. This was customarily done at War in Donbas many years ago. Furthermore, while my proposal has been misrepresented as 'cutting off the article by year', what I actually meant was separating or removing content related to the spring 2021 buildup from this article, given that that content is already present at Russo-Ukrainian War, and focusing on the current build-up here (with appropriate background and links) instead. Both of these are viable solutions to the size problem, without removing critical content from this article, and creating a potentially problematic new article. RGloucester — ☎ 21:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@VQuakr: Cutting and pasting and checking by human eye and using wc (Unix) gives about 103 kb of prose. Bullet lists of prose paragraphs are still prose. So "Almost certainly needs a split" does apply. Boud (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:SPLIT is an information page. WP:HASTE, on the other hand, is part of an established Wikipedia guideline. I can assure you most certainly that WP:HASTE does apply in this case. RGloucester — ☎ 21:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A long way from 400kB though. The point regarding lack of urgency still applies. VQuakr (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: Splitting by year is completely arbitrary. I agree with VQuakr that there is some way to go before splitting at all becomes a very serious proposal. Splitting should create viable daughter articles and there is no such subordinate subject yet here, it's all very much sticking together. tw^sabin 21:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment – Before making up your mind on this matter, I'd like to bring to your attention an example from eight years ago that mirrors this case. When Russia invaded Donbas in August 2014, an article, which had various names at various times, was created at Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014) (the revision history is still there), as a split from Russo-Ukrainian War (it had a different name then). Much like this proposal, a lot of WP:CRYSTAL-type thinking made people think they needed a new article. In the end, however, it turned out to be un-needed and was merged back into the main article by commmunity consensus. We should not repeat the same mistake. Learn from the past. There is no WP:HASTE! RGloucester — ☎ 00:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

"Russo-"?

Has there been a discussion supporting the use of this term for this topic? Seems completely arbitrary. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment: the obvious alternative is "2021–2022 Russia–Ukraine crisis", if that is any better. The current title seems to have been inherited from Russo-Ukrainian War, which from some research appears to a Wikipedia-created neologism... I suspect that there will soon be a round of RM's involving one/both articles depending on how things go, so these matters can be sorted there. — Goszei (talk) 08:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

C - The term probably originates from the Russo-Georgian War and the Russo-Japanese War. Besides, it sounds better than Russia-Ukraine, for me at least. PenangLion (talk) 13:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it is a fitting term, even if it is never used by sources. The sources refer to it as stuff like "Russia-Ukraine tensions" which doesn't make for a specific title. Therefore, Russo-Ukrainian Crisis was adopted as it is specific and newsworthy. "Russo" is also the preface to historical events Russia is involved with when there is only one main other party. Also, it may be temporary if it blows into a full war. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 03:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

TREATY is signed: we now have casus belli

Putin lied, he did not just accept Donbass, he signed NATO level treaty with them (friendship, and helping each other). Thus we now have our own Article 5. It was removed immediatelly from all channels, but here not: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-qY6MGxnYI 194.154.66.69 (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I will also confirm that again. 2A00:1370:8184:C98D:49C9:6700:846A:E7E4 (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

That was ratified by Duma. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4tzmmDtf3o 109.252.169.138 (talk) 12:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

And by "Senate". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqG7o4HIE-U 2A00:1370:8184:C98D:942F:AB87:B4D2:F402 (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The president mentioned UN Charter Article 51 part 7 and those treaties when attacking Ukraine itself. 2A00:1370:8184:C98D:9FC:4353:3766:5704 (talk) 09:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2022

Reference 24. ″ …Swedish Armed Forces. 14 December 2022. Retrieved 20 January 2022. “ The date should be 14 December 2021. Livie.Genealogy (talk) 10:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Done. Animal lover 666 (talk) 11:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Missile attack on Kyiv!

Airport hit, gov't offices, command & control - CNN, ABC reporting hundreds of casualties. --> https://abc11.com/ukraine-putin-russia-joe-biden/11591644/50.111.36.47 (talk) 04:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment: Oh boy. This page is about to get hectic. Maybe more strict page protection is in order. I hate to be preemptive, however. Etriusus 04:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Calm down. Wait until everything settles. PenangLion (talk) 04:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine already has semi-protection. Boud (talk) 05:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment: No I agree this page will need a bit more protection but not much for now. If the situation escalates even further, which it probably will, we can put a lot of protection on this page then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornworld (talk • contribs) 13:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Infobox question

The infobox gives the date of the conflict as "Initial: 3 March – March 3, 2021 (1 month)". What's that supposed to mean? 178.203.147.48 (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Fixed in this edit by Baba Mica EvergreenFir (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2022

Changing "crisis" to "war". It's a war now. Tarikistar (talk) 03:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Please see the discussion above. Jr8825 • Talk 04:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

"special military operation"

I feel that the using of quotations around "special military operation" (no pun intended) might fall under the use of "scare quotes" in WP:WORDS. Because the text already states that it was by the russian government, it probably is inappropriate. SherlockHolmes23 (talk) 04:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion on addition

Since this suggestion would concern some parts of the article. I would like to reach a consensus first before making any edits. I propose we add 1-2 quote boxes regarding certain statements made by national leaders in several sections. Notable ones include Putin's statement towards Ukraine and Biden's prediction about Russian troop movements.

Secondly, I would want to add a small table listing troop numbers calculated and estimated by different sources, so readers can grasp the different troop numbers postulated by several sources. (As there are multiple sources that are debating on different numbers, from just 30,000, all the way to 175,000).

That should be it for now, I'll prepare some examples in subsequent posts. Cheers, PenangLion (talk) 09:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@PenangLion: Regarding the quotes: seems reasonable, but I think at the very least it should also contain a quote from the Ukrainians. Some editors seem to forget that the crisis is in Europe, about Europe and primarily about Ukraine, yet the European or even Ukrainian point of view gets less representation.

Regarding the table with troop numbers: I think it's a good idea. The only question is: how are we going to select or filter the sources as there might be quite a few?

Speaking of new sections, I would like to propose a section called "Analysis": there are already quite a few good articles (more academic ones) about the crisis, discussing the nature of the conflict, reasons and potential political objectives. In other words, they attempt to answer the questions "why?" and "why now?" Russia is amassing troops for a credible military option. --Mindaur (talk) 11:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I support the creation of the section, although I do feel writing the section would be a bit challenging.

For my part, I'll start drafting the quotes, including those from Zelensky, Putin and Biden. For the troop numbers, I will see if I could produce a draft table within a few days. PenangLion (talk) 12:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The first one:

My guess is he will move in. He has to do something.

President Joe Biden, remarking on Vladimir Putin's actions, 19 January 2022.

(PenangLion (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC))
The second one:

Every indication we have is that they’re prepared to go into Ukraine, attack Ukraine. My sense is it will happen in the next several days.

President Joe Biden, remarking on the possibility of a militarized escalation of he Russo-Ukrainian War, 17 February 2022.

The third one:

First of all, we all understand that 'surprises' may come at any time. We must rely on our own strength. We understand that such things can happen without warning, so the most important thing is to ensure that we could be ready for anything

President Volodymyr Zelensky, remarking on Russo-Ukrainian tensions, 12 February 2022.

I need suggestions, to be fair. I can't find any decent ones related to Zelensky. (PenangLion (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC))

"Every indication we have is that they’re prepared to go into Ukraine, attack Ukraine. My sense is it will happen in the next several days." [126][127] -- he just said this. --Mindaur (talk) 16:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@PenangLion: Perhaps: "First of all, we all understand that 'surprises' may come at any time. We must rely on our own strength. We understand that such things can happen without warning, so the most important thing is to ensure that we could be ready for anything." [128] --Mindaur (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@PenangLion: Zelensky's speech at the Munich Security Conference 2022 today: [129]. A good source for quotes, if you want more options. --Mindaur (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the suggestions. Cheers, PenangLion (talk) 03:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the citations: no problem for me. Regarding the table of the troops: wouldn't it be a repetition of what it's written in the infobox? Regarding the section "Analysis": sounds good, although there's the risk to create something original or non-neutral... Do you have some sources already as a reference? P1221 (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Nope. The infobox talks about the general strength of both belligerents. But I'm referring to the speculated troop numbers that have amassed near the border. Hope this clears any confusion. Cheers, PenangLion (talk) 06:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• The latest assesment by the US delivered in the OSCE meeting: 169,000-190,000 troops (up from 100,000 on Jan 30): [130]. --Mindaur (talk) 14:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Would it be possible to include the list of sanctions that the West has imposed on Russia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 07:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

  It is possible. PenangLion (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• The above quotes seem relevant, although only one Biden quote should be used, per WP:DUE weight. Generally, we don't want to include politicians' quotes, but as these ones could be seen as historically and contextually important, I'd support adding them to the relevant parts of the article Jr8825 • Talk 04:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The date is not up to date..

“Territorial map of Ukraine as of 17 February 2022”, while showing a map as of 25 February 2022, am I missing something or why is the map showing clearly the map of the 25th but it says it’s “as of 17” Tasogare-Rune (talk) 08:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed Thanks, Jr8825 • Talk 08:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Transnistria in the infobox

I've just removed Transnistria for the third time in the infobox of this article since it was created. I please ask editors not to include it again as there's no proof of Transnistria having been part of this crisis. The crisis is over, it escalated into a war and new developments regarding Transnistria should go into the invasion's article. Not here. From 3 March 2021 to 30 April 2021 and from 26 October 2021 to 24 February 2022, Transnistria did not do anything notable in support of Russia (other than training exercises in the region, which has been consistently happening ever since the state's independence in 1992). Super Ψ Dro 20:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

No Portal to Donetsk Peoples Republic, or Luhansk Peoples Republic.

Add the portals for the Donetsk Peoples Republic, as well as the Luhansk Peoples Republic. NATO portal will be appreciated, as well. Signed, EditorWiki121 (talk) 02:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

International community - UK paragraph

A typo needs correcting. Line two - the letter ‘W’ needs moving one place to the right, to enclose it within the square brackets, as a full word. etter still remove the square brackets — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.177.28 (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

It is not a typo, it's citation style. The article linked as source says "very significant risk Russia will invade Ukraine". P1221 (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Design

Ukraine should be on the left side for this article like it is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War so that there is some cohesion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.166.137.174 (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Casualties and totals

Can someone do a casualties card and display some total numbers as well please? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.166.137.174 (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2022

Add Pornhub to the list of non-lethal helping faction 2A01:E0A:487:F200:C953:5CB6:F958:FBF0 (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2022 (2)

Change Germany from non-lethal military aid to arms suppliers. Source: Tagesschau; Germany sends 1000 anti-tank weapons and 500 surface-to-air- missiles to Ukraine 2001:4DD5:8694:0:A14F:BC5D:2371:38B4 (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done This was after the crisis. Mellk (talk) 02:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)