Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Meta: Why no redirect for incorrect capitalizations of “of” and Ukraine?

Or is it just that I'm on the mobile app at the moment? I get a blank talk page inviting me to start a topic. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

to clarify, I mean Talk:Russian invasion Of Ukraine and Talk:Russian invasion of ukraine. I think. They also come up in search suggestions btw RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Russian invasion of ukraine is a redirect and WP links are not case specific for the first letter so russian invasion of ukraine also works. I was going to fix this but it isn't broken (now?). We could make redirects for every permutation of caps including "Russian invasion Of Ukraine" but I think that the search box suggestions are sufficient to deal with these. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

FYI, WP links are case-sensitive. DecafPotato (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Then why {{Lowercase title}} exists? Try [1] vs [2]. Skovl (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

That's not what that template is for. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

DecafPotato (and others), what I actually said was: links are not case specific for the first letter. But yes, they are case specific for every other letter. The two links I referred to give context. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but we are not going to create redirects for every possible miscapitalization and misspelling. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

As an article with millions of views, I think it may be useful. @InfiniteNexus Starship 24 (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

No, the quick search bar is not case sensitive and serves this function. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

"PRussian Invasion of Ukraine" is a plasuible misspelling, and the search lead you noweehr near it @Cinderella157 for something with millions of views, this has probably happened to hundreds Starship 24 (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

By the time one completes typing PRussian into the quick search toolbar, there are ten entries in the drop-down suggestion box that all say "Prussian" something - all with Prussian in big bold letters! Some degree of competency is required, even by our readers. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

"Prussia" is not a plausible misspelling of "Russia", we're talking about two totally different countries that have nothing to do with each other. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

People accidently type p sometimes @InfiniteNexus @Cinderella157 Starship 24 (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:RPURPOSE which states: Likely misspellings (for example, Condoleeza Rice redirects to Condoleezza Rice). [emphasis added] While mispelling [sic] Russia as PRussia is possible it is far from Likely. The argument does not meet with the P&G. It will not survive the scrutiny of the broader community. Rather than wasting any more time, go ahead and create the redirect from PRussia invasion of Ukraine. Ping me when you do and I will put it up for deletion. Guarentee it will last as long as a snowflake in a heatwave. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

PRussian invasion of Ukraine <- if that link turns blue, you'll know it's been done. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Done @Cinderella157 @Mr rnddude Starship 24 (talk) 12:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:R3 probably applies to that creation. The intent behind Cinderella's invitation was to reflect on policy, not to engage in pointed editing. This only succeeds in wasting a minimum of three people's time: one editor to create it, one editor to nominate it for deletion, and one admin who now has to assess whether R3 is applicable or if a half dozen more editors' time needs to be lost debating it at WP:RfD. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

It is not implausible, it is accidently typing the p key. You may see the RFD (Redirects For Discussion) of it. We will see what the consensus. As probably hundreds have made this typo, I think it is worth a bit of time on the part of editors. @Mr rnddude Starship 24 (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Redirects with implausible typos do not need to go through RfD before being deleted. In fact, it already has been speedy deleted. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

It was discussed as is it an implausible typo @InfiniteNexus Starship 24 (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion was speedily closed and the redirect speedily deleted, because it would have been a waste of time to argue over such a pointless redirect. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

There is no way to know what people think before they say, there is no way to know the consensus before it is made (for the most part) @InfiniteNexus Starship 24 (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, any competent editor would have recognized that this is an implausible typo. Secondly, other editors' comments in this discussion should have already told you that there is consensus against the creation of the redirect, and yet you went ahead and did so anyway. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I was only told later. I am being competent, dont be rude @InfiniteNexus Starship 24 (talk) 14:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

2023 Nuclear Weapons Deal Between Belarus and Russia

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-belarus-tactical-nuclear-weapons-3aed32661ae3c218c59117d1ce593777

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-security-chief-says-basing-russian-nuclear-weapons-belarus-will-2023-03-26/

Note this is an ongoing allegation under investigation by Ukraine and NATO given that the Nuclear deal in question violates ICC Arrest Warrant on Putin. There are fears of a Nuclear War as of March 2023 according to the AP New Reuters.2601:640:C682:8870:8BCF:AA77:4645:9A52 (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with Ukriane as such. Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

From the third paragraph of the article: "Russia has said the plan to station tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus comes in response to the West’s increasing military support for Ukraine." HappyWith (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

This definitely has to do with Ukraine. It’s another example of Russian nuclear sabre-rattling to frighten Western politicians into tempering support for Ukraine. The plan predates the 2022 Russian invasion, but Putin’s announcement is timed for its propaganda effect.

Yesterday’s ISW Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment:[3]

Putin advanced another information operation by announcing that Russia will deploy tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus by July 1 and renewed tired information operations about the potential for nuclear escalation. . . .

The announcement of the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus is irrelevant to the risk of escalation to nuclear war, which remains extremely low. Putin is attempting to exploit Western fears of nuclear escalation by deploying tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus. Russia has long fielded nuclear-capable weapons able to strike any target that tactical nuclear weapons based in Belarus could hit. ISW continues to assess that Putin is a risk-averse actor who repeatedly threatens to use nuclear weapons without any intention of following through in order to break Western resolve. . . .

Putin has likely sought to deploy Russian nuclear weapons to Belarus since before the February 2022 invasion of Ukraine and has likely chosen this moment to do so in order to serve the immediate information operation he is now conducting. . . .

 —Michael Z. 00:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Just give it a couple sentences or a paragraph in the standalone article we have for the topic and be done with it. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 01:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The aggressive gesture of nuclear weapons parked on the border of Ukraine has been covered in many international sources and needs to be added here. I'm making a short addition to the nuclear section of this article following the NPR report. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe the actual plans are to build a storage facility by July, but no statement has yet announced that weapons were to be moved. Putin also said that Belarus would not be given control of any nuclear weapons. These details ought to be reflected if someone can find suitable sources.  —Michael Z. 19:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Michael, there have been lots of random snipes on this Talk page from other editors since your visit last week, though if you would like to line up your citations for the edit you are describing here on tactical nuclear arms, then I'll try to add something. You are also welcome to adjust/improve/modify my own edit on this issue as needed in the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Fair. The best I can do for now is offer that storage facility is claimed to be completed July 1, but no date is given for any transfer. And Putin explicitly said Belarus won’t control. This is from Reuters.[4]  —Michael Z. 13:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

And the Guardian reminds us that previous nuclear threats have been bluffs, and experts are sceptical of this one. But his announcement is a slap in the face to Xi, with whom he made a joint statement a few days ago, and if implemented his stated plan would violate the NPT.[5]  —Michael Z. 13:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks ok and I'll try to get to it in the next day or two; are you saying that you want something about Xi added here as well, or will you add the Xi material on one of the other related sibling pages. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I’m just hoping to round the sentence out with a bit better perspective. Not sure if the item warrants any more than that in this article. How about something like this:

Putin stated on 25 March 2023 that Russia would establish a nuclear-weapons storage facility in Belarus by 1 July, retaining control of any weapons that may be moved there. Commentators responded with skepticism.

 —Michael Z. 18:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm guessing that its a matter of going with your new version and adding the 3 citations. I'm leaving off the closing phrase since readers can just click on any of the 3 citations being added to read it. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I object to your omitting experts’ assessment from the article. Your argument is invalid, as its consistent application would turn encyclopedia articles into lists of links, or its selective application as here would turn it into a list of facts and numbers with no encyclopedic content. —Michael Z. 16:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Reverting my own edit while opposition (objection) on Talk page is in process. I'm also recusing from further edits on this sentence. You are welcome to edit the version which you believe is best for Wikipedia for this sentence as I'm recused. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 March 2023

Since this isn’t really an invasion, we should probably split this article in two: Russo-Ukrainian War (2022-Present) (the Somali Civil War has it as well) and the Russian Invasion of Ukraine. TankDude2000 (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by this isn't really an invasion? BeŻet (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

It is, of course, not an invasion, but a special military operation. Super Ψ Dro 21:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

It’s not only an invasion, it’s a war! Don’t think I’m a Pro-Russian. As a Romanian, I’m clearly against Ruzzia and also support Ukraine! 109.166.129.138 (talk) 07:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for typing again, I was logged out. It’s not only an invasion, it’s a war! Don’t think I’m a Pro-Russian. As a Romanian, I’m clearly against Ruzzia and also support Ukraine! TankDude2000 (talk) 07:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Is this just your personal opinion, or are there reliable sources that agree? HappyWith (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

It is an invasion, and it is part of a war: Russo-Ukrainian War (2014–present).  —Michael Z. 21:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

There already is an article called Russo-Ukrainian War which covers the war, this article covers the invasion in 2022 and what followed. I'll mark this as answered as such requests need to be made differently anyway (see above). BeŻet (talk) 19:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but "not an invasion" is contrary to fact. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok ok, chill. Then the title “Invasion” should stay… TankDude2000 (talk) 04:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I assume you meant to say "this isn't really an invasion anymore" based on your split proposal, in which case I agree, but I doubt consensus could be reached on splitting the article at the moment.Yeoutie (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Luke Harding's new book on this subject just reviewed is titled Invasion. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

(this space intentionally left black)

This Talk page is being bombarded by edit requests for adding Nato and Ukraine info and banners. I'm going to suggest re-examining the Wikipedia policy on the Infobox belligerent section, and whether or not this space can be used to indicate that Ukraine is not in the NATO military alliance. At present the Belligerent section of the Infobox under Ukraine says nothing and is "this space is intentionally left blank". It can be put to good use by adding a short comment that NATO is not in a military alliance with Ukraine in parenthesis, or something like that. Otherwise, this Talk page appears to be under a daily bombardment of edit requests to add more about Ukraine and NATO. Comments of support/oppose from other editors if possible. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Or we can just say "see FAQ" or ask for PP. Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

What is FAQ ? Stephan rostie (talk) 00:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

/FAQ. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

The FAQ has not worked that well; as you can see in the thread directly above this one which has been marked as closed about NATO. Also, your comment about PP does not seem to help since the main page is already extended confirmed protected. Could better use be made of "(this space deliberately left blank)"? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Don't think that will work all that well. The questions will then be: "Why is it intentionally blank? Shouldn't we add NATO there?" Cinderella157 (talk) 02:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Would you prefer that the empty space under belligerents in the Infobox remain as blank, or to include a short message like "(Ukraine does not have a military alliance with NATO)"? My feeling is that leaving it blank accomplishes nothing useful, whereas adding that short comment about NATO could at least help to try to address the bombardment of NATO edit requests which keep being made on this Talk page. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

What I am saying is, adding "this space intentionally left black" or "Ukraine does not have a military alliance with NATO" is not likely to be an effective remedy. The remedy is to deprecate the use of "supported by" and there is an RfC at the template talk page to do just that. It isn't an actual template parameter. Its usage is not consistent with the spirit and intent of the template. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. And I don't think I'm having deja vu… RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

We discussed this in the past. You run into the same problem and besides it's clunky. We have notes. Or just say Supplied by: see list. Still best solution IMO RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. BogLogs (talk) 07:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The main issue still remains to inform readers of the situation with NATO in the lede and Infobox as well as can be done. The main part of the article already does this, but the lede and Infobox still come short of giving a simple introductory view of NATO's relevance. The writing of a better lede section which incorporates at least some mention of NATO might help if someone feels up to doing it. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

When it comes to talk pages, a lot of people will ignore the FAQ anyway. After the Taliban took over Afghanistan in August 2021, people kept complaining at the talk page about the country's flag having been changed under the new regime. Even after I added this point to the Talk:Afghanistan/FAQ in February 2022, users continued to complain about the flag for at least another year. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox military conflict#RfC on "supported by" being used with the belligerent parameter

Please see subject discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Source for "Serbia imposed sanctions"?

Under the section "Reactions", an image shows that Serbia has imposed sanctions, but the given sources don't say that. At least I didn't find it. Can we make it more clear where the information comes from? Or, conclude that it is, perhaps, an error? Donaastor (talk) 05:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Point being that Serbia is leaning towards Russian sympathies? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

The point being have they imposed sanctions as [[6]] says they have not yet. Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

You are correct, the Serbian states several times it has to imposed sanctions. I suggest we remove this part of the article. 165.234.101.99 (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Government has stated* 165.234.101.99 (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The Wikipedia articles for Sanction against Russia during the invasion states the following with 2 citations pertaining to Serbia: "A 2022 June poll found that over 80% of Serbians were opposed to sanctions on Russia. A July 2022 poll found that 84% were opposed. Serbia has not imposed significant sanctions." The correct place to voice concerns on this diagram may be at Wikimedia to correct the diagram if its a problem. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Finland and Sweden joining NATO as a result

Finland and Sweden have applied for NATO membership following the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine War ([7][8][9][10]). Finland just became a member and Sweden is expected to progress soon ([11]).

Finland and Sweden joining (or applying for) NATO is a direct consequence of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (aforementioned WP:RS explain that path). This is an important cause-consequence relation from the historic point of view. I propose to include this into the "Results" of the infobox. While the war itself is ongoing, there are already major (historic) consequences of it. This is also consistent with the infobox on other wars i.e. major conflicts often have implications, with the due WP:WEIGHT, beyond the conflicting parties. -- Mindaur (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• I've added it based on your BBC citation. You do know that you're extended confirmed? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  Sure, I thought to present the case, as we had some heated debates about the infobox in the past. Umm, you seem to have just added a sentence into the article though. Did you actually read my proposal? It's about the infobox. -- Mindaur (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

There is a grand total of one insignificant mention of this information in the entire article. If it is not significant enough for a) a detailed mention in the body and b) a mention in the lede then it has no business being mentioned in the infobox. Further, the infobox documentation explicitly state that the 'results' parameter should be used to state either 'x victory' or 'inconclusive'. In cases where this is inadequate, a note should be left in the parameter directed readers to the appropriate section where the outcome is discussed in detail. However, in this case, the conflict is on-going, so the 'results' parameter is not even used. Some vague (or even explicit) reference to the content of other articles is not adequate reason in itself to disregard the infobox's or its parameter's purpose(s). The only actionable element of this request is to update the article to note that Finland is now a member as that information is not presently contained within the article (Addendum: which I see Ernest Krause has already done). Mr rnddude (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree, one line is all we need. Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Things have been developing since the start of the invasion. The fact that it is not mentioned in the article right now doesn't mean it doesn't have due WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS on this. There are plenty of WP:RSes, suggesting it's W:N and significant. As for the infobox "Result" being one line, then that's not the case with the infobox of pretty much every other war: World War I, World War II, Yom Kippur War, Iran–Iraq War, War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) and so on. We certainly don't have a consensus on this. -- Mindaur (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Probably not fit for the results section of the infobox, but it can definetely be expanded beyond a hastily added ″insignificant mention″. TylerBurden (talk) 01:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

If Sweden joins or is rejected by NATO, then a short addition to the prose of the article can be done. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Phase terminology in this article

Is there any actual reason why we need "Phase x" in each subheader in the article? There are dates and names for each of them already there. Couldn't we change "Second phase: South-Eastern front (8 April – 5 September)" to "South-Eastern front (8 April – 5 September)", etc? HappyWith (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Currently being discussed in one of the threads above this one? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

There’s not really anything relating to my specific question, no. HappyWith (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

There is an on-going discussion and critique within Wikipedia regarding which reliable source to use in the various Timeline articles which document this invasion, currently in the phase x to phase (x+1) notation; have you reviewed these. Most attention, though without consensus as yet, has gone to the NYRB article from January which discussed the invasion as having four chapters; have you read these Wikipedia discussions? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, my position is that they’re original research and should be removed. My question in this discussion is, why do we need the ordinal numerals in this article? Wouldn’t it resolve a lot of the conflicts if we just grouped events by the descriptions and dates, and threw out the contentious ordinals? HappyWith (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The terminology originated in the international press when Russia retreated from Kyiv and the international press started widely using the terminology of the Second Phase as having started. This was accepted by virtually all nations in the international press as the start of the Second Phase of the Russian invasion. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that’s true that they all called it the second stage, phase, etc, but I’m not convinced that the terminology has been consistently used for the subsequent stages of the war. My question is, why do we need to use the terminology on this page as the names of subsections? If we got rid of the numbers, it would make it much easier to create a subsection for the “fourth stage” with the stalemate and Bakhmut front, since we wouldn’t need to argue endlessly over whether it was the “fourth phase” or not - we could just call it “Second stalemate and Bakhmut push” with the date range in parentheses. HappyWith (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2023

Russia is putting in a vast effort to fully subdue Bahkmut at this time, it is difficult to see them backing off on this issue. It seems to be reaching a "Mariupol" level of attention from the Russian invasion force. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

That's true, though I don't see how it relates to what I was asking. HappyWith (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

While sources did refer to a "new phase" for the retreat from Kyiv, we have adopted this terminology when it is not otherwise supported by good quality sources for other sections that follow. The use of "Phase x" implies authority in naming, which isn't the case - it is largely arbitrary and constructed by our editors. I agree with HappyWith, that we should name sections descriptively or by date. We should avoid implying definitive divisions. Wiki follows; it does not lead. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Yep. No one has given reasons to keep the numbers in this page, so I'm going to remove them now as best as I can. HappyWith (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The international press has made dozens upon dozens of references to the 'second phase' of the invasion after the Russian retreat from Kyiv; there is no getting around that. Regarding the "Phase 4" discussion, then there is still the issue of the Wikipedia sibling Timeline articles which have incorporated 'Phase 4' into their titles and which are already linked with this main article. You must have seen these items in this article? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

You are only justifying labeling phase 1 and 2 here. Everything else is original research. HappyWith (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

No that's not how consensus was established on this Talk page several months ago, when you were not that active here on this Talk page. At that time, when "Phase two" was being used by vast portions of the international press, it was felt by the prevailing Wikipedia editors here that when the Ukraine counter-offensives took place, that a new section called "Phase 3" was called for in the Invasion article. At the time, and for months after it was named, this seemed to be perfectly reasonable and not criticized since it followed Phase 2, which was predominantly recognized and used throught the international press at that time. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

But what was the reasoning for that? What reliable sources supported this terminology? Just because some editors decided to keep it in at the time doesn’t mean it can’t be challenged now. WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE, especially when there seems to have been no solid policy justification for the original consensus. HappyWith (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

You seem to not want to accept that the international press overwhelmingly adopted the language of the 'Second Phase' of the invasion after Russia retreated from Kyiv. Once you can endorse to me that you understand that this was the standard terminology used in the international press, then your questions might make no sense. It is almost as if you a pretending that the international press did not use the phrase "Second Phase" after the Russian retreat from Kyiv in dozens upon dozens of articles at that time. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I never said that the "second phase" terminology didn't exist. I think I was pretty clear there. HappyWith (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

If you fully accept that "second phase" terminology is established then it seems you must also understand how the international press started simultaneously referring to the first phase as coming before the 'second phase'. For example, see the January article on the Russian invasion in NYBR. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Sure. HappyWith (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:NEWSORG is not a good source for "critical analysis" of the invasion. While we might refer to the counter-offensive as being described as a second phase, it is arguably much more valid and useful to use counter-offensive as a section heading. The key point though, is that this phase labeling does not ipso fact extend to subsequent temporal divisions. That, I would see, to be the main point being made against phase labeling. Nit-picking over "phase 2" ignores the broader issue - labeling subsequent temporal divisions. I would agree (per my above) that a descriptive labelling of sections is preferable to the phase-numeric labeling. Phase-numeric labelling only conveys temporal order which is otherwise apparent from the TOC and from the structure of the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

You put it better than I did. HappyWith (talk) 01:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that solves the issue of all of the Timeline articles for the Russian invasion currently stating the "Phase x" language which the main article here is linking. I mean, even if I accept your position for now, then how do you address all of those Timeline sibling articles which use 'Phase x' in their titles? Your approach seem incomplete and partial. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I think we could just title them by their date spans, no? That's how Timeline of the war in Donbas and Timeline of the Syrian civil war do it (specifically in the Syria one, you have titles like "Timeline of the Syrian civil war (May–August 2012)"). HappyWith (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The main issues are the Wikipedia articles with titles like "Timeline of Phase 3 of Invasion" and "Timeline of Phase 4 of Invasion", etc. Those articles are already linked into this main article of the Invasion. They appear inconsistent with the section titles recently edited into this main article. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Couldn't we just change those article titles to match with the section titles, like I said in my previous message? HappyWith (talk) 17:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm just not sure that you would be able to do that, even if Cinderella were to help you; I mean its 4 timeline articles for the Invasion with separate Talk pages, which is not easy to try even if with both of you together. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be possible? Couldn't we just make an RFC here or on the main timeline talk page - where all timeline talk is centralized anyway - and leave notices anywhere else it would be needed? HappyWith (talk) 17:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Even if Cinderella joins with you on this, then I'm still not sure you can get it done for all 4 article Timelines. The last time it was tried about a month ago, then Steven at that time was opposed to it. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Would you be opposed to that kind of proposal? HappyWith (talk) 15:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Let me rephrase. Even if an editor like Slatersteven disagreed, the important part would be the policy arguments. If anyone's arguments were against policy, their !vote wouldn't matter in the close. I'm going to create the RM now, and we'll see how it goes. HappyWith (talk) 16:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Notice: Timeline subpages RM

A requested move discussion is taking place at Talk:Timeline_of_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Requested_move_6_April_2023 which may interest editors of this article. Please leave all comments relating to the proposal on that article's talk page, not here. Thank you. HappyWith (talk) 16:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Russian spelling

Sources overwhelmingly spell the Russian name Artemovsk,[12] by a majority of 75% or more.[13] The article text should reflect that. Any objections?  —Michael Z. 14:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

If its in Ukraine we use the Ukrainian spelling. Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

We name the Russian name several times, but with the quirky spelling Artyomovsk.  —Michael Z. 14:55, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

We do, I can't find it. Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Eep, I somehow posted this at the wrong article. Please ignore.  —Michael Z. 15:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Or see Talk:Bakhmut#Russian spelling. —Michael Z. 15:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Supported by vs Supplied by

It is my opinion that the article should state that Ukraine is supported by, rather than merely “supplied by” the USA, U.K., and others.

The first reason for this is that the level of support provided to Ukraine demonstratively extends well beyond supplying of weaponry. It also includes sharing of intelligence including satellite data revealing positions of the Russian military, which has allowed Ukraine to hit targets with precision it would otherwise not be capable of. See https://www.reuters.com/article/ukraine-crisis-usa-intelligence-idUSL2N2V62MD https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/05/05/politics/us-intelligence-russian-moskva-warship-ukraine-target/index.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/04/us/politics/russia-generals-killed-ukraine.html https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/ukraine-zelensky-biden-congress-washington-trip-russia/card/u-s-has-eased-intelligence-sharing-rules-to-help-ukraine-target-russians-6pgEkPNCQRX8z4KBu4V4

The US and U.K. have also provided training to Ukrainian troops. See, https://www.npr.org/2023/01/16/1149372572/expanded-us-training-for-ukraine-forces-begins-in-germany https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/uk-training-ukrainians-fight-western-way-with-less-ammunition-minister-2023-02-15/

It has also been reported that the US has helped Ukraine plan counter-offensives https://www.businessinsider.com/us-helped-ukraine-plan-counteroffensive-against-russia-cnn-2022-9?amp https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/06/us/politics/ukraine-war-plan-russia.html

Finally, imposition of sanctions against Russia is a form of support for Ukraine.

So not only have western countries provided support for Ukraine in ways exceeding material supply of aid - I would also question why supplies of massive military aid, including state of the art tanks, artillery and air defense systems etc does not constitute “support”. If arming a party to a conflict does not constitute support I frankly cannot imagine what support could be, minus active participation. I question also whether this distinction exists in other Wikipedia articles on conflicts or if it has been invented specifically for this article - in which case it would be disingenuous and indicative of bias.

To summarise, I ask why provision of training, intelligence, military aid, and strategic advice does not constitute “support” in the eyes of the editors of this article. Osraige (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

see talk page section above. Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I have looked at the talk page, what I cannot find is any explanation for why America does not meet the criteria for supporting Ukraine. I am hoping someone could clarify this Osraige (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Read the FAQ, it has a link to the discussion. Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Such matters are covered at Foreign involvement in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which has been split from this article. The answer remains the same (see FAQ) since the linked discussions relate to "supported by" and not "supplied by". Cinderella157 (talk) 01:19, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Spelling error

Will a person with editing rights please change “slaugher-fest” to “slaughter-fest”? Thanks! Thomas B. Higgins Thomasbhiggins (talk 15:29, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Why are we using tabloid level language such as 'slaughter-fest' in this article at all? This is poor tone in the best of circumstances. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

See: By 29 March, in spite of modest progress by Wagner troops in reaching the center of Bakhmut, US officials were speaking of the "progress" as minimal and that Russians were facing a "slaughter-fest" of twenty to thirty thousand casualties during the last 20 days in the battle for Bakhmut. citing this. General Milley does actually say "slaughter fest" (see here at about 50 seconds). Even as a direct quote, I would agree about tone. Why is progress in quotes? US officials were speaking? It was only Milley doing the speaking. This isn't how attribution works. I think somebody thinks that if you use the plural, it sounds more authoritative if more than one person has said it? I am thinking we should nuke the sentence and start over. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:53, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

It's a quotation. The word was in fact used. WP:Verifiability not WP:Truth.

While we are parsing language, the attack on civilians should be characterized as "Democide". I added: The Russian attacks on civilians, causing mass civilian casualties and displacement, have been characterized as "genocide" and "democide" 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:27, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:ONUS. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Merge sections "Kyiv and northern front" and "North-eastern front"?

There doesn't seem to be much reason for treating initial attacks at Chernihiv and Sumy as a separate front, as the Russian forces which did achieved breakthrough there, then proceeded to advance towards Kyiv from eastern side. So I would suggest merging "Kyiv and northern front" and "North-eastern front" sections into single "Northern front" section.--Staberinde (talk) 10:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The origination points for the two fronts were very different; Kyiv was attacked out of Belarus, while the 'North-eastern' front originated on the eastern Ukraine border with Russia. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:38, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Not really, Chernihiv was attacked from Belarus too.--Staberinde (talk) 09:16, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Not sure how you are reading this geography for Oblasts which are adjacent in Ukraine. Are you talking about the main spearheads of the invasion (there were 4 of them according to the international press at the time of the initial invasion), or are you talking about the order of battle for the individual spearheads of the invasion? Do you have any reliable sources for your comments? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Chernihiv was attacked from Gomel, Belarus, not sure what's the confusion here about. Anyway, the question is, should western and eastern axis of Russian Kyiv offensive be actually treated in separate sections or not. It is a fairly basic editorial question. I don't see much point in separate two paragraph "North-eastern front" section. Size wise it fits fine in "Kyiv and northern front" section, and also fits logically as that section already includes general introduction: Russian efforts to capture Kyiv included a probative spearhead on 24 February, from Belarus south along the west bank of the Dnipro River, apparently to encircle the city from the west, supported by two separate axes of attack from Russia along the east bank of the Dnipro: the western at Chernihiv, and the eastern at Sumy. These were likely intended to encircle Kyiv from the north-east and east.--Staberinde (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Support Seems like a good idea. I popped on the talk page in order to start a thread about summary style actually.

Really, I don’t see any reason to treat them separately. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

You are both apparently opposed to the various diagrams and maps which support these 2 prongs of the invasion, along with the prose concerning the separate order of battle for each of these fronts. Are you both stating that you wish to delete and eradicate all of the reliable sources currently in the article which state that there were two fronts in the initial invasion in the north and the north-east, and that you wish to eradicate all the maps and figures which support both of those spearheads? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Rename

The Russian invasion of Ukraine began in the winter of 2014, in the same article there is an exclusively large-scale invasion of Ukraine that began in the winter of 2022. Therefore, my proposal to rename the article to:

"Large-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022 – )"--Yasnodark (talk) 11:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Please see the various RMs in the past, including the most recent one. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Building bridges between the two main sibling articles

It has occurred to me that it might be worth some effort on the part of editors to increase the relation between the two main sibling pages for the Ukrainian war and the Russian invasion articles. One possible path might be to add sections to each article about the relevance of the Russian plans since 2014 to build a 'land-bridge' to Crimea, after Russia had occupied Crimea in 2014. There are significant numbers of RS for Russia's early plans to want to do this since 2014, and it appears that the current Russian invasion has accomplished some measure of those goals to establish a land bridge to Crimea. Support/oppose comments from other editors if possible. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

US/UK special forces in Ukraine

I will preface this by saying that I have read the RfC about support for Ukraine, although I do disagree with it. Please do not refer me to it. However, with the recent leaks from the Pentagon, several reliable sources have stated that American and British special forces are present in Ukraine. I think that this is an extraordinary circumstance that would allow this to be changed, and to put the US and UK in the infobox. GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 01:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Based on previous such discussions, if it turned out half the British army was deployed in Ukraine there'd still be no consensus on adding anything more than "Supplied by: UK".

For whatever reason there are a significant number of editors who refuse to agree with adding a "Supported by:" section for Ukraine on this page or that for the wider Russia-Ukraine conflict. It's unlikely that anything short of an outright declaration of war by a party involved is going to shift that, I'm afraid. TheGlaswegian (talk) 02:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Technically Russia had not made a formal declaration of war, so Russia should be removed from the Infobox. Juxlos (talk) 03:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Read wp:agf a,nd wep:soap. Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying anyone opposed to such a change is acting in bad faith; far from it, many are rightfully concerned about the integrity of a highly disputed page about a major current event. However, what I mean to point out is that the endlessly repeating debates on this matter will continue to be totally paralysed by lack of consensus until something of extreme, unavoidable significance occurs. Until then, it's barely worth the effort of bringing up new evidence every time it crops up. TheGlaswegian (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

New evidence of what, what were these special forces doing? This is the issue. The irony is...well go back over the archives and look at what the irony is. Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. This I believe is a fundamental piece of information that should modify the wikibox. Mehrashehra (talk) 02:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

The first source states The document does not say where the forces are located or what they are doing. The second source states: It is unclear what activities the special forces may have been engaged in or whether the numbers of personnel have been maintained at this level. While I doubt they are/were there for a holiday (though some chicken stranglers and snake eaters might consider a trip to Ukraine a holiday) the two reports tell us nothing of substance. One could reasonably speculate that they might be there for close protection since this is one role of the SASR particularly. What makes these reports particularly extrodinary? But, but, but ... they were top-secret reports, I didn't hear somebody say. Well dip me in green paint and call me a soldier, isn't that what secret squirrel military types do - keep secrets, particularly if they were/are protecting a high profile person (or is that Animal House). There are sections in the articles (and sub-articles) for foreign involvement (see Russian invasion of Ukraine#Foreign involvement). So, while the secion may not be called "supported by" (not a particularly good heading for an article section) that is quite clearly what it is about. To that extent, it is factually incorrect to state For whatever reason there are a significant number of editors who refuse to agree with adding a "Supported by:" section for Ukraine on this page ... - or is it just that we don't want to call the section "supported by". There are more important issues with this article than whether or not to titivate the infobox with bunting from the flags of all nations. If Zelenskyy bought a corset, I swear somebody would want to add this flag too. (on spec that it might have whale bone stiffening. One should be aware that supported by is not an infobox parameter. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

"One should be aware that supported by is not an infobox parameter." And yet, look at the pages for other wars. Vietnam War, Korean War, Iraq War, Yemeni civil war, Syrian civil war, all these pages have to some degree or another included a reference to "support" in the infobox by nations not involved as co-belligerents. Is the involvement of the UK in the Vietnam War, to give an example, so dramatically greater than the UK's existing political, economic and military activities supporting Ukraine's war effort? If no country supports Ukraine strongly enough to be listed here, then do all these pages need revision to meet the same standard? TheGlaswegian (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Two wrongs do not make a right. Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I can't say I follow; what is the wrong? That the articles of countless major wars, quite possibly the majority, include non-participants that offered notable support? It seems both relevant and appropriate to me, especially when outside aid can be an important factor in understanding the context and outcomes of said wars. To provide another example, the article on the Arab-Israeli conflict includes the information that Israel is supported by the United States while the Soviet Union supported their Arab opponents. I can't say I see what's wrong about that inclusion. TheGlaswegian (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Well as it's not all, yes doing something because some other page does it (see WP:OTHERSTUFF) is not a great argument. We need new arguments (not "evidence" arguments) as to why this change needs to be made. Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

If the presence of this information across Wikipedia is insufficient, then how about the inclusion of Belarus in this article? It's listed as supporting Russia, so the inclusion of a "supported by" for Ukraine would be no different in terms of the format of the page.

For the record I would not support the removal of Belarus, but its inclusion while none of Ukraine's supporters warrant mention is a glaring inconsistency. TheGlaswegian (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Have you really read the previous discussions? If so, you'd know the answer to this question. But I guess it never hurts to keep asking the same question over and over. TylerBurden (talk) 02:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

ez answer: double standards. :) 190.26.168.50 (talk) 06:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

OK, so lets treat them the same, name one NATO country that has allowed attacks to be launched from its soil. If you can name one I will support their inclusion. Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

PS, why is it I am not surprised that the editors pushing this particular barrow are not ECP confirmed? Cinderella157 (talk)

Support for Cinderella on this. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, 50 men (the largest contingent) could just be embassy security, the simple fact is we do not know. Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Infobox should be changed ASAP, particularly considering it says Russia is supported by Belarus. Belarus does not have special forces on the ground. Not to mention billions of dollars in weapons are being supplied both by and through NATO countries. I think we should be careful here not to allow this article be subject of ridicule and adhere to WP:NPOV.Qayqran (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Not that you know, Belarus did however allow Russia to use it to stage its invasion of Ukraine. TylerBurden (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

TylerBurden Belarus allowed Russian forces to use its territory. I agree. NATO support includes providing tanks, F-16s, training, billions on military aid, military intelligence and of course special-ops on the ground. Can you provide here the basis on which you decide what does and does not constitute military support? Qayqran (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide a source that says F-16's have been provided? Also, are we now talking about support or military support? Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Also very curious about such a source, couldn't possibly be WP:OR. TylerBurden (talk) 01:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

"Individual NATO member countries are sending weapons, ammunition and many types of light and heavy military equipment, including anti-tank and air defence systems, howitzers, drones and tanks. To date, NATO Allies have provided billions of euros’ worth of military equipment to Ukraine. Allied forces are also training Ukrainian troops to use this equipment. All of this is making a difference on the battlefield every day, helping Ukraine to uphold its right of self-defence, which is enshrined in the United Nations Charter."

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_192648.htm

Its kinda easy to get off wikipedia once in a while :) 190.26.168.50 (talk) 06:58, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

This article doesn't mention F-16s at all. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 07:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

And this is why this keeps getting rejected, "Individual NATO member countries", not NATO. No mention of one of the justifications for inclusion. You, people, need to make better arguments. Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

From memory, we have already rejected adding the sinister States under “Belligerents” over the presence of its embassy security staff, its military attaché to the ambassador, and its unarmed DoD staff auditing weapons deliveries. We will likely continue to reject the presence of a handful of special forces that we don’t know what they are doing but are not alleged to be armed or fighting. And don’t appear to even be the issue, because just about all of the discussion above is repetition of previous discussions.  —Michael Z. 16:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

See FAQ. Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Slatersteven Strawman argument. No one is arguing to include NATO as supporting. We are saying United States, UK - and perhaps Poland which has already provided F-16s. Qayqran (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Then wahy was a NATO document linked to? Slatersteven (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Around 70 states have given aid to Ukraine. None have provided any F-16. Ironic to see that argument accompanied by a critical analysis of someone else’s logic.  —Michael Z. 19:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

• Nothing has changed since previous RfCs because this is nothing new. The US special forces operated since the beginning of the war, see this NYT article from June 2022 [14]. (But even as the Biden administration has declared it will not deploy American troops to Ukraine, some C.I.A. personnel have continued to operate in the country secretly, mostly in the capital, Kyiv, directing much of the vast amounts of intelligence the United States is sharing with Ukrainian forces, according to current and former officials. At the same time, a few dozen commandos from other NATO countries, including Britain, France, Canada and Lithuania, also have been working inside Ukraine. What they do? According to publications, they mostly coordinate the flow of weapons. They are not doing any actual combat missions because there are Ukrainians for such tasks. My very best wishes (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Iranian Support

Iran is not a direct belligerent and should not be listed as one, instead it should be under 'supported by' like Belarus is GramCanMineAway (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

This has been extensively discussed particularly here (see also here where links to other discussions are given). Unless there is new information from sources likely to alter the consensus, simply re-raising this matter could be perceived as disruptive. Have you read the relevant previous discussions GramCanMineAway? Cinderella157 (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I see. I had just gone to the talk page and did not see it there and so assumed that the edit was made without anyone raising any issue. My apologies, I did not intend to be disruptive. I have now read those discussion posts, but admittedly, I had not at the time of making my 'Iranian Support' post. GramCanMineAway (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Adding NATO support for Ukraine

I propose to add NATO support for Ukraine. DitorWiki (talk) 12:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

See FAQ. Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

See FAQ. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

As the FAQ notes, there was previously no consensus, and the lack of consensus may change over time.

I would support adding United States at a minimum.

A citation that I have post-dating the prior non-consensus is an academic text from Routledge, China and Eurasian Powers in a Multipolar World 2.0: Security, Diplomacy, Economy, and Cyberspace (March 31, 2023) which states, "[T]he United States and the West have supported Kyiev by offering military equipment, accommodating its financial needs, providing intelligence, and imposing sanctions against Russia." p. 29.

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

Indeed, it is now more than a couple months, and the academic sourcing referring to US "support" in explicit terms has begun to percolate. JArthur1984 (talk) 02:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Do we normally list where belligerents get there supplies? Moxy- 03:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Not a germane question as you’ve phrased it. You’ve only noted one form of support mentioned by this RS, when there is also financial support, support in the form of sanctions, and the support via the provision of intelligence. JArthur1984 (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Do we normally list financial support , intelligence sharing or sanctions in an infobox anywhere? Moxy- 03:48, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, see for example Yemeni civil war (2014–present). JArthur1984 (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

You win: the USA supports Ukraine. But that’s the wrong argument because supporters still don’t belong under “Belligerents” for all

of the same reasons articulated before.  —Michael Z. 04:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

My support is not for listing US as a belligerent, but to list Ukraine as Supported by USA. JArthur1984 (talk) 12:27, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

What, you’re saying you want to add Ukraine to the infobox? The proponents of this change need to be more specific about the text changes they want if they’re not obvious.  —Michael Z. 16:56, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

No. Ukraine is already in the Infobox. My view is that the infobox should include "Supported by: United States" JArthur1984 (talk) 13:18, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

This is a valid argument. "The United States, our allies, and our partners worldwide are united in support of Ukraine in response to Russia’s premeditated, unprovoked, and unjustified war against Ukraine." Source: https://www.state.gov/u-s-security-cooperation-with-ukraine/ on April 4, 2023.

Specifically, "Since 2014, the United States has provided more than $37.8 billion in security assistance for training and equipment to help Ukraine preserve its territorial integrity, secure its borders, and improve interoperability with NATO." Further, "Pursuant to a delegation by the President, we have used the emergency Presidential Drawdown Authority on thirty-five occasions since August 2021 to provide Ukraine approximately $20.4 billion in military assistance directly from DoD stockpiles."

The nature of this support is distinctly different from that U.S. neutrality policy in 1930's where "The Neutrality Act of 1937 did contain one important concession to Roosevelt: belligerent nations were allowed, at the discretion of the President, to acquire any items except arms from the United States, so long as they immediately paid for such items and carried them on non-American ships—the so-called “cash-and-carry” provision. Since vital raw materials such as oil were not considered “implements of war,” the “cash-and-carry” clause would be quite valuable to whatever nation could make use of it." Source: https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/neutrality-acts

This to me says that the United States belongs in the infobox as "Supported by: United States" even if NATO does not. Litesand (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Which academic sourcing? Cinderella157 (talk) 05:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Scottish asked for a re-evaluation, and the situation of USA supporting Ukraine with blood and treasure remains the same at this time as it did in February of 2022 last year when the invasion began. Although Biden said that he will defend Taiwan against Chinese aggression with blood and treasure, Biden has significantly insisted that he will only provide treasure and supplies to Ukraine and 'no boots on the ground' to Ukraine. That's a significant contrast for Biden to make and its direct implications should be followed in the Infobox here. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Are we talking about NATO, or the USA,? Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

USA is a signatory of NATO. Same for NATO; the only appreciable change on this since last year is Finland, because if Finland is now attacked or invaded by Russia then NATO (and the USA) are open to send boots on the ground and planes in the air to defend Finland as needed. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

That is not an answer, A number of nations are part of NATO and have not sent arms, a number of nations have sent arms who are not part of NATO. So I ask again, are we discussing NATO or the USA? Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

It is a direct answer. NATO is a military alliance which includes the USA. Under the terms of this military alliance, the signatories decide which signatory nations will do what in response to any military challenges to that military alliance. This is foreign policy 101 in case you have not studied it in your readings on this topic. Since Ukraine is not a member of NATO, then it cannot invoke the conditions and responses of a military alliance which are specified by NATO. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Then we can't add it, as that implies nations who are not sending aid are. Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

OP suggested NATO with no analysis. My comment citing an RS was that I would support at least Supported by: United States. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

We do not discuss multiple ideas at once, it confuses matters. Discussion needs to be focused. Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment This is now digressing into WP:FORUM. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  Isn't there some kind of rule about certain kinds of discussions being theoretically restricted to EC editors? RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 03:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

support do to it is on other wars Von bismarck (talk) 15:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I applaud everyone very much for finally coming to compromise and listing NATO as supporting Ukraine 😊. No need to ever obfuscate the truth ✌️2603:9001:2B09:9A93:342D:6555:F6AC:F09B (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Ahh, those cheeky bastards seem to have taken that off. Shame on the editors, the moderators, whoever is responsible. 2603:9001:7500:3242:B4A3:53F8:5A73:F317 (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Personal attacks are not acceptable. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

meh, eat schitt luzer. 😙🧃 2603:9001:2B09:9A93:1046:8E99:D284:8224 (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

meh, eat schitt luzer. 😙🧃 2603:9001:2B09:9A93:1046:8E99:D284:8224 (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Personal attacks are not acceptable, plus, you're not funny neither you know how to write apparently. SnoopyBird (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Wasn’t trying to be funny. I merely told the person to “eat schitt”. 2603:9001:7500:3242:FCCF:E04F:C45C:73D9 (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

still, personal attacks are against the rules, plus, you really look like an 5 year old child. SnoopyBird (talk) 17:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

What’s so personal about telling someone to ‘eat schitt’? 2603:9001:7500:3242:706B:3A36:C7D6:EB67 (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, see wp:consensus. It should not have been added, as there is no consensus to add it. Slatersteven (talk) 09:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Well let’s get the consensus going then, what’s the holdup? 2603:9001:2B09:9A93:1046:8E99:D284:8224 (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

People saying no. Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

And why is that? Is it their state of denial? 2603:9001:7500:3242:FCCF:E04F:C45C:73D9 (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Or, is it their fear that once it becomes public, the Russian government, through this wikipage would actually use it as legitimacy to send the world into WWIII considering it’s UNDENIABLE that NATO is supporting Ukraine militarily AND economically? 2603:9001:7500:3242:FCCF:E04F:C45C:73D9 (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I doubt Russia needs Wikipedia as a casus belli. Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

As to why they have said not, read the copious reasons given every time this is raised. Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Got a link? Can’t find anything relating to that. Thanks 2603:9001:7500:3242:706B:3A36:C7D6:EB67 (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:CIR, WP:NOTDUMB --2001:8003:1C20:8C00:FDC4:8D69:16EF:5484 (talk) 09:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

As clearly reading the FAQ is so hard here is a link to one (from the FAQ) [[15]], I will not do it again. Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok then they should simply take off Belarus because it’s no point to place that there if they won’t do the same with NATO. 2603:9001:7500:3242:2D97:9981:7359:5A90 (talk) 01:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I assume you can give us this source you presumably have showing us the NATO country that has allowed attacks from within its borders, then? --2001:8003:1C20:8C00:5C2C:DDA9:7406:A789 (talk) 06:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Ukrainian spring counteroffensive

There are some Telegram reports on the liberation of the villages of Lobkove and Marfopil in Zaporizhzhia Oblast. Ukraine's counteroffensive may be close to starting. It might be useful to create a 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive article to facilitate things and include relevant information that might come up. I doubt it could be considered WP:CRYSTALBALL at this point when even classified American documents talk about an upcoming Ukrainian counteroffensive. So I incite someone to go create an article for it. Super Ψ Dro 22:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd say we should hold off on making a subsection and separate article for the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive until we have more verifiable sources that its happening other than some rumblings on telegram and social media (ie: and ISW report on the liberation of Lobkove and Marfopil), and a leaked document that might either be outdated, or have resulted in the entire offensive being drastically changed or even scrapped. Scu ba (talk) 02:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I presume the counteroffensive will happen at some stage. But creating the section now will require relying on sub-standard sources. I suggest waiting.Qayqran (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

RS is needed for this. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Nope. Latest RS says nothing significant as yet.

Consider where we would be if, hypothetically, we immediately updated things based on every unverified Telegram report. God. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Why are we going to rely on one source? Shouldn't we wait for multiple sources to report this activity? Jimmy Jimbo Johnson the V (talk) 04:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

• Frontline update: Ukraine’s counteroffensive has begun. Ukraine's 'Complex' Counteroffensive is Already Underway: Defense Minister. The time has come. Super Ψ Dro 18:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Beheadings

Several videos (videos themselves not in the link, so safe to click) have recently surfaced showing Russian forces beheading Ukrainian soldiers, drawing comparisons with ISIS. Since war crimes and treatment of POW's are mentioned in this article, these brutal acts may also be worth mentioning as examples of how Russia conducts itself in the war. Additional sources: The Guardian, Al Jazeera TylerBurden (talk) 03:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

It's mentioned in Treatment of prisoners of war in the Russian invasion of Ukraine and War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but I think we should probably briefly mention it in this article too, since it seems to be receiving a lot of coverage. HappyWith (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Unsure, while terrible, we can't have every crime Russia has committed. Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Of course we can't, but given the notability (specifically in regards to amount of media coverage), I say we put in 1 or 2 sentences as a passing mention within that section.

Something like "Throughout (whatever range of dates the videos were found), several videos of Russian forces beheading Ukrainian POW's came to light. Many reliable sources liken these beheadings to those preformed by ISIS."

The example I wrote lacks encyclopedic wording and form, but an altered version would be nice to include in a more general sense. Nice argument (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I wonder if an article could be made. In the style of Execution of Oleksandr Matsievskyi. Super Ψ Dro 18:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I think there's maybe enough coverage, but I'm not totally sure. There's WP:NODEADLINE, so we might want to wait another 24 hours for WP:GNG to become completely clear, but after that, I'm pretty sure an article could be made. HappyWith (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree with above about a brief mention, that is what I was thinking as well. The coverage has been immense. Detailed content related to it is of course better suited for the linked articles above, or possibly a new one. TylerBurden (talk) 01:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Note that there's now an article for one of the two videos: Summer 2022 beheading of a Ukrainian prisoner of war. Super Ψ Dro 17:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I probably won’t be contributing that much to it myself - the subject matter is just too horrifying and graphic - but I’ll try to clean up some of the material relating to government reactions, etc. HappyWith (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The article really needs a short section of a few paragraphs about Russia’s atrocity crimes: the persecution lists, the systematic organization of torture chambers for military and civilian victims, the mistreatment of PWs, the dissemination of videos of killings with sledge hammer, mutilation, or beheading, the kidnapping and reeducation of children, the incitement to genocide, etcetera. And about their investigation and prosecution.  —Michael Z. 01:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Recent news about an Ukrainian soldier beheaded by Russian soldiers are another evidence of Russian war crimes on the battlefield : [16], [17].---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

The article already mentions the Putin indictment for crimes, with a link to the main article. Should this precedent of waiting for indictments to be made, be observed for other infractions by other persons and other crimes from Russia? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Z Not it doesn't. Wikipedia is not an echo chamber for war propaganda. There are hundreds of examples of war crimes committed by both sides. Qayqran (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

"Echo chamber" is a bit odd: we are to represent what reliable secondary sources say, weighing the attention given to matters by those sources. It is pretty obvious that this has gained traction worldwide. Drmies (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Qayqran that is false. “Both sides are the same” is a main point in Russian war propaganda, but reliable sources tell us that Russian forces have committed the great majority of atrocity crimes and commit them systematically. Ukraine has not systematically set up torture chambers for Russian civilians and kidnapped tens of thousands of children from Russia for reeducation, for example. Please stop POV pushing immediately.  —Michael Z. 21:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Michael Your tone and attitude is concerning to say the least. You are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. I see you have had a hand in many of the gross policy violations which plague articles related to this conflict. Wikipedia is not a place for political propaganda. We should stick strictly to policy and particularly WP:NPOV. If you cannot, it is not the place for you. You will not win the Ukraine war by edit warring on Wikipedia. You will, however, contribute to discrediting and damaging the project's reputation.Qayqran (talk) 22:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@MichaelAnd for your information, yes. Pro-Kiev forces have set up torture chambers for Russians, pro-Russian forces. They have also raped and killed woman and children in the Donbass and this is perfectly provable with reliable sources - both Western and Ukrainian. The question is that it doesn't matter in the context of this article. This article is not the place to engage in propaganda and communication warfare. The objective should always be to seek consensus and present information out there in the most neutral and reliable way possible. If you are not here to do this, if you do not operate under this premise, you should not be here at all. Qayqran (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I think you should either immediately drop the Russian propagandistic narrative or stop talking altogether. Super Ψ Dro 22:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Qayqran's behaviour is being quite concerning. Not sure what do they attempt with this out of nowhere hostility towards Michael. Super Ψ Dro 22:22, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not hostile towards any particular editor. I'm opposed to what is clearly an open breach of WP:NOTHERE which seems to plague articles directly or indirectly related to the Ukraine conflict. And behind many of the most flagrant violations I do notice Michael's hand.Qayqran (talk) 22:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Qayqran, what do you have, like 80 edits and maybe a handful of un-reverted article edits? You showed up and created a user page with a fake description having nothing to do with your planned activities, and by edit no. 7 you were pushing your POV by trying to wipe an important article from the record. You’re obviously on a mission to “fix” Wikipedia because it doesn’t conform to your worldview. Stop your disruption.  —Michael Z. 03:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

"I'm opposed to what is clearly an open breach of WP:NOTHERE", says an account that was created only a month ago and edits exclusively in support of rotting autocracies and their sympathizers. Very funny. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 09:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Well only more reliable references have reported on the beheadings since this was posted, and other than a new editor here having a meltdown accusing administrators of being WP:NOTHERE and throwing whataboutism all over the place I do not see any serious resistance to a brief mention. It should be implemented reflecting what the references say. TylerBurden (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I would observe that the various news sources reporting on these videos are near universally circumspect in their reporting, using purported or similar. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

The beheading video has also been condemned by Russian authorities and an investigation is underway. Anyhow, I don't understand editors here arguing "We should include a paragraph on the beheading as an example of how EVIL Russia is since this is TYPICAL Russian behavior. By the way, mentioning anyone else is doing anything bad except Russia is Russian propaganda and a breach of NPOV. Stop engaging in EVIL Russian propaganda!". Literally. Its this bad. And there is no warnings, no supervision, no control. Its the "Slava Ukraina" exception to WP:NOTHERE. The perfect example is this insane article Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Qayqran (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

There are several reasons to the phenomenon you describe. Firstly, Russia has committed far more crimes than Ukraine. Secondly, Ukrainian crimes have... not sure how to say this. Let's just remember the Amnesty International report on Ukrainian human shields. I don't know how much truth or falsity did it have but Amnesty International received a lot of backlash after it. Finally, Western sources are biased towards Ukraine and against Russia due to the political situation, and they happen to be the best quality sources. Almost everything that comes from Russian media about the war is pure garbage.

None of this is within Wikipedia's reach. Super Ψ Dro 21:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

you got any source about the case having been condemned by Russian authorities? by the way, this really seems like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT case, you are simply whining about stuff, plus a lot of strawman fallacy to unpack here, you are exaggerating A LOT, no one here is saying any of the things you said we are, Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine also has none of the errors you claim it has.

Oh, i have noticed you REALLY like to edit The Grayzone, Max Blumenthal, Holodomor denial, Holodomor genocide question, etc. these pages have been targeted by pro-Russian trolls for a long time, and, by the way you edit and the amount of times you edited the same pages, really raises some questions (plus the age of your account and the content of your edits), could you care to explain?SnoopyBird (talk) 03:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

More misrepresentation. Russian authorities did not condemn this. They only cast doubt on it implying it may be fake. Meanwhile Wagner propaganda tried to normalize it.[18]

There are two different beheadings by Russians currently in the news.[19] There was another case in August.[20] This is in addition to Wagner openly disseminating video of murders conducted with sledgehammer blows to the head, Russians castrating and murdering a Ukrainian PW, and literally hundreds of people killed in Russian torture chambers and civilians murdered by Russian forces in Bucha, Izium, and elsewhere (and another video of Wagner members torturing to death and dismembering a man for kicks in Syria).

Russian authorities have not condemned any of these crimes. They have not published results of any investigations. Their state media has simultaneously denied, excused, normalized, incited, and glorified them. We have articles about this subject: Atrocity crimes during the Russo-Ukrainian War.

It warrants a few paragraphs in the main article.  —Michael Z. 14:38, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Russian authorities did condemn it. They literally described it as "awful" which is an unambiguous condemnation. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/4/12/ukraine-says-russia-worse-than-isis-after-beheading-video https://www.france24.com/en/video/20230412-war-in-ukraine-video-of-alleged-ukrainian-pow-beheading-surfaces-online. So again user_talk:Mzajac it is you who are misrepresenting facts. Qayqran (talk) 13:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Your words. Sources tell us Ukraine condemned the Russian perpetrators, and some governments condemned them pending verification. The Kremlin merely called the video “awful” and deflected responsibility in preparation for either ignoring it, denying it, blaming the victims, saying they deserved it, exonerating it, and blaming Ukrainians/EU/CIA/Masons as it did for MH17, Bucha, genocidal deportation of children, and all of its other crimes. If you’re not aware, Wagner-associated media acting for Russia are already doing so.  —Michael Z. 16:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this means in terms of not waiting for actual outcomes to be published for both Bucha, as well as for the indictment for arrest against Putin; wouldn't it be proper to wait for the RS regarding progress and actual outcomes on these? (Separately, I'm not quite sure why "Z" is being used as a greeting and salutation for Michael's account in the above discussion, since this is the Russian emblem being used to denote tanks and troops invading Ukraine since last year; is this some private joke that not all of the editors here know about?) ErnestKrause (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Wait for what before we write what? We already have substantial subordinate articles for the Bucha massacre, Child abductions in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the consequent ICC arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova. They are all subjects part of this one. They and related should be accessible from this one in an organized fashion according to due weight.  —Michael Z. 15:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

More actual indictments to start with would be a significant addition to answer your question. I'm the one who added the Putin indictment in this main article and I'm seeing no difficulty if someone wants to add a link to it to the Wikipedia articles you just mentioned. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually, its already linked in the lede. And what is the backstory to someone else calling you 'Z' on this Talk page when no one else seems to call you 'Z' (in newspapers, its used as the symbol of the Russian invasion of Ukraine)? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

It's his family name, Zajac. Look at his real username (User:Mzajac) rather than the stuff in the signature. He's been using it for years (e.g. see [21] from 2011). 93.72.49.123 (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Leak of US govt docs

This article from Reuters provides estimated casualties per recently-leaked documents from the Defense Intelligence Agency:

“ According to an assessment collated by the U.S. Defence Intelligence Agency, Russia has suffered 189,500-223,000 total casualties, including 35,500-43,000 killed in action and 154,000-180,000 wounded.

Ukraine has suffered 124,500-131,000 total casualties, including 15,500-17,500 killed in action and 109,000-113,500 wounded in action, according to the document entitled "Russia/Ukraine - Assessed Combat Sustainability and Attrition."

”

Probably worth including this info in this Wikipedia article. Mere numbers cannot fully capture the magnitude of this war’s devastation, but they can begin to. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I've seen this article; should editors wait for some traction on this breaking news before adding it into the main article here? ErnestKrause (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

As I recall there are claims at least of these documents have been doctored. Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The doctored images have already been called out, and the number of casualties that were listed above by @Anythingyouwant are the original numbers in the leaks. The only major doctored image was the one swapping Russian losses with Ukrainian losses. So we know which files were doctored and which ones weren't. As for @ErnestKrause's question, the leaks have already been mentioned in multiple articles already, so I would say Anythingyouwant's request is viable. As for Ukraine's official claims, I believe we should use the original Minusrus website, is that is where all of the Ukrainian sources like the Kyiv Independent and Ukrainska Pravda are getting their numbers, as well as the Ukrainian General Staff's official Twitter account. Vivaporius (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that this is at Snowden level of concern? I've haven't seen a large scale political response to this leak; possibly the news weeklies should have a chance to respond in the press to assess better the relative impact of this? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Ref7 is a total, blatant falsification

Numbers (50,000 of any sort, 300,000 in relation to mobilised) and words (Wagner, mercenaries, mobilised) supposedly "cited" by this reference do not exist there are at all.

It's been used to "source" figures in the infobox for multiple months and yet nobody bothered to verify it. Go and verify it yourself. Because it's just a lie, as the source (CIA article: https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/russia/#military-and-security) says nothing of this sort at all.

I've pointed this fact already back in February, but instead of the hoax being removed, a part of my comment was removed as "unconstructive" and the rest was entirely ignored.

Also someone should verify all the other references, because I verified only one and yet found it a 100% hoax (you should also find out who did it). 94.254.153.61 (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is your attitude of assuming bad faith that is leading us to ignore you. The issue you are attempting to address seems to be a simple misinterpretation of the source, and I will resolve it shortly. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually it's no longer there, even if it was just earlier today when I did check again, and now I can't even find it anywhere in the article history (where it's the same as right now even in January). Extremely strange. It was claiming "300,000 (including mobilised)" and "50,000 Wagner mercenaries" separately in the infobox, with this ref (diffeent than the Ref7 now) falsely used twice, and I didn't imagine it. So Im totally perplexed what the hell even happened there but at least it's not longer an issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.254.153.61 (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Aaaand I figured out now, the infobox is edited separately and you did fix it lol: [22] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.254.153.61 (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Infobox still very misleading

But there's still problem since the infobox does not mention the LNR-DNR so-called "separatist" forces (now officially added to the Russian military and security forces after the annexation, and extremely heavily conscripting in their territories all the time since early February 2022), assorted mercenary and volunteer forces (there are various, including militias), newly recruited additional contract soldiers/policemen (and they do use police forces heavily, including on frontlines), new normal conscripts (normal annual drafting of young men), and so on, making ""In February 2023:
+ 200,000 newly mobilised soldiers" completely misleading as if it were the only additions. You should find and use only any estimates of the total strenght, as you do for the Ukrainian side ("July 2022 total strength:
up to 700,000"), or else just write something like "Current strenght: Unknown" or simply nothing (but you should still add some estimate of the "sparatist" armies and police from at least Feb 22, when there were tens of thousands of them already even before the mobilisation and just their standing forces - and by mobilisation I mean their total mobilisation of almost entire adult male population that started in early Feb 22). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.254.153.61 (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

It would be of use if you could write these long comments in short sentences. One of your sentences appears to be over 60 words long. Try to keep the sentences under 10 words per sentence or other editors are likely not to try to read them. Also, you might try to sign your edits. You appear to be saying that you are displeased about something in the Infobox about LNR. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Be specific about request wording changes.

The infobox doesn’t list anything under units involved, so none of those Russian organizations belong there. (“DLNR” were under overall control of Russia since May 2014.)

But “In February 2023: + 200,000 newly mobilised soldiers” does seem inadequate. I understand about 300k were openly mobilized, and maybe 200k or more stealth mobilization: including volunteers, reservists, PMCs, 3rd Army Corps, convicts, illegal recruitment in Ukraine, and most recently by corporations. There must be sources with usable estimates.  —Michael Z. 15:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

This was a front page story in the New York Times. If the wording can be improved then the New York Times account should be followed. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

NYT isn’t wrong, but it doesn’t try or claim to be a comprehensive figure of Russian total strength, and so we lack an estimated Russian total strength. Russia has a lot of forces in Ukraine in addition to newly mobilized soldiers.  —Michael Z. 16:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Restructuring

I don't feel exactly comfortable making a large change to the structure of the article, but I feel like the Dontesk front should be its own separate subsection in the invasion section, instead of being a subsection to the Russian annexation subsection. In fact I feel like the same could be said for the Kherson counter offensive. Would anyone support a change like this? Scu ba (talk) 02:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. I agree. --Qayqran (talk) 19:23, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Until there is resolution in Bahkmut, its seems unlikely that the restructuring is needed at this time. The front page of The New York Times today is stating that Ukraine military supplies are dwindling and that Bahkmut's fortune appears more bleak now at this time. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Im not saying Bahkmut should get its own subsection in the invasion section, but rather a subsection in a subsection about the Dontesk Front. Scu ba (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd prefer to group Donetsk and Luhansk in the invasion subsection if it goes through as the 2 fronts are closely linked. FusionSub (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I've went ahead and made the changes, if for whatever reason its agreed that this wasn't the right move feel free to revert the edits Scu ba (talk) 03:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause, here is where you can discuss how the restructuring doesn't reflect "the real world", something you're supposed to do on a contentious article like this instead of just taking it upon yourself to make the changes. Scu ba (talk) 01:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Scu ba, your proposed changes were reverted by ErnestKrause but you have reinstated these with no difference (see here). Scuba, you said feel free to revert the edits and that is what has happened. Yes, there is a reasonable obligation for the parties (both) to discuss the edits but simply restoring them without discussion or amendment can be seen as disruptive. I would suggest self-reverting this edit. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

go ahead Scu ba (talk) 02:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

This section restructuring really does not match with real world events. Bakhmut is still unresolved. When Bahkmut is resolved then there might be updates. Talk page is needed for this. It can all be revisited when Bahkmut is brought to some resolution which The New York Times says may be soon. Discussion of changes to TOC should be done at that time. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Again I don't know what you mean by "does not match with real world events" what part of the Bahkmut section is incorrect? Scu ba (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

For myself and others, I think that 'real world' needs to refer to the siege at Bakhmut with daily casualties on both sides until the battle is completed. Once its completed, then it will be more clear if Russia has new objectives for massing troops for new targets. That would then give the best indication of what direction the TOC might take for a realistic approach to understanding the invasion. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

So in your 'real world' battles don't happen until they're over and done with? The battle of Bahkmut is an ongoing engagement, as was every other entry in the invasion section of this article. They're updated as it happens, when the battle is over they're trimmed down, but until then all relevant information should be present. Scu ba (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I don’t understand Ernest’s argument either. Why would the battle not being over yet prevent us from treating this part of the war as a separate “phase”? HappyWith (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Since April 2022 this article has followed the Fall of Mariupol followed by the fall of other cities as the outline of this article. That is the way military articles are generally written; which major cities were taken and which were lost. If you are suggesting something better then you can put it forward. At this moment, the Fall of Bahkmut appears to be the most prominent new headline for the last month in the international press. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Honestly, I think it would be best to just use what reliable sources consider to be "new phases" rather than using our own analyses. I'll see if I can find sources on that topic. HappyWith (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm gonna make a new talk section for this, since my proposal is actually a little different from Scuba's. HappyWith (talk) 14:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

New thread started below. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

New subsection proposal: "Winter stalemate and Russian Donetsk push"

Following up on my comments in § Restructuring, I propose that we make a new subheader under "Invasion" titled along the lines of "Winter stalemate and Russian Donetsk push (12 November 2022 - present)", which covers the events in that time. I think this has clearly been a new "stage" of the war separate from the previous "stage" that we've labeled "Russian annexations and Ukrainian counterattacks" in the article: Over the past few months, the pacing and intensity of the fighting have changed significantly, with fighting shifting towards Bakhmut, the Svatove-Kreminna line, and Vuhledar and the failed Russian "counteroffensive" that fizzled out in Luhansk. But it's not just my analysis; Here are some sources that delineate this as a different "phase":

• South China Morning Post: "Ukraine war enters new phase with first winter since Russia’s invasion"
• New York Times: "With a weather-enforced pause in major military movements, the war will enter a new phase.", "the coming winter is expected to bring a slowdown in military advances on both sides."
• Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty: "Russia's withdrawal from the southeastern city of Kherson marks another victory for Kyiv as the front lines on the battlefield continue to be redrawn. But as the fighting shifts into a new phase with winter looming, what's next for the nearly nine-month war?", "[During the winter, the war] will be fought at a different tempo…and it provides political and military leaders an opportunity to plan for what is likely to be a brutal and bloody year ahead."

We already have a timeline subarticle covering the scope for this "phase" at Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (12 November 2022 – present). I propose we use this article's scope for now. The specific day could be adjusted later, but I think this is clearly a different stage of the war that should be treated as one - it makes more sense to the reader. My proposed title is very clunky, and obviously should be tweaked a bit, but I think something along those lines would be good. HappyWith (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree with the general idea. TylerBurden (talk) 16:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Much more concise than what I was trying to propose earlier. Scu ba (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

There should be such a section but sources need to be polled and title to be chosen accordingly. Manyareasexpert (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The news headlines for the past month in the international press has been Bahkmut, Bahkmut, Bahkmut. It would make sense to wait for the outcome which seems to be likely to take place within 2 weeks. Second important news appears to be that USA is sending several dozen Abrams tanks to Ukraine in the next few weeks which could be significant. If you are both pressing for a new 'phase' at this time, then I'm thinking that one could be made to single out the Battle of Bahkmut in progress now, if you both cannot wait for it to be resolved. Could we wait one week, and then it might make more sense to start a new 'phase' for the on-going Battle of Bahkmut. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Second important news appears to be that USA is sending several dozen Abrams tanks to Ukraine
Source? Only found it on NYP which is not very reliable. Manyareasexpert (talk) 21:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Why would it make sense to wait for an outcome? The sources I listed are already calling it a new phase, and have been for months. Just because a battle is ongoing doesn't make it not notable. HappyWith (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

This is the NYTimes article on the Abrams from 2 days ago here: [23]. Separately, the name which you have suggested above, I'm not sure would work for this. Presently the new animation map in the article shows what appears to be Russia making deep entrenchments in its occupied territory, and Ukraine reports are that they lack sufficient military supplies to mount any Spring counteroffensive. That leaves the Battle of Bahkmut as the center of your claim. Could you suggest a new name for the new section you are proposing, as well as the preliminary TOC for its starting sections. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

My idea of what the section would conceptually cover would be kinda how the timeline article describes it: as a "Second stalemate", or something along those lines. This parallels in many ways the campaigns of summer 2022, where Russia did these grinding, slow advances at large costs, and Ukraine tried to minimize losses while holding out for Western supplies. I've had a bit of trouble coming up with good wording, but honestly it doesn't have to be perfect when we put it in - it'll be improved over time with input from other editors, per Cunningham's Law. "Winter slowdown and continued Russian offensives", or something along those lines is what I'm thinking of.

For the subsections, a possible organization could be:

• "Bakhmut axis" - covering Bakhmut, Soledar, and how the rising prominence of the Wagner Group is tied in with that. Avdiivka could also be in here, or maybe somewhere else - I haven't been following that battle as closely.
• "Svatove-Kreminna axis" - covering the Battle of the Svatove-Kreminna line
• "Zaporizhzhia front" - covering the disastrous assaults on Vuhledar and the skirmishes in Orikhiv and the other frontline villages that Ukraine has hinted may form the beginning to a counteroffensive.
• "Infrastructure attacks"(?) - These seem to have been covered a lot, even though they're not part of the actual combat. They could maybe be covered, discussing the strategy and different analyst's takes on whether it has been effective or not

Again, I totally welcome suggestions from other editors, as I am probably forgetting something. HappyWith (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Btw, I think we have pretty clear consensus here to add this section. I'm gonna make the preliminary edits, but others can feel free to adjust things a ton. HappyWith (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree Parham wiki (talk) 17:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Sources describe this as a series of failed Russian offensives, not a “stalemate,” with the main one at Bakhmut, significant efforts at Vuhledar and Avdiivka, and others on Luhansk oblast’s Kupiansk–Svatove–Kreminna line. See, for example, the analyses by the ISW.[24] Stalemate is not a useful term because it implies nothing is happening, omits who is making what efforts and whether they are successful or not.  —Michael Z. 21:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

That's true. If you can think of a specific better terminology to use in the section title, feel free to replace "stalemate" with that. HappyWith (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

In military terms, a stalemate does not imply that nothing happened but that there was not substantial change in the status quo. Both the Western Front (World War I) from 1915 - 1917 and the Gallipoli campaign are often described as a stalemate despite the numerous battles (mainly by the Allied powers) to break the stalemate. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

ErnestKrause, you have changed the heading to your preferred version here with the edit summary: Edit by agreement with Michael. See Talk page. No further reverts without consensus on Talk following Wikipedia policy. [emphasis added] Your amendment has been challenged. There is no WP:P&G that makes your edit sacrosanct. Rather, the WP:ONUS rests with you. The is no explicit agreement with Michael and, even if there was, nobody died and gave Michael a supervote. I suggest you stop trying to WP:BLUDGEON the process. Entrenchment does mean immobility - to dig-in. It is quite reasonable to argue that it is a worse description than stalemate and that Michael's perception in opposing stalemate is incorrect. The original heading, Winter stalemate and continued Russian assaults [emphasis added], resolves that the stalemate was not a period of inactivity. This discussion is still ongoing. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Michael's words were fairly plain and I'm in agreement with Michael on this: "Sources describe this as a series of failed Russian offensives, not a “stalemate,” with the main one at Bakhmut". Agreement with Michael on this. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:06, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide some examples of how sources call it that? Rather than arguing over definitions, I think it would be most productive to just see how RS describe this phase and go with the most common descriptors. HappyWith (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

This search shows that, while some sources would predict a stalemate, others are referring to the existence of a stalemate. As I said above, stalemate does not mean inactivity and no attempts to break it. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

TASS

@Osterluzei Please stop adding TASS citations to the article. If you read my edit summary, you would see that I was citing WP:TASS, which explains that TASS is a Russian state propaganda outlet that is completely unfit for use in Wikipedia. HappyWith (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Involved in editing for over 10 years. Do not delete legal citations from Russian-based sources as they are accepted by the wikipedia community. Thanks. Neutrality. Osterluzei (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about? If you read the policy I linked - which you keep blindly blanking from the talk page - you'll learn "In a 2022 RfC, editors achieved a strong consensus that TASS is a biased source with respect to topics in which the Russian government may have an interest and that the source is generally unreliable for providing contentious facts in that context." This is very clearly not a situation where we can use that source. HappyWith (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I should note that @Osterluzei has also repeatedly blanked my comments right here, immediately landing them at WP:AN3 in like ten minutes after crossing WP:3RR HappyWith (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Map in Chinese

Why is the main map (that you can click on) mostly in Chinese on an English Wiki? 84.10.208.142 (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not. I think your browser's preferred language is Chinese, so the image is automatically translating itself to match your settings. HappyWith (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Changing Humanitarian impact to Impact

In my opinion, other impact of the invasion (economic, environmental, etc.) should be mentioned. Parham wiki (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

The main article linked for this is the main source of this discussion. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't understand what you meant. Parham wiki (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The main Wikipedia article for this is here: Humanitarian impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Update: A section covering the environmental impact has been added. HappyWith (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Siege definition

A siege is a military blockade of a city, or fortress, with the intent of conquering by attrition, or a well-prepared assault. This derives from Latin: sedere, lit. 'to sit'. Siege warfare is a form of constant, low-intensity conflict characterized by one party holding a strong, static, defensive position. Consequently, an opportunity for negotiation between combatants is common, as proximity and fluctuating advantage can encourage diplomacy. A siege can be a partial siege or a full siege. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Why'd you put this here? 165.234.101.97 (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Ernest is referring to disputes over whether we should call it the "Siege of Bakhmut" or "Battle of Bakhmut" in the subsection header for the most recent "phase" of the war. HappyWith (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Yet the name of the article is "Battle of Bakhmut", not "Siege of Bakhmut". Why use this terminology that is unfamiliar to the reader? HappyWith (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

During the last few weeks, the international press has started to speak of Bakhmut as on its last legs with a collapse being seen as immanent. The final stages of a siege and the fall of Bakhmut, similar to Mariupol last year, has been the preference for describing this in the international press. Michael did not like to use of the word 'siege' which he seems to see as worse than 'stalemate', which he also dislikes. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Have the international press consistently called it a "siege", though? If not, this would be original research on your part. HappyWith (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Siege is not worse, it’s just wrong in this case. Bakhmut was never surrounded or successfully blockaded. It wasn’t successfully cut off to besiege its occupants and force them to surrender. Russian flanking manoeuvres have so far failed to create a siege.

The Russian operation remains an offensive, assault, advance, etcetera, not a siege.

• M–W: “blockade”[25]
• Collins: “surround a place”[26]
• Random House (dictionary.com) “surrounding . . . as to isolate it”[27]
• ODE: “surround . . . cutting off essential supplies”

I guess “partial siege” isn’t wrong: file it under “unhelpful,” right after partial pregnancy. Please don’t use technical vocabulary informally or imprecisely in articles on the respective subject. —Michael Z. 16:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The NYTimes disagrees with you here: [28]. Global News disagrees with you here [29]. Chr Science Monitor disagrees with you here: [30]. Your reading of what siege means in the 21st century appears incongruous with them. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

One sentence you’re citing for writing style includes the spelling Ukranian. Please try a bit harder. Anyway, not fair to use text only appearing in an article head or subhead: these are typically written by editors without consulting the writers.

I would say the NYT Kramer story is using the phrase “brutal siege” informally for its effect; do you want to move the article to Brutal siege of Bakhmut? I don’t believe this is appropriate for the encyclopedia, just as “seesaw fighting on the city’s artillery-blasted streets,” “Russia’s signature tactic has been to send waves of assaults by small units that suffer fearful losses,” or "a stony-faced Mr. Shoigu” might not be.  —Michael Z. 23:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

First sentence

It doesn't sound right. I've corrected the tense but 'occupied' should be removed IMO. Occupy means more than just being on someone else's land - it means to settle down and make a home of it. Initially I think Russia's intent was to get a Ukrainian surrender, the occupying part came later with the annexations. In any case 'to invade and occupy' sounds a bit awkward, like pushing a point. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Russian invaded and (militarily) occupied parts of Ukraine. They left soldiers in the territory they conquered and advanced from to maintain control over it. That's an occupation. Russia's initial military objective is wholly irrelevant, unless you want to make the Russian government's case that it just sent soldiers through Ukrainian lands in a special military operation and did not invade or occupy territory at the start whatsoever. Yue🌙 20:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The Russians invaded with the intention of imposing régime change by force. They immediately imposed a military-civilian occupation régime on Ukrainians everywhere they could (they spearheaded invasion forces with riot troops for this purpose). They’ve occupied territories for fourteen months now. They’ve declared parts of them Russia. Not saying it would be flagrantly pushing a point.  —Michael Z. 23:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Kremlin drone attack

Should we include the drone attack on the Kremlin in this article? 165.234.101.97 (talk) 13:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Why? Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

No, this article isn't a news site for domestic Russian issues, regardless of how much Russia screams that it was Zelenskyy personally piloting the drone. TylerBurden (talk) 01:08, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Of course. This line sums it up. 2A02:AB04:2C2:E300:E00C:7AD8:6059:3E11 (talk) 06:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Domestic issues? Conspiracy theory much? Like how "Russia blew up its own pipelines"? 2A02:A463:2D47:1:FD5A:9B58:42AF:28B5 (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

This isn't a forum for your opinions, the incident has no place on this article, which is about Russia invading Ukraine, not drones blowing up in the Kremlin. TylerBurden (talk) 00:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Russia said it’s part of the war, and numerous analysts believe that it was likely a Russian false flag connected to the war. It is part of the subject, but is it significant enough to include in this almost-main article? First it should be added to 2022–2023 Western Russia attacks and 2022–2023 Russian mystery fires.  —Michael Z. 03:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

There is so much speculation surrounding the topic that it would be difficult to get anything solid into this specific article I feel, though it certainly belongs somewhere, perhaps in the articles you linked, unless something concrete is uncovered about the attacks I don't think this is the place for it. TylerBurden (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

It probably isn't a big enough deal to go into the main article, so IMO the whole discuss is moot. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 03:22, 9 May 2023 (UTC) RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 03:22, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Probably shouldn't add it. It's almost irrelevant to this article (excluding Russia blaming it on Ukraine). The only real way I could see this being added is if Russia decides to use this as an excuse to start something big, and even then it will probably just be a line in passing due to the lack of info we have about it right now. Nice argument (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 May 2023

To make a link about the United Nations. PlaneCrashKing1264 (talk) 14:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

"Russian invasion of Ukraine"

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

---

Since there is a risk that "Russian invasion of Ukraine" could be considered to be pushing an anti-Russian point of view, might not 'Russian/Ukrainian conflict' seem more to the point/less problematic? For might not any impression what Wikipedia is supporting a pro-US undermine it as a world-wide media outlet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.158 (talk) 07:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

See United States invasion of Panama and United States invasion of Grenada, that are so named to be, in fact, factual. This isn't about being pro-US, it's about being factual and using the same language that sources use. There is no care for being "less problematic", only for being accurate Galebazz (talk) 08:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

No, as Russia invaded Ukraine. That is the objective fact of the matter, and is the most neutral description of the event. There is another article in Russo-Ukrainian War that discusses the broader conflict, however. — Czello ^(music) 08:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

What planet do you live on where Russia didn't invade Ukraine? An armed force entering a country with the intent to subjugate or occupy it is the literal definition of an invasion, to call it anything else would be anything but neutral. TylerBurden (talk) 11:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe, but as Russia did invade it seems to me we should ignore such silliness. Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I can show you many articles that describe invasion or occupation by the United States that intend to be factual . United States occupation of Nicaragua, 2003 invasion of Iraq, Bay of Pigs Invasion, United States occupation of Haiti, etc. We can also find articles like Russian conquest of Siberia, Russian conquest of Central Asia, Russian invasion of Manchuria, Russian invasion of East Prussia (1914), Russian invasion of Afghanistan. The language is neutral; the only difference is that the timing of these events happen to be contemporary. 70.22.139.70 (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Russia has invaded Ukraine. I don't understand how stating this is controversial when it's a simple statement of fact. I just find it incredibly bizarre to describe this as pro-US, when this has nothing to do with the US. Just baffled by this proposal. BeŻet (talk) 10:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Whatever risk is at an acceptable level.  —Michael Z. 23:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

No, it would not. This is getting tiresome, actually. HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

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

Foreign Involvement Single Source False Claims

There is a claim on the main page of this article under "Foreign Involvement," of course claiming increased CIA/SOF presence in Ukraine, but also falsely claiming the article they link to says those forces are aiding Ukrainian forces. Here is the quote on Wikipedia: "...the United States has significantly increased the secret involvement of special operations military and CIA operatives in support of Ukrainian forces since the beginning of the invasion." Now here's the Intercept quote (https://theintercept.com/2022/10/05/russia-ukraine-putin-cia/, from *James Risen & Ken Klippenstein* mind you, "There is a much larger presence of both CIA and U.S. special operations personnel and resources in Ukraine than there were at the time of the Russian invasion in February, several current and former intelligence officials told The Intercept." There is no indication that those CIA/SOF personnel, assuming this Intercept reporting to be accurate , are assisting Ukrainian forces. In fact, it's been extensively reported those SOF personnel are providing security for the US embassy in Kyiv. The CIA is an intelligence gathering organization first and foremost, so why exactly is this Wikipedia article falsely claiming and emphasizing alleged US intelligence community involvement in the *fighting* in Ukraine? So much inherent bias. There is other reporting detailing extensive European security service involvement on Russian territory, but that is for some reason not emphasized... 2600:1700:FC80:1CC0:CFB:FC01:51:BF7D (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Yep. Thanks for catching this. I’m gonna look into it more carefully later, but I’ll remove the most egregious parts now. HappyWith (talk) 01:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Add Iran as supporter of Russia!

Iran really has to be added as a supporter of Russia.There are plenty of sources for this including iranian military personell on ukrainian soil, drone deliveries, munitions deliveries and so on. I am not a wikipedian, so I dont have the knpwledge of how to add this, but someone has to do so. 2A02:1406:62:5816:E021:CC11:7CA3:3625 (talk) 22:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I’ve argued for this in the past, but changed my mind. Iran is not a belligerent in this war. It is not at war with Ukraine. There is no invasion or attacks into Ukraine from Iran’s territory.  —Michael Z. 23:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, while that is true, i believe there is plenty of precedent on other wikipedia articles which would make it viable to place Iran as a supporter alongside Belarus. Just like the Americans have been listed as supporters in plenty of conflicts where there were no american boots on the ground. 2A02:1406:62:5816:1DE:9BFD:F86A:4B78 (talk) 12:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

See talk the archives, no new arguments have been made, so the old objections remain. Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

The realities in Russia’s war in Ukraine show that those precedents are wrong. Supporters that aren’t belligerents cannot with integrity be listed under the “Belligerents” heading. The correct action is to consider adding a separate “Supporters” row to the infobox, in an appropriate forum.  —Michael Z. 13:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

It is Ukraine that is involved. Cwater1 (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, they can, and they have been before. The reason that arms suppliers are lumped under the heading "Supported by:" or "Arms Suppliers:" is to specify that they're supporting one side with supplies of various sorts, rather than actively contributing troops. NATO and Iran and other arms suppliers are not active belligerents in the war, but they are arms suppliers, and that is specified. Israel and Russia are not said to have had boots on the ground during the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, but they are shown to have supported their own sides in the conflict, and that is detailed in the infobox. Same with Angola and the First Congo War and the Tigray War- the foreign actors shown to have supported some side in those wars with weaponry and other stuff did not have soldiers on the ground, fighting for one side, but they gave aid to one side. There's an entire article about Iranian support for Russia and Iranian military advisors helping in the operation of loitering munitions for the Russians; surely it would not be harmful or inaccurate to add Iran to the "Supporting Russia" camp in the infobox. Presidentofyes12 (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

It would be a clear failure to adhere to NPOV to name 1 arms supplier in the infobox and ignore the remaining 50. It is entirely undesirable to have that many items listed in the infobox, so no arms suppliers are listed. They don't need to be anyway, because they aren't party to the conflict. The template documentation also advocates against listing more than the 3-4 most significant participants on either side of the conflict, suggesting that other involvement be mentioned in prose. There is a section of the article dedicated to that: 'Foreign involvement'. Further, NATO is not an arms supplier in this conflict. Individual member states are suppliers, as are some states that are not in the organization. NATO should not be listed. The rest is WP:OTHERCONTENT, upon which an argument should not hinge. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying we shouldn't list supporters of Ukraine in the infobox- we should. It'd make sense to add a collapsible list of arms suppliers to Ukraine and Russia, similar to what is done in the Prelude to the Russian invasion of Ukraine page. But to not list arms suppliers in the infobox when there are so many cases (that I already went through) in which it'd make sense to add them to the infobox doesn't make sense- when you are detailing their involvement to be limited to arms supplies, it does not, at all, imply that they are directly involved belligerents with soldiers on the ground- rather, it implies that they are supplying arms to one side. So Iran should be listed as an arms supplier, and nations that are sending considerable amounts of aid to Ukraine should also be listed as arms suppliers. Presidentofyes12 (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

As the objection is "how big it will be" what we call it does not address that. a list of 100 countries is a list of 100 countries calling it "support" or "arms suppliers" change that. Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Picture with missing windows

"Damage to a residential building in Zaporizhzhia following an airstrike on 9 October 2022. Putin has been labeled a war criminal by international experts. National Police of Ukraine - https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=434181438851892&set=pcb.434184062184963 (the whole post) 9-storey residential building in Zaporizhzhia after Russian rocket attack on the city in the night on 9 October 2022" - there is no know weapon who would be able to strip a large building of all windows (including frames) - even not a nuclear. Sorry this seems to be a standard demolition of an old building ... And what is a "international expert" ? (did ALL international experts label Putin as a war criminal ? How many: less than 50% - or a qualified minority ?) I am against any violence - but also against any propaganda and misuse of Wikipedia for hybrid warfare :( 188.167.251.60 (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

You are not qualified to make judgments about what can or cannot be done to a building by an explosion, that would be WP:OR. Considering that the only edit you have made on Wikipedia is this comment, I'm pretty sure the person trying to conduct hybrid warfare is yourself, just saying. Galebazz (talk) 08:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Your statement is silly, and a very transparent POV attempt. HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

There’s an article about this specific October 9 Russian attack with multiple missiles, Zaporizhzhia residential building airstrike, and a broader article about the repeated Russian shelling and bombing, 2022 bombing of Zaporizhzhia, which also includes photos of the October 6 and October 10 attacks.

There are hundreds and hundreds of photos of Ukrainian buildings in similar condition after Russian strikes on civilian targets. Anon is completely wrong.  —Michael Z. 17:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Military leaders

There’s no longer any excuse. ISW has written an article on the notable subject of Russian leadership in this conflict, and even included a handy graph.[31] This should be included in the article as soon as someone can incorporate it, and into the infobox immediately as it’s a key aspect of this subject.  —Michael Z. 23:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The ISW chart definitely proves this is “a piece of key specialised information is difficult to integrate into the body text” (MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE).  —Michael Z. 23:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Left to right: Aleksandr Dvornikov (Commander of Field Operations in 2022), Sergey Shoigu (Defense Minister) and Valery Gerasimov assigned in 2023 after Dvornikov.

Images added. Update with prominent names in Michael's list as needed. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

The gallery to the right has no relationship to the cited graphic: 1) Alexander Dvornikov is mentioned as a speculative theatre commander, not a confirmed one; 2) Shoigu isn't mentioned anywhere, it should be Surovikin; 3) speculated threate commander Zhidko is ignored; 4) the fact of the theatre commander being unknown (even speculatively) from the day of the invasion to April 8th is omitted; 5) Gerasimov took the post from Surovikin not from Dvornikov, and Surovikin took the post from (speculated) Zhidko. Is a different source being consulted for the gallery? Mr rnddude (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that Surovikin took the post on October 8th, 2022, not in 2023, as stated in the caption. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay. The point that the subject is notable and belongs in the article is still supported. Please go ahead and collect the sources to support the best version.  —Michael Z. 05:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I don’t know how to respond. The gallery was appended by someone else and I have nothing to do with it. Dvornikov is mentioned where and what has that to do with my comment? Etcetera.  —Michael Z. 05:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

The assertion: that The ISW chart definitely proves this is “a piece of key specialised information is difficult to integrate into the body text”, is a statement made without substance. Nothing is proven. Rather, it is belied by the statement: This should be included in the article as soon as someone can incorporate it. For information, the ISW article can be seen here. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Right now, in the infobox's "leaders" parameter we've got a serious case of great man theory going on with only Vladimir vs. Volodymyr.

Can anyone recap any previous discussions that were held regarding that line of the infobox?

I have no objection to fleshing it out, although it would probably generate further controversy on who should and should not be included 😏 RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 03:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

RadioactiveBoulevardier, the discussions relate to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and that entries to the infobox should be supported by the article and show how the leaders reported are key and significant. The infobox has only Vladimir and Volodymyr because the article as written doesn't really mention others except in passing or as a talking head (x announced) that would show any others are significant. The infobox is a reflection of the article. If this is a serious case of great man theory, then that is a criticism of the article and not the infobox. Dropping in a name in the infobox (without any other context because that is all it is) doesn't fix the problem. It doesn't tell us why they were important or what they did that was significant, remembering that articles should to stand alone. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

The great man reference was tongue-in-cheek.

About determining significance, I'd say people like Syrskyi and Zaluzhnyi on the Ukrainian side, and Shoigu, Gerasimov, and Prigozhin on the Russian side, are self-evidently important enough. Usually military infoboxes have several top leaders listed. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

RadioactiveBoulevardier, how does a reader know who any of those you have listed are in consequence of reading the article, let alone why they are key or significant to the invasion? Cinderella157 (talk) 06:57, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm…well…they definitely played important roles… RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Well then, the article should explain how and why their role was important. Your great man theory may have been tongue-in-cheek but the truest things are often said in jest. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't seem out of the question to add actions and decisions made by specific commanders that have had notable impacts on the war, the sources exist, here is one on Valerii Zaluzhnyi for example. If such content is added, it would be logical to include more people in the infobox. TylerBurden (talk) 09:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Last year there was an image of Putin seated next to General Shoigu in the article, which has been since removed. It looks like Archive #12 from this Talk page has one of the previous discussions about the military command images. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion on inclusion was deadlocked because some insisted that only leaders discussed in the article can be included, specifically because the military chain of command was claimed not to be “key specialised information is difficult to integrate into the body text” as defined in MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. However an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RfC about exceptions to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and commanders/leaders in Template:Infobox military conflict did not find consensus.

The civilian supreme C-in-C’s (VVP and VZ) are already present.

What’s most important for this war is the supreme commanders of forces, because of the contrast and effect. Ukraine’s military C-in-C of the Armed Forces, Valerii Zaluzhnyi, and commander of Ground Forces Oleksandr Syrskyi have been constants, and are credited with the competence that has resulted in Ukrainian success shocking the world. In contrast, Russian forces started without a supreme commander and five uncoordinated military districts. After initial failures, Putin has pushed various officers through a revolving door based on his whims and favours and fear of any “war hero” accumulating political clout (cf. Stalin and Zhukov), most of them retaining other commands, to the point that the ISW resorted to a timeline chart to represent its understanding of it.[32]

Also important are the military C-in-C’s (Zaluzhnyi’s counterpart Valerii Gerasimov) and defence ministers (Sergei Shoigu and Oleksii Reznikov).  —Michael Z. 20:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Much of what has been written above could be incorporated into the article with appropriate sources. It belies the assertion that commanders fall to the exception under WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. As I stated above, simply adding names to the infobox tells us nothing about how or why those named are key or significant - unless that is supported by the body of the article. And a WP article is written to stand alone. This particular point was not raised in the RfC linked. On the other hand, the type of information exampled as an exception at WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE such as physical properties of chemicals or language classification codes do stand alone as information. Commanders clearly does not fall to the spirit and intend of the exception at WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. The closer of the RfC stated: maybe everyone can take what they've learned so far, and if wanted, start a new discussion. Do we? Cinderella157 (talk) 01:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

The RFC clearly determined that that there is no consensus that that is “clearly.”  —Michael Z. 13:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

This is I think the 3rd Talk page discussion of this with the last one in Archive 12. At the diplomatic level this has been Putin versus Zelensky, with Shoigu occasionally coming forward to support Putin. There was a photo of Putin with Shoigu in this article last year which was deleted and I'm not really seeing a difficulty if Michael would like to bring it back. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

And none of it is about images. If you want to discuss adding photos of leaders, please start an actual discussion on the topic. Continually making tangential comments about photos in discussions about the infobox is unproductive and disruptive.  —Michael Z. 19:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• Opposed, to this addition to the Infobox as fully inappropriate. The current article does not support, as Cinderalla indicates above, the level of discussion to support this addition. Mzajac your comment on what is productive/unproductive for this Talk page seems to be off-base and I'll ask you to retract or strike that comment. You are now re-hashing your viewpoint on this issue of 'military commanders' a third time on the Talk page, without any apparent effect on editors, as you have done in Archive 11 here [33] and Archive 12 here [34]. I'm opposed to your request to add this information to the Infobox based on my support for Cinderella's comments above. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  Just post it in a discussion with an appropriate heading, for crying out loud.  —Michael Z. 02:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  What..? I am also quite confused why you are bringing up the image, unless you are implying someone sitting next to Putin in an image on the article is enough to include them as a commander in the infobox that doesn't seem very relevant to the discussion, and wildly contradicts Cindarella's points above about establishing notability in the article body that you say you agree with.. TylerBurden (talk) 11:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• I'm opposed to the inclusion of Mzajac's material in the Infobox, as stated by Cinderella above: "...simply adding names to the infobox tells us nothing about how or why those named are key or significant". I'm supporting Cinderella on this. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

That’s nonsense. It is perfectly clear why the commander of a campaign is key and significant to the subject of the campaign. Furthermore, the very data itself conveys key and significant facts about the campaign’s conduct:[35]

[no overall commander] (24 Feb–8 Apr) Aleksandr Dvornikov (8 Apr–26 May) Gennadii Zhidko (26 Oct–8 Oct) Sergei Surovikin (8 Oct–11 Jan) Valerii Gerasimov (11 Jan–30 Apr)

Valerii Zaluzhnyi

This is clear, visually organized, and easily understood in the infobox, key and significant information that would be lost on anyone that didn’t read the whole article or zero in and read the paragraphs where it is described, if it even is. In fact, it is precisely “a piece of key specialised information is difficult to integrate into the body text,” that belongs in the infobox per INFOBOXPURPOSE.  —Michael Z. 15:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

While I'm a random reader on phone, I do support that point, and the info box Michael Z shows seems quite clear at:

- showing who is the current commander

- showing that rotation happens /had happened on the Russian side, which seems to be a key information

-with source

- while being quite short 5.51.183.7 (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I would oppose that specific formatting as 1) outside the scope of the consensus indicated by other examples of conflict infoboxes 2) a textbook example of the kind of insidious under-the radar POV (subconscious/good-faith or otherwise) that the Encyclopedia is supposed to avoid. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Huh? While it’s an example of the type of information, and not a format, it is very close to what we have in Russo-Ukrainian War and War in Donbas (2014–2022).

Insidious? What the heck? Numerous articles talk about the comparative effect of Putin’s bungling, politically motivated appointment of leaders vs Ukraine’s professionalism. This lays it out graphically and clearly. I can find some sources and bring them here if you don’t know about this.  —Michael Z. 20:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Starting with the ISW article I cited but failed to link to: Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, April 30, 2023, which contains the above-mentioned chart mean to present this key specialized information:

ISW is publishing a special edition campaign assessment today, April 30. This report details changes in the Russian military command since Russia began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine without a clear and doctrinal command structure and his reluctance to appoint an overall theater commander have had lasting effects on the structure of the Russian command in Ukraine. Putin’s regular command changes have led to an increasingly factionalized Russian military and disorganized command structures that are degrading the Russian military’s ability to conduct a cohesive campaign in Ukraine. Factions are not a phenomenon particular to the Russian military, although their current dynamics within the Russian military are shaping decision making to an unusual degree.

 —Michael Z. 21:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Nobody is stopping anybody from adding such material to the body of the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Support adding the commanders to the infobox. Haven’t really seen a reason that makes sense not to have them there. HappyWith (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

How is a bare name in an infobox useful if the article does not support it by indicating how or why that person was key or significant, remembering that an article should be written to stand alone? Cinderella157 (talk) 23:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Looking back at @Michael Z.’s OP, it’s not totally apparent what he meant.

So I’d ask him to restate his proposal in unambiguous terms in order to make it clear what we’re actually discussing.

If someone (especially an uninvolved editor from the larger extended-confirmed community) were to simply add a few leaders to the infobox (and on other topics I’ve barged in blindly and done that sort of thing once or twice without reading the talk page), it might not even get reverted.

But it seems like Michael is proposing that we include something like ISW’s chart of the various Russian theater commanders in the infobox. This would run counter to MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE so obviously that I’m a little surprised that such an experienced Wikipedian would suggest such a thing, much less multiple times.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I’m simply proposing that some military commander be included in the infobox, and want to find consensus to do it and which ones to include.

I mentioned the chart only as an example that military commanders are “key specialised information” to counter perennial assertions that INFOBOXPURPOSE prohibits their inclusion unless every single one is discussed in the article.  —Michael Z. 20:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The chart is part of an article sixteen pages long in total (when viewed as a pdf) and occupies about one-third of a page in the article. How does it then example that this is key specialised information making it an exception to INFOBOXPURPOSE and how is a bare name in an infobox useful if the article does not support it by indicating how or why that person was key or significant, remembering that an article should be written to stand alone? The fact that a bare name does not stand alone without further information is the reason why this does not fall to the exception of key specialised information at INFOBOXPURPOSE. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Frankly the time spent going back and forth here could have been used to just add the notable commanders and their actions to the body, that would satisfy the criteria of the MOS with establishing content in the body for inclusion in the infobox, which seems to be the only push back to adding more people. TylerBurden (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Frankly a fiftieth of the time could have been used adding them to the infobox.  —Michael Z. 17:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but with the amount of bickering about Wikipedia infoboxes across the whole site I think it makes sense to establish some content in the body so the more MOS centric type of editors aren't going to be constantly removing the content, then again it's not like it is an absolute must on a website that literally has WP:IGNORE all rules if they get in the way of improvement. Personally I wouldn't have anything against adding someone like Zaluzhny, who is already mentioned on the article as a "major Ukrainian commander during the war".

TylerBurden (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, okay, I did that.  —Michael Z. 22:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Good call with a dedicated subsection, was thinking that might be the way to go as well when it proved a bit more difficult than expected to find where it would be best to mention Zaluzhny. TylerBurden (talk) 15:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

More can be added. Needs something about Zelenskyy’s “not a ride” and international diplomacy. Could include defence and foreign ministers, Syrskyi, and Russian MD/direction commanders, Prigozhin and Kadyrov. With a bit more detail on their significance, actions, and interaction, it might logically become “Command and conduct.”  —Michael Z. 18:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

That’s not exactly true. But I did include more material (dates) and logical formatting (bullets showing hierarchy) than just bare names, all consistent with other related articles as I pointed out above, which you removed. You’re arguing against your “improvements,” not my proposal.  —Michael Z. 18:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

The template doc tells us to add just bare names. Adding more is just a case of trying to write the article in the infobox, which INFOBOXPURPOSE tells us not to. My position has always been, improve the article and the infobox will follow. I has been a spurious claim to assert that such material cannot be incorporated into the article [easily]. Even if the present material is little more than a passing mention, it is a foundation than can be built upon. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Also not true. The docs do not tell us to add just bare names. See precedents in Russo-Ukrainian War and War in Donbas (2014–2022).

Are you in the habit of drowning a comment with a string of disinformational responses? This thread isn’t even discussing changes, apparently just you objecting to my explanation of my intent to RadioactiveBoulevardier. NOTCHAT.  —Michael Z. 01:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Michael, your comment was indented one in from mine. By indenting conventions, your comment was clearly intended for me and it is quite reasonable for me to reply. The template parameter of commander is for the names of commanders/leaders. Ranks and position titles should be omitted. In the context of this discussion and all of the material to the infobox, it is quite reasonable to paraphrase this as "bare names". {{KIA}} and {{POW}} templates are not at issue. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS/WP:OTHERCONTENT is only valid if otherstuff represents best practice. WP does not work on the principle of precedent. I view your rhetorical question as an aspersion of misconduct and the balance of your post to have significant inaccuracies. You might consider redacting it? Cinderella157 (talk) 08:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Reasonable to reinterpret it meaning “bare names” when it doesn’t say or imply “bare names”? Why don’t you get consensus to update the docs to say “bare names”? Until then, I hope you can agree to disagree.

My indentation is correct. It follows back to my reply to RadioactiveBoulevardier. I didn’t imply malicious misconduct. But I do wonder whether your modus operandi in discussions is all you know or whether you consciously believe it works for you.

Anyway, you entered this thread with a couple of questions. I assume you’re now as satisfied as can be with the response and we can put this to rest.  —Michael Z. 22:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with Michael Z - it doesn’t say that in either the infobox docs or WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. HappyWith (talk) 01:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm gonna WP:BOLDly add back the flags in the infobox for now, given precedents at countless articles like War in Donbas and Iraq War. If an editor objects, let's discuss it in a separate talk section given that this one is already very long and cluttered. HappyWith (talk) 02:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Indenting the subordinates[36] conveys the same thing at least as clearly (might work without bullets). Just flags[37] is noisier: decoration without hierarchy.  —Michael Z. 03:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

The flags weren't added back in, they weren't extant to begin with. The material that was removed were the dates, which they should remain removed. The dates provided are specific to the commanders holding the post of 'overall theatre commander', but this suggests they held no position of command both prior to and after that time. That is misleading, albeit unintentionally so. Dvornikov, for example, was the commander of the southern district from the onset of the invasion and removed from the post in late July. So listing him as a commander from (8 Apr–26 May) is plain error. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

As both Michael and Mr rnddude confirm, flags were not included with the commanders recently added. Per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, flag icons are acceptable in this infobox to differentiate information when there are co-belligerents. This can be done by adding icons against each particular entry of a commander or by grouping commanders under single icons. Both options serve the purpose but I do agree with Michael that flags against each name is noisier. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Cinderella, can anything be done about the very large number of flag icons in that part of the Infobox; it seems like too many of them. Also, it might be useful to make a distinction between the active ones and the inactive commanders. Note that on the WWII page that none of the Generals, not Eisenhower and not MacArthur, are listed in the analogous section of the Infobox. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Mr rnddude was right in pointing out that even though not in overall command, these commanders remain active in their own main command roles (any of them totally fired yet?).

Indent the generals under their supreme commander: zero characters add info about relationship, obviates any justification for the flag parade.  —Michael Z. 00:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Fronts and commanders

On the initial invasion, the Russian lines of advance were referred to as theatres in this article. Ukraine is now referred to as a theatre and these lines of advance as fronts. However, save the coast, there has been a continuous front that has subsequently coalesced. Within a front, there are sectors, commands or perhaps, some other hierarchical term. Within these, there are lesser terms for subsectors and so on. Within the section Southeastern front (8 April – 5 September), there are subsections: Kharkiv front, Kherson-Mykolaiv front and Zaporizhzhia front - a mixing of terminology. The article is largely written from news source as events occur. As time passes, there have been better quality sources viewing events retrospectively and using different terminology/categorisations. More recent retrospective sources will also (potentially) use different terminology/categorisations than earlier ones. The challenge for the article is to use consistent and coherent terminology/categorisations, both within a section and across the article so that the reader does not become confused. This is a challenge to be addressed.

Why am I raising this as a subsection to a tread on commanders? Since the addition of the Command section, I have been rationalising some passing comments in the article about command and have come across this statement: In June 2022 the chief spokesman for the Russian Ministry of Defence Igor Konashenkov revealed that Russian troops were divided between the Army Groups "Center" commanded by Colonel General Aleksander Lapin and "South" commanded by Army General Sergey Surovikin. While I don't question the accuracy of the statement, conflicting terminologies in the article make this statement confusing - or is this a new and undefined term that makes it equally confusing for the reader. How then, should we move it to integrate this into the Command section? Cinderella157 (talk) 12:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

The terminology in the green quotation refers to Russian military organizations active in the areas of operations, and not directly to the areas. The military districts of Russia were each given responsibility for a portion of the invasion. It is unclear whether these are just MDs, or operational organizations closely based on them (historically called front (military formation)), which in that quotation are referred to with the international generic name army group. Each of the Russian fronts/army groups consists of one or more combined-arms armies (field armies).  —Michael Z. 16:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

To the quotation, I had figured that might be the case. I did look at the source and whether it is referring to a region or a formation is a subtlety of translation for one familiar with the language. You might be able to confirm? Thank you for reminding me that Russian formation terms at the higher levels are roughly one level lower than a Western formation with the same name. The MDs are regions within Russia, not regions within the Ukraine theatre? There is very little known of the Russian formations as committed. Command is therefore probably best described by operational areas rather than formation? The Russian use of front for a formation equivalent to a Western army group is likely a source of confusion for readers when it is also used in the article to describe an operational area. The article is mixing (mixing up) terminologies to describe operational areas rather than having a hierarchy of terms that are consistently applied to represent relative areas and locales. The initial question was how to best move and integrate the quote into the Command section. To say, "Lapin commanded Army Group Centre" is pretty much a gratuitous statement (meaningless), since it tells us nothing about where it is or what it is - it may or may not be a formation about the size of a Western army somewhere in the centre of something (maybe). The second issue is then about making the descriptions of operational areas within the article more consistent and robust with respect to time. The first thing to do might be to tighten up the terminology in section headings? Cinderella157 (talk) 03:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 May 2023

Hello, writing because I saw that this page has a mistake, the "sides" Belligerents are on wrong sides, wikipedia aleays putts defenders in left, and attackers in right, please change it, thank you! Rudikkkkkkk (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: @Rudikkkkkkk: That change will need to be done at {{Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine_infobox}}. Start a discussion on that template's talk page to get consensus first. RudolfRed (talk) 00:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The documentation for that template does not mention anything about order (Template:Infobox_military_conflict). --McSly (talk) 01:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Cite the guidance being referred to pls. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 May 2023 (2)

Brennancarlson08 (talk) 12:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Czello ^(music) 12:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

You do have to tell us what you want done. Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Internal Russian-Russian armed conflict

Sooner or later, the Russian vs Russian armed conflict may start becoming notable with sufficient WP:RS. What existing or new talk page is appropriate for discussing that and considering whether to start an article? The aim is to focus discussions in one place. Boud (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

When it happens there maybe a place for something like 2023 Russian civil war, until then let's not waste time on idle speculation. Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

There's already the one RS that I gave, so for at least today's events, it seems likely that they are notable within the wider context. Whether it extends further is speculation, I agree. It might make sense to start at Talk:2022–2023 Western Russia attacks, since RF (Russian Federation) officials will (or have?) claim(ed) that the attacks are Ukraine vs RF, not Russians vs RF. The incidents of today are within the scope of 2022–2023 Western Russia attacks, it seems to me. The RU vs RU part can be split later if/when the sources justify it. Boud (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

A standalone article 2023 Belgorod Oblast attack already exists, and is 60 minutes old. Boud (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 May 2023

Hello; Write about the economic impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in "Impacts". Also, in order to remain neutral, Wikipedia should mention in the beginning of the article that 900,000 Russians fled and became refugees due to the invasion. Also, === Refugee crisis === be changed to ==== Refugee crisis ====. Sincerely, Parham wiki (talk) 08:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Likely very few of those Russians are formal asylum-seekers or refugees.  —Michael Z. 16:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh, so someone should edit the List of largest refugee crises. So what about the rest? Do you not agree with my suggestion? Parham wiki (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

your refugee crisis change request shows no change - proofread error? HammerFilmFan (talk) 08:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I mean that the Refugee crisis is part of the humanitarian impact of the invasion and not separate from it, as written in the article Humanitarian impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Parham wiki (talk) 09:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Edit Mapped Territorial Control

Following the 2023 Belgorod Oblast attack/counteroffensive by the Freedom of Russia Legion and the Russian Volunteer Corps, we should probably include their territorial gains in the infobox map—especially considering they're nearly 11 miles [~18km] deep inside Russian Federation territory.

However, because Ukraine currently declines involvement in the offensive, but the Legion and Corps are fighting on behalf of Ukraine, there might be a possibility we have to change the color of the attack on the map, maybe a brighter yellow or blue?

MateoFrayo (talk) 22:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The Legion and Corps are still considered fighting on behalf of Ukraine, as they are part of the International Legion (Ukraine). Hence, the colour of the attack in Belgorod Oblast should be the same colour as Ukraine (Yellow). GodzillamanRor (talk) 02:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

It’s not clear whether this is a raid for psychological purposes, or a serious attempt to seize and hold territory. I guess we’ll soon see 🍿

As far as I know, Grayvoron isn’t even currently on the map, since it’s across the border.

Also, the correct talk page to discuss this would be Talk:Territorial control during the Russo-Ukrainian War. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 03:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks GodzillamanRor and RadioactiveBoulevardier.

Do you guys know if the images between the two pages (Russian invasion of Ukraine and Territorial control during the Russo-Ukrainian War) are linked in some way? Or does someone usually just c&paste from one page to the other every day?

MateoFrayo (talk) 14:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I believe they both link to the same file.

To embed images directly into most of the 6M+ English WP articles would consume petabytes of space on the servers. Instead, wikitext embeds a link to files, either local to Wikipedia or from Wikimedia Commons. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Like RB says, they are links to the same image file, which, though I don't understand all the details, is generated semi-automatically via some sort of code module maintained by Wikipedia editors. HappyWith (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 May 2023 (2)

The Azov Brigade has featured within global news media, particularly early on in the conflict, but it is only mentioned in a passing comment and the former voluntary malitia don't feature within the casualties table (even though they were only recently absorpted into the Ukrainian forces). So given it's prominence within the Siege of Mariupol and the events surrounding the "Maternity and children's hospital bombing" it would be appropriate to include the insignia.

Please insert the following before paragraph starting "On 16 May, the Ukrainian General staff announced" in sub-section 'Fall of Mariupol' section:

Insignia of the Azov Brigade trapped in the Azovstal steel plant

Mattmill30 (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. No other battalion logos appear in the article. Why this one specifically? Lizthegrey (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it would probably be appropriate to include a section close to the beginning of the article with the details and insignias of both belligerents, but Azov is a special case because they weren't originally Ukranian forces, they were actually a special volunteer police unit, similar to the Black and Tan in Ireland, so I'm not sure they would be classified as belligerents, although that may have changed since their assimilation into the Ukrainian forces.

The main reason for the insignia being appropriate is anyone wanting to do further research following the news reports about the hospital attack will recognise the Azov Brigade logo, but may not know the name of the Brigade. As in my case, it took much longer than necessary because Azov also wasn't listed under Belligerents.

If you aren't going to add the logo, then please create a "Strength" section within the infobox, similar to Irish War of Independence which lists the Black and Tan, and include the Azov Brigade in the Strength statistics Mattmill30 (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

No The " Azov Regiment" is mentioned once in the article with a link (that being in the Fall of Mariupol section). Considering the policy on image use and the rational for selection of images, this does not (IMO) add to a readers understanding of the event, particularly when balanced against the existing image used. The link is sufficient. The article is already very crowded with images. In the infobox, strengths are link to Order of battle for the Russian invasion of Ukraine and improvements should be made there. The level of detail you are suggesting would be incompatible with this overview article. There is also the matter of MOS:ICONDECORATION. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Please read a few paragraphs of Azov Brigade before making futile requests. The original Azov Battalion was officially formed in May 2014 as a unit of the Special Tasks Patrol of the Ukrainian Interior Ministry, as part of the Ukrainian territorial defence battalions. In November 2014 it was formally incorporated into the National Guard, not the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

The effect would be to give WP:undue prominence to a symbol the Russians call “Nazi,” out of the scores of former volunteer battalions and thousands of units fighting in Russia’s war in Ukraine.  —Michael Z. 17:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Given that the paragraph I was requesting that the insignia and caption be attached to concludes with "Some prominent Russian lawmakers called on the government to deny prisoner exchanges for members of the Azov Regiment", it would not be WP:undue prominence. Whether the Russians call the symbol "Nazi" is inconsequential, and the fact it features in your perspective means you're giving undue political consideration and are effectively encouraging the burying by omission of any narrative which deviates from the mainstream, rather than providing people with easy access to all information regardless of the narrative.

As I said "I think it would probably be appropriate to include a section close to the beginning of the article with the details and insignias of both belligerents", but in the case of the Azov Brigade specifically within the topic of the 'Fall of Mariupol' it would be appropriate to provide the insignia so people are able to easily find the information.

Alternatively, a Citations section could be created at the bottom of the page, containing the "details and insignias of both belligerents" so that they can be linked via Shortened footnotes, enabling people to locate an insignia of interest and be able to retrace the footnote to the relevant paragraph of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattmill30 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Let’s throw in Utkin’s tats and Milchakov holding up a Swastika flag and killing puppies, because the people deserve easy access. —Michael Z. 21:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Encyclopedias reference sources, especially for contentious topics. If tattoos and Swastikas are relevant to an article, you should cite references using WP:CITE. Please make a separate talk topic for your off-topic comments — Mattmill30 (talk) 00:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Which sources illustrated statements by Russian Duma members calling for Ukrainian blood with the Azov Brigade’s emblem?  —Michael Z. 00:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

This topic is about captioning the Azov Brigade insignia against a paragraph which relates specifically to that Brigade. I don't know what you're talking about, but it's completely off-topic, so I won't respond any further — Mattmill30 (talk) 01:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay.  —Michael Z. 03:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Attempts at Conflict Management undermind?

Given the drone attacks on Moscow, and considering the pressing need to prevent this conflict getting out of control, might not the damaging way that British MP James Clevely is undermining US policy be highlighted? For are not the war-mongering attitudes of the British Govt at odds with much-needed US attempts at Conflict Limitation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.2.82 (talk) 10:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh okay, now that there are drone attacks in Moscow it's "out of control", it wasn't before. Interesting insight. Do you have any reliable references discussing this war mongerer's attempts at undermining the US government? TylerBurden (talk) 10:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

This is WP:OR, a reliable source is needed for any information presented in the article Galebazz (talk) 11:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

The civil war on Ukraine and the proxy war

In 2014-2022, there was a civil war in the Donbass, local Russians, supported in part by the Russian Federation, fought against Ukrainian forces armed by the US-NATO western bloc. Now we have another installment of the proxy war as Ukraine, supported by the Western Bloc, fights against Russia. In 2014, an irredentist uprising called the Russian Spring aimed to create Novorossiya from Kharkiv to Odessa and join Russia

• https://www.stopwar.org.uk/article/the-g7-ramped-up-the-russia-nato-proxy-war/
• https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/leaked-papers-reveal-proxy-war-in-ukraine-502932
• https://www.france24.com/en/video/20230321-xi-in-moscow-china-sees-russia-s-war-on-ukraine-as-a-proxy-war-between-russia-and-the-west

^https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3214784/ceasefire-may-save-ukraine-wreck-us-proxy-war-plan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.111.119.54 (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we link to the main article about this. Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

And "proxy war" is just a point of view by some parties, as reflected in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HammerFilmFan (talk • contribs) 00:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

---

Calling the Russian war against Ukraine in 2014-2022 a "civil war" is strange. The war was started by the Russian colonel Igor Girkin and his Russian militias in April 2014. In August 2014, the ordinary Russian army joined in the attack against Ukraine.

Likewise, claiming that "Ukraine fights against Russia" is strange. The reality is that Ukraine is attacked by Russia.

Referring to the war as a "proxy war" is strange. The developed, democratic countries are helping Ukraine to defend itself against an unprovoked attack.

Joreberg (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Strange indeed. A “civil war” in Ukraine against Russia. An “uprising” from Kharkiv to Odesa by people who were not in Kharkiv, Odesa, nor anywhere in between, and were ordered to stop calling themselves “New Russia” and report back to Moscow when Russian battalion tactical groups were sent in. A “proxy war” where the West sent in some hand-held antitank weapons after Russia assembled its invasion force of 190,000 with the intention of destroying the Ukrainian state and nation.  —Michael Z. 14:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Very little mentioning of the extensive Russian terror attacks

It is surprising that so little is mentioned by the extensive Russian terror attacks against civilian persons and other civilian targets.

Already in the first month of the invasion, Russia had attacked more than 1500 civilian buildings.

Russia’s Attacks on Civilian Targets Have Obliterated Everyday Life in Ukraine - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

World Health Organisation says that Russia has attacked more than 1000 health care facilities

Russia carried out more than 1,000 attacks on Ukrainian health care facilities - W.H.O. - Euromaidan Press

As of November 2022, 126 000 private houses and 16 800 residential buildings had been damaged.

As of November 2022, the total amount of losses, caused to the infrastructure of Ukraine, increased to almost $136 billion – Kyiv School of Economics (kse.ua)

Over a 4 month period, Russia destroyed on average more than one Ukrainian school per day.

Ukraine: One school destroyed every other day since September - Ukraine | ReliefWeb

Investigators at the Centre for Information Resilience have verified 381 strikes that damaged educational institutions in Ukraine, including some that took place hundreds of kilometres from the front line.

Ukraine war: Revealed - the hundreds of schools and nurseries bombed in the first year of the conflict | World News | Sky News

Russian forces are completely demolishing lots of cities, towns and villages. One of many examples is Marinka, where 10 000 people lived before Russia destroyed it.

Visit Ukraine - Ukrainian cities completely destroyed by the russian army

Joreberg (talk) 13:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

A valid point that has been raised before, since the article is meant to cover the invasion itself rather than specifically a military focus on battles and fronts this should be better represented given its wide coverage in reliable sources virtually every single day. Russia started off celebrating children's day by killing an 11 year old girl, her mother and another woman in Kyiv just tonight June first. There should be a section dedicated to covering this aspect of the invasion, not just mentions in passing. TylerBurden (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Since the invasion Russia has been declared a terrorist state by Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, the US Senate, PACE, Estonia, the Polish senate and Sejm, the Czech parliament, the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, the European Parliament, the Netherlands parliament, and Slovakia. Details in Terrorism in Russia#2022.  —Michael Z. 23:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

So extensive, in fact, that these incidents have been spun off to another article, Attacks on civilians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Support of Russian side by Belarus

Iran is also supporting the Russian side by selling weapons to them. I request that someone adds Iran to the infobox. North Korea also supports the Russian side. 178.120.53.9 (talk) 22:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

There have been several discussions around this previously, perhaps most recently here. Presently there is no consensus to add Iran as a belligerent; even less so North Korea. — Czello ^(music) 22:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

At this point it might be worth just responding with: "see FAQ". Perhaps also alter FAQ #4 to specify both belligerents or shorten it to just ... because it is supplying weapons?. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Well I find that inconsistent, because Belarus isn't even involved anymore. Hasn't been for over a year. But still deserves a mention? But Iran who is currently involved doesn't? 178.120.61.205 (talk) 03:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Allowing Russia to launch missiles from its territory isn't being involved? TylerBurden (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

The problem is we have no designation for "former combatant" Also the above. Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

That would be WP:RECENTISM. The article covers the full time range since 2/24/22. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 June 2023

Under "Belligerents", it should be noted that Ukraine is supported by NATO. 174.231.24.44 (talk) 23:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Support of Ukrainian side by NATO

Belligerents section should reflect support by NATO. 174.231.24.44 (talk) 23:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_7#RfC:_Should_the_individual_arms_supplying_countries_be_added_to_the_infobox? closed as "no consensus". – Muboshgu (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

In addition to weapons and finances, NATO supports the Ukrainian armed forces with military intelligence and military advisors. 174.231.24.44 (talk) 23:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

And you need to establish a consensus to include NATO in the infobox, as the RfC that I linked above did not achieve such a consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Establishing consensus on this topic would seem impossible since the page is locked to editing. 174.231.24.44 (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

That discussion is closed. Consensus can only change with a new discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

This is a new discussion. Military intelligence and military advisors in country.

This is a new discussion. Military intelligence and military advisors in country.

This is a new discussion. Military intelligence and military advisors in country. 174.231.24.44 (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Worth mentioning, I believe there are multiple novel arguments to be raised regarding specifically US and UK support but I'm waiting until the summer, when I hope to have the time and energy to assemble a sufficiently formidable collection of RS. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Nothing new has been added to the debate, the same arguments. Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 June 2023

At the beginning of the article it is written: The invasion has resulted in tens of thousands of deaths on both sides, while according to the leaked documents of the Pentagon and the statements of American officials, over a hundred thousand people were killed. Write that over a hundred thousand were killed. Parham wiki (talk) 13:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The two do not contradict each other, if the Ukraine has lost 55,000 and The Russia has lost 55,000 that is over 100,000, but still only 10,000's on both sides. Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh, that's right; THANK YOU! Parham wiki (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Too Graphic?

Hey guys don't you think these photos are a bit to disturbing for Wikipedia I mean there's going to be people wanting to just learn more about this topic and children doing research for this in class don't you think this is a bit to disturbing. TheMaggster (talk) 05:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Read Q3 of the FAQ on this page Galebazz (talk) 05:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

How about we add a disclaimer at the top of this page? TheMaggster (talk) 06:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The page is already subject to the standard content disclaimer, linked at the bottom of the page. Additional disclaimers are against current guidelines, see WP:NODISCLAIMERS. Melmann 09:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

ok TheMaggster (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Invasions are graphic, Wikipedia is not censored. TylerBurden (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Infrastructure attacks - structure

Shouldn't all the info about the infrastructure attacks be grouped under "Missile attacks and aerial warfare", rather than being split between the timeline sections about phase 3 and phase 4 of the land war? I would do it myself now, but it's a pretty big change and I wanna gauge editors's thoughts on this. HappyWith (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

"No boots on the ground" Foreign Involvement

No NATO boots on the ground is factually incorrect.

Change to 'Foreign Involvement' section is advised. 2600:1011:B18B:4A02:E4CE:9BFF:FEA5:C142 (talk) 00:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

No its not, as there is no indication any NATO troops have seen combat. Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

50 or so advisors do not a belligerent make. HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• Yall just started arguing over the meaning of "boots" and didn't read the source. The passage only references the US. GMG^talk 15:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

2023 UA counter-offensive

2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive has been created. Go over there or to its talk page if you have arguments for or against it existing as a standalone article. Boud (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Years on the map

Hello everyone! I was just staring at the map and I realized something, we don't have the years listed for the capture of various territories by either side, and as this conflict is in year 2, it might be helpful to add such years into the labels for cities and territories. Just an outside perspective! Completely Random Guy (talk) 02:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll start a thread about it at c:File talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg. HappyWith (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Awesome! It appears whenever I look at the map, either zoomed in, zoomed out, or the file itself, sometimes it shows years, sometimes it doesn't. I think it should just be consistent throughout and with years for the best information about it! Completely Random Guy (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Storozheve liberation

Ukraine war liberated Storozheve 182.224.89.144 (talk) 09:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Zaporizhia Russian 2 defense line breakthrough

Zaporizhia Russian 2 defense line breakthrough 223.39.145.124 (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Zaporizhia counter-offensive

2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive 223.39.195.193 (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

2023 western Russia raids

There's a discussion at Talk:2022–2023 western Russia_attacks#Splitting proposal that may interest editors of this article, proposing to split off material to a new page about all the ground raids into Russian territory by all-Russian, pro-Ukraine paramilitaries. Please leave comments in the discussion there, and not here. HappyWith (talk) 22:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Piatykhaty liberation

Ukraine war Piatykhaty liberated 182.224.89.144 (talk) 11:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

We can't list every village liberated. Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.130.26 (talk) 13:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Size, people have to be able to read this. Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn’t supposed to be censored though. Maybe we can make a new article for each village Ukraine liberates from the Russian invaders. All these liberations are widely reported on by reputable sources and are clearly notable enough for inclusion. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

True, but it is meant to only include relevant and notable information. We will just have 100's (1000's?) of one line stubs, when that material can just be added to the articles about those villages. Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

It’s already covered in the more-specific subject of the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive.

It is another day’s milestone, so it could be mentioned after the others already here, but at some point soon that would likely become too much detail for this article.  —Michael Z. 13:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Given that this article has surpassed World War II in length, we're deep into 'too much detail' territory. I don't have any good idea for how to deal with that short of taking a scalpel to the article and excising fat from it sentence-by-sentence. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I guess pick a section, and transfer the extra detail to its summary sub-article. That way we can feel good knowing nothing is actually deleted.  —Michael Z. 15:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

That's not what WP:NOTCENSORED means. That guideline is about NSFW or upsetting content. HappyWith (talk) 13:53, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that I think a certain group of people do find it upsetting that Ukraine is liberating villages and are actively seeking to downplay this in various media. I think each village can be mentioned briefly without sacrificing the brevity of the article. 173.67.130.26 (talk) 20:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Well those people can't oppose anything on the grounds that they are upset that the war is not going the way they want it to, because as said above Wikipedia is indeed not censored. However the points also raised above are valid, sometimes such specific information is more suited for their main article. As of now content about the Ukrainian advance has been added, which is a lot more WP:DUE than how it was before, only mentioning the counteroffensive being launced and facing "stiff resistance". TylerBurden (talk) 10:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

We did not mention their capture by Russia. Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not censorship, it's brevity. — Czello ^(music) 13:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Material in "Invasion" section before "Initial invasion" subsection

What exactly is the point of that material? It seems on first glance to just be repetitions of stuff that gets covered again in the subsections of "phase 1" and "phase 2", before kinda running out of steam and stopping in June 2022. Is it supposed to be a summary of all the following subsections? If so, it doesn't work as one, since it doesn't cover the last full year of events and a lot of what it says was established in the lead anyway. I'm kinda surprised no one else has brought this up. Couldn't the material just be removed? HappyWith (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I have noticed. It should be an overall summary and address key points across the "invasion" that are general and not specific to any particular location/time. There is a baby somewhere in all that bath water. It certainly needs to be reviewed with the duplication removed from one place or the other. I have done some edits along that line but there is much more to do. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

But isn’t that function already fulfilled by the lead? Maybe it could be made to work, I agree that there probably is a baby along with the bathwater in there somewhere. HappyWith (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

The lead summarises the overall article, which includes all sections and not just the battle/invasion section. When the battle/invasion section is particularly long and complex in terms of space and time (as here) it may be appropriate to have an introduction to the battle/invasion to deal with overarching issues and to briefly summarise events. As an example, see Battle of Buna–Gona. The invasion here is a series of vignettes (represented by the subsections) occurring at different places at the same time or at overlapping times. Reading the sections, the reader is, at times, required to jump back and forward in time. An introduction, while being an overview of the detail that follows, also provides continuity in time. Let's cut out the duplicate padding and see where this leads us. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense, good idea. HappyWith (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Adding Iran to involvement lists

According to the page Iran and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Iran helped fund Russia so should they be listed since they were second hand money mules for the country's army? Raybonam (talk) 08:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Where in the article exactly? In the info box under Belligerents? - I would say no, as many countries also gave money and weapons to Ukraine, so they would be mentioned in their list. (Belarus is different as it allowed Russian troops in to and to attack through their country) Arnoutf (talk) 10:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Beware of socks, Slatersteven. ;) Drmies (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Wagner group

Many MANY reports are claiming abut Wagner troops and RUssian troops fighting against each other, should we add on the article? t was about 2 or 1 hour ago Lucasoliveira653 (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Give one or two WP:RS and propose which article that makes most sense in. Once WP:RS report on it, it will make sense somewhere, starting off as a paragraph, and (depending on what WP:RS say happens) extending to a section and maybe an article. Boud (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Template:Russian invasion of Ukraine currently has:

Reactions -> Public -> Companies -> Wagner Group (Andrey Medvedev - Wagner Line); and

Key people -> Russians -> Yevgeny Prigozhin. Boud (talk) 20:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC) (updated Boud (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC))

The events seem to be taking place in Ukraine - Russian forces fighting Russian forces in Ukraine - so something like a new subsection Wagner Group activities in Ukraine#Fight against regular Russian army would make sense if there are WP:RS reporting on fighting. Boud (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC) (updated Boud (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC))

Currently seems more like the "event" is Prigozhin (criminal case opened against him) rather than a military rebellion; and some of the events are in Rostov (Russia) rather than in Ukraine. Boud (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Prigozhin as "the event": Yevgeny Prigozhin#Legal charges - a {{main}} or {{see also}} cross-link can be added there later if something more than Prigozhin being arrested and getting lots of online media attention happens. Criminal charges against him are clearly a notable event for a sentence or two. Boud (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:RS are now reporting on it. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66005256 HappyWith (talk) 21:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023/06/23/prigozhin-says-moscow-strikes-kill-huge-number-of-wagner-forces-vows-to-stop-top-brass-a81615 I think we might want to make a new article for this, or at least a draft. Things seem to be heating up. HappyWith (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

We really only seem to know<ref name="MoscowTimes_Prigozhin_says_Moscow">{{cite Q|Q119860197|url-status=live}}</ref> that criminal charges have been laid, tanks are moving around Moscow and St Petersburg, Wagner offices were raided, Prigozhin is in St Petersburg, and there's no sign of Wagner accumulating any support for its supposed rebellion. Boud (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh well, the inevitable happened - a new article: Wagner Group mutiny, despite no evidence that the whole group has mutinied rather than just Prigozhin. Next step: endless title debate ... Boud (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

If at least two members participate then it’s a mutiny in Wagner Group.  —Michael Z. 23:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

"No evidence"? It's reported all over the media, and there are even videos of Wagner troops occupying Rostov and convoys moving north. Chaotic Enby (talk) 12:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I have seen it said that they have seized more territory in 3 days than the Russian army seized in 18 months. Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 June 2023

Requesting the Wagner coup to be added to the summary at the beginning of the article, following the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive mention. It is a significant event in the war and should have a significant place in the article.

In 24 June, Wagner mercenary group chief Yevgeny Prigozhin announced the beginning of military action against the Ministry of Defense as a retribution to an alleged missile attack to a Wagner camp. TynoPk (talk) 12:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

References

UNsure if this is part of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, or the Wagner Invasion of Russia. Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

We already treat it as such in its own article and in the 2023 events list though. TynoPk (talk) 13:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

UNsure we should though, it is related to the wider war, not the invasion. Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the map now should include the military/political situation in the Russian territories that border Ukraine as now the Wagner group are controlling it. Wlcidar (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

New article - Russian penal military units

Editors of this page might be interested in this newly created page about Russian prison recruitment during the war: Russian penal military units HappyWith (talk) 23:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect use of military terminology: invasion vs. occupation

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.

---

• Invasion is [the] incursion of an army for conquest or plunder. E.g. Invasion of Poland
• Occupation is the holding and control of an area by a foreign military force E.g. Occupation of Poland (1939–1945)

The invasion was the capture of territory by Russia during the early stage of the war. Currently, there are no major changes in the front-lines. Either non-military operation related aspects of the article should be moved to an umbrella article (possibly Russian occupation of Ukraine) or this article should be renamed to something more general, if it is intended to be the umbrella article. 95.12.116.141 (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Belligerents - what to do with Wagner?

Now that it's pretty clear that the Wagner group is fighting the Russian army, and both control territory in Ukraine (respectively, the stretch from Bakhmut to the Rostov Oblast border and the rest, roughly), should the PMC Wagner be in its own column in the "Belligerents" part of the infobox? Or at least separated from the Russian army in some way? They're definitely a major player in the invasion of Ukraine (see Battle of Bakhmut), but they're not on Russia's side anymore. Chaotic Enby (talk) 10:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it's much too soon to make any changes like that to the infobox. Officially Wagner is still a "part of Russia". Given this is a developing situation I think we can only wait and see if they become a truly independent belligerent that isn't associated with Russia at all. — Czello ^(music) 10:04, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Putin ordered the arrest of Prigozhyn and Wagner troops are marching into Russian cities, I'd say they are a 3rd party now ImStevan (talk) 10:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

And now it's already over. Nothing more needs to be done here. — Czello ^(music) 07:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Should the infobox be amended to present Wagner as a 3rd side since there is now clearly a conflict between Wagner and Russia? ImStevan (talk) 09:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I would say that regardless, it is not a separate belligerent WRT the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC) Moved from Template talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox by ImStevan

Per Czello. Write the article and then think about the infobox. But one should consider that the infobox is not the place for nuance and at present, this is very nuanced. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, lets leave it for now, its a mutiny. Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest that when/if the animated map gets updated, this should probably be marked on that map (for however long this mutiny/coup/'march for justice') lasts in a separate colour? 2A02:C7C:C4CD:A500:2D25:3F88:8C94:8BB8 (talk) 12:03, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

This did not age well, I think we can leave them out. Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 June 2023

This page is not credible. All of the information comes from irreliable outlets that trumpet the same government lines. At least the article should be labelled as government sponsored media, as such are its sources . I would like an article that includes both Ukrainian, russian, LPR&Donbass and third parties information, numbers and statements. Without such this article has no value whatsoever. 2A02:3037:617:8B0B:84E7:66FF:FEAE:43E2 (talk) 08:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 10:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Ukraine war Rivnopil liberation

Ukraine war liberated Rivnopil 182.224.89.144 (talk) 11:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

As we did not mention its capture I am unsure we need to mention its liberation, we can't list every village that changes hands. Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Why not? Are we doing that because it would be upsetting to some users? 71.114.123.162 (talk) 13:51, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

No, I would argue we are not doing it for the following reasons 1) wp:notnews 2) WP:INDISCRIMINATE 3) so the reader does not have to read a list of every captured village. And read wp:agf. Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I would argue that the liberation of Rivnopil has been widely covered by media all over the world and the mass of reliable sources discussing this topic show that this is not only news, but is notable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. I am worried that with every liberation of a Ukrainian settlement, there will be people making some argument that they shouldn't be included in any capacity and before long, there will be no mention of them at all. Assuming good faith and playing into state sponsored propaganda efforts are two very different things. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

We are talking about the village, are we not? The liberation of a single village is not notable, and again is already covered in other articles. For it to be mentioned in this main article it'd have to be far more notable. — Czello ^(music) 14:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is that for a topic to be considered "notable" it must have significant coverage in reliable sources over a period of time. It is understandable if this isn't notable because it is a fairly recent event, but the liberation of Rivnopil has been widely covered in reliable sources from all over the world and is at the very least notable outside of Wikipedia's definition. I think we should be very careful about which information is withheld and for whose benefit it is being withheld. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 14:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Nothing's being "withheld", it's instead just listed on more appropriate articles (which I've listed for you below). Again, this article is about the broad topic, and if we covered every little village that changes hands it'd quickly balloon in size. Instead we list things like that on more specific articles. — Czello ^(music) 14:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I understand that, and I acknowledge that it's being included in other articles. I am speaking more to future cases, in which there may be efforts to remove any mention of Ukraine liberating one of it's settlements from any article. It's important that Wikipedia, even unknowingly, unwittingly, or unintentionally, doesn't fan the flames of Russian propaganda, which in the case is seeking to remove mentions of Ukrainian battlefield successes from the internet (to which Wikipedia, being publicly edited, is particularly susceptible). 71.114.123.162 (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I can't see a situation where we'd knowingly exclude notable information like that from any article at all. Wikipedia is not censored and most of the editors here have had to put up with (and combat) Russian propagandists in the past, so we're familiar with their tactics and instead use more reliable sources for our information. — Czello ^(music) 14:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Until the next one and the next. We can't keep updating this article as if it's a live news feed every time Ukraine advances a few miles. Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

No, it's because it's outside of the scope of this article. It's already been detailed at several other articles (here, here, and here) — Czello ^(music) 13:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Combatting US Trolls and Russian AND Propagandists

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.

---

Given that Wikipedia editors are "not censored", nor some on-line policeforce, then why do they think that they have a duty to combat Russian "propagandists"? Also, do they NEVER have problems combatting paid US trolls? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.153 (talk) 10:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

If you think any user here is a troll or paid editor report them to wp:ani. But read wp:npa first, WP:BOOMERANG may be invoked if you lack evidence. Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

While not attempting point out any trolls, I was more questioning the need for Wikipedia editors to combat what they consider to be Russian disinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.153 (talk) 11:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Read wp:not wp:v wp:rs and wp:POV. Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Then again, while Wikipedia have long-standing rules on the need for a neutral point of view, are not some editors/posters breaking such rules by suggesting that most Russian information is dodgy and needs to be combatted? For are not such comments POV pushing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.153 (talk) 11:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss users actions, you have been told what to do if you think users are breaking the rules, this is not a wp:forum or wp:soapbox and this is a waste of time. So this will be my last reply about this. And read wp:sign and wp:indent. Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Requested move 2 July 2023

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. This has been discussed several times, please see the talk page archives. This would also confuse naming with Russo-Ukrainian War. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Czello ^(music) 08:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

---

Russian invasion of Ukraine → War in Ukraine – As I said, only minor clashes took place in Russia, but the rest of the battles took place in Ukraine. The name that I proposed is much more known. Plus, it’s 1 year and 4 or 5 months since Russia started the war, so it’s no point of calling it an invasion anymore. We must keep the neutral point of view. If you want to censor me, that is fine! 89.122.39.11 (talk) 08:10, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

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

The introduction lacks information on the damage to the country and people killed

Hi all

The article covers much of the damage to the country and the casualities but this isn't reflected in the lead (WP:LEAD). Can we discuss what we think should be included about this in the intro? Based on the section headings I'd suggest including a short summary (maybe like 2 sentences for each?) of information of:

• Casualities
• Humanitarian and refugee crises
• Destruction of infrastructure/cities/towns etc
• Environmental destruction

I realise there is a small amount of information on the first few listed at the very start but this seems insuficient. Here is my suggestion for the environmental destruction info (since I know a little about this), I think its important to include the description of the damage as ecocide since it ties into one of the ICC investigations (environmental war crimes provisions of the Rome Statute) and Ukraine is one of only about 10 countries in the world with a law of ecocide. The middle section I hope summarises the extent of the damage and the cost estimate shows the huge scale of repair (about a 1/3rd of Ukraines entire yearly GDP).

The environmental damage has been described as ecocide. Destruction of the Kakhovka Dam, severe pollution and millions of tonnes of contaminated debris in cities and towns is estimated to cost USD 51 billion to repair.

What do other people think? What have I missed from what else should be included in the lead?

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 09:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC) John Cummings (talk) 09:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

References

I think this is a good suggestion. I've been at it for about an hour and I think I cleared out at least a sentence-worth of space in the lead just by removing extra words that weren't needed. GMG^talk 11:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo, thanks very much for working on this, I realise there's a real issue with space but this feels important to include. Can you tell me if we are hitting the character limit for the article (I remember this from working on some COVID articles), or is it just that the intro is getting just too long to read? Also where do you think the environmental info should go? I feel like the first paragraph could just be extended with some more info on damage caused and this could be added to the end of it? It doesn't seem to fit into the other paragraphs in the intro. John Cummings (talk) 11:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The first paragraph should fit thematically. There is no character limit. The general guidance (WP:LEAD) is for the lead to be about four paragraphs. The general practice is to assume the average reader has limited time and/or limited patience and they'll likely only read the lead. GMG^talk 12:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Shoot. I should add, the Holy-Grail-sacred-rule of leads is that they should roughly correspond to the body. I prefer the one-step-down rule. I've used it in featured articles and it worked fine. If it has a section, it gets a sentence. There are certainly times when you ignore it, but half the project is built on rules-of-thumb and fuzzy principles. We just keep the reader first and make it work. GMG^talk 13:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi GreenMeansGo Thanks very much for the summary, looking at what is already available in the lead and the section headings:

Prelude: well covered in the second paragraph

Invasion: well covered in the third paragraph

International aspects: mostly covered except it seems like foreign involvement is missing?

Casualties: maybe some more detail on this? Also no mention of prisoners of war

Impacts: humanitarian impact and refugee crisis are mentioned but maybe say a bit more? Environmental impact is missing, suggest using the two sentences I created, I can try to slim down a bit more if needed but feels pretty compact.

Peace efforts: appears to be missing completely

Do you agree with this? Anything I've missed? Should we draft it here and then post? Which bits would you feel comfortable writing?

Thanks again

John Cummings (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I think you're probably fine. WP:BEBOLD. I honestly haven't read the entire article again after the last little bit. It changes quickly. GMG^talk 15:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much GreenMeansGo could ask your advice on cutting down the draft I've created (new text in bold), it feels very difficult, just the scale and range of th awful things that have happened.... John Cummings (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I can probably look at this in detail in the morning. GMG^talk 17:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Nah friend. I bought you a sentence. This is a topic people are writing books about right now. We're not a book. We're an encyclopedia. You get like...maybe a sentence...only if other people don't take issue with it. There's not part here where you can take the lead and add three para. GMG^talk 00:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

On 24 February 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine in an escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian War, which began in 2014. The invasion has resulted in tens of thousands of deaths on both sides, and caused Europe's largest refugee crisis since World War II. By June 2022, about 8 million Ukrainians were displaced within their country. More than 8.2 million fled the country by May 2023.

Prior to the invasion, Russian troops concentrated near Ukraine's borders, while Russian officials denied plans to attack. Vladimir Putin announced a "special military operation" to support the breakaway republics of Donetsk and Luhansk, whose military forces were fighting Ukraine in the Donbas conflict. He said the goal was to "demilitarise" and "denazify" Ukraine. Putin espoused irredentist views, challenged Ukraine's right to exist, and falsely claimed that Ukraine was governed by neo-Nazis who persecuted the ethnic Russian minority. Russian air strikes and a ground invasion were launched along a northern front from Belarus towards Kyiv, a north-eastern front towards Kharkiv, a southern front from Crimea, and a south-eastern front from the Donbas. Ukraine enacted martial law and ordered a general mobilisation.

Russian troops retreated from the northern front by April 2022. On the southern and south-eastern fronts, Russia captured Kherson in March and Mariupol in May after a destructive siege. In April, Russia launched a renewed battle of Donbas. Russian forces continued to bomb military and civilian targets far from the front line, including the energy grid through the winter.

In late 2022, Ukraine launched counteroffensives in the south and in the east. Soon after, Russia announced the illegal annexation of four partly-occupied oblasts. In November, Ukraine retook parts of Kherson Oblast. Throughout February 2023, Russia mobilised nearly 200,000 soldiers for a new offensive in Donbas. In June 2023, Ukraine launched another counteroffensive in the southeast.

Russian troops have caused mass civilian casualties and displacement and has been characterized as "genocide" and "democide". Official statistics and estimates of prisoners of war (POW) have varied. UN human rights commissioner Volker Türk reported that more than 90% of the Ukrainian POWs interviewed by his office had experienced frequent acts of torture throughout detention. Several videos have purportedly shown Russian soldiers beheading Ukrainian soldiers. Russia has engaged in "massive deportation" of over 1.3 million Ukrainian civilians, potentially constituting crimes against humanity.

The environmental damage has been described as ecocide. Destruction of the Kakhovka Dam, severe pollution and millions of tonnes of contaminated debris in cities and towns has been estimated to cost USD 51 billion to repair. The war has reduced international food supplies and has been a cause of the 2022 food crises. Over 500 Ukrainian cultural heritage sites have been damaged and/or looted by Russian forces.

Foreign involvement in the invasion has been worldwide and extensive, with support ranging from foreign military sales and aid, foreign military involvement, foreign sanctions and ramifications, and foreign condemnation and protest. 41 countries and European Union institutions provided Ukraine with $155.9 billion in financial, humanitarian, and military aid from 24 January 2022 to 24 February 2023. Chinese and the UAE state owned firms have supplied weapons and weapon components to Russia.

The invasion has been met with international condemnation. The United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution ES-11/1 condemning the invasion and demanding a full Russian withdrawal. The International Court of Justice ordered Russia to suspend military operations and the Council of Europe expelled Russia. Many countries imposed sanctions on Russia, and on its ally Belarus, and provided humanitarian and military aid to Ukraine. Protests occurred around the world. Those in Russia were met with mass arrests and increased media censorship. Over 1,000 companies left Russia and Belarus in response to the invasion. The International Criminal Court (ICC) opened an investigation into possible crimes against humanity, war crimes, abduction of children, and genocide, issuing an arrest warrant for Putin in March 2023.

References

---

As it is ongoing I fell this will fail wp:v, about 5 seconds after it is made. Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Slatersteven I don't understand, can you explain further? I'm not sure I understand if you mean the structure of the paragraph I'm suggesting, or my example for part of it (which uses reliable sources), or do you mean its likely to go out of date quickly? John Cummings (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I mean leave this out of the lede until we actually have a stable version that will not have to be updated every day. We can afford to wait, we do not have a publishing deadline. Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeeeeah... this is a page getting almost a million views a day. WP:TIND doesn't really apply in the sense of...me writing something on someone from 1890. It'll be a completely different article in a year. GMG^talk 13:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't fail V? Nothing fails V as long at it was verifiable at the time of writing. It just means that the article needs updated. GMG^talk 12:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Additionally I think this info should be fairly easy to update with multiple sources publishing information on these topics. John Cummings (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• @John Cummings: The lead is for someone who doesn't know jack about the subject, and presumably has between 45 seconds and two minutes to get the rough edges. You're looking for broooooooad and simple statements. Again, this in an article getting about a million readers a day. The detail needs to go into the body for those who are really interested and/or have the time. This level of detail for the lead has to be condensed to something like 15-30 words. GMG^talk 12:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much GreenMeansGo, I'll take another go at it, the issue I'm trying to resolve is it seems maybe only 60% of what is included in the article is summarised in the lead currently, I gave the missing sections as much room as the existing topics (about 2 sentences each), I'll try and trim it down to a sentence per section or something. Also looks like its gone down to 'only' about 30,000 a day now, so still an absolutely huge audience. John Cummings (talk) 13:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi GreenMeansGo, what do you think about this? I've reduced it to one sentence per missing section heading to make the article comply with WP:LEAD, I don't really know how I could make it shorter. Perhaps the bit about beheadings videos isn't needed? I don't really know, its all very grim

Russian troops have caused mass civilian casualties characterized as "genocide" and "democide". Ukrainian soldiers reported frequent torture throughout detention and videos have purportedly shown Russian forces beheading Ukrainian soldiers.

The environmental damage including the destruction of Kakhovka Dam, severe pollution and millions of tonnes of contaminated debris has been described as ecocide. The war has reduced international food supplies and contributed to the 2022 food crises. Over 500 Ukrainian cultural heritage sites have been damaged and/or looted by Russian forces.

Foreign involvement has been worldwide and extensive, with Ukrainian forces receiving foreign military aid and sales. Chinese and the UAE state owned firms have supplied weapons and weapon components to Russia.

References

Thanks again

John Cummings (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm really not trying to be a jerk. I'm just trying to get you in the right head-space for a big article that's only going to get bigger.

Like...I could remove seven words just by replacing past-perfect tense with simple past. "Have" and "had" are rarely necessary. Then just...remove every word you can get away with removing. Do we care about "weapons" and "weapon components"? Does the reader with two minutes of time care about components? Do we need "damaged and/or looted"? Do we need to preface a food crisis by telling the reader with two minutes that a food crisis involved reduced food?

You got a couple minutes for the whole lead, and just this addition is about a 35 second read. GMG^talk 23:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo I really really appreciate you taking the time to explain things, its a great exercise in refining. I think the detailed description of troop movements kind of threw me off. I've made some small changes to the lead to reduce the character count a little bit (38 less) but I feel like there's something baggy about this , it talks about nazis twice right next to each other, I think this may be repetition? Can't quite work it out....

claiming the goal was to "demilitarise" and "denazify" Ukraine. Putin espoused irredentist views, challenged Ukraine's right to exist, and falsely claimed that Ukraine was governed by neo-Nazis persecuting the ethnic Russian minority.

Another try, even as a slow reader I've got it down to about 10ish seconds. Its 345 characters in total, I think connecting these statements to other sentences may help reduce the count even more to maybe 300. I feel like this is pretty efficient for the third(ish) of article sections which are not covered in the lead.

Russian troops caused mass civilian casualties, characterized as genocide and democide.

Captured Ukrainian soldiers reported frequent torture.

Extensive environmental damage, described as ecocide, contributed to the 2022 food crises.

Over 500 Ukrainian cultural heritage sites were damaged/looted.

Chinese and UAE state owned firms supported Russia. (currently the lead reads as though only Ukraine was supported by other countries which is misleading)

Again, thanks very much.

John Cummings (talk) 10:48, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Russian emigration following the Russian invasion of Ukraine

More than 900,000 Russians fled. They should be mentioned at the beginning of the first paragraph, like the Ukrainians. Parham wiki (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Why, they are not war refugees they are draft dodgers? Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, they became refugees due to the retreat of democracy, massive sanctions and military mobilization caused by the invasion. Parham wiki (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that Russian de-population is important to note in this article, but I'm not sure if equating it to Ukrainian refugees by mentioning the two demographic changes together is the right course of action. Could the Russian immigrants be cited later in the article somewhere? Trilomonk (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that Russian de-population is important to note in this article, but I'm not sure if equating it to Ukrainian refugees by mentioning the two demographic changes together is the right course of action. Could the Russian immigrants be cited later in the article somewhere? Trilomonk (talk) 19:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it can be mentioned in the first paragraph if the editors don't want it, although my preference is to mention it in the first paragraph. Parham wiki (talk) 20:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I believe there was a section in the article on this matter not very long ago, but it was removed on grounds that it's a topic covered on its main article; Russian emigration following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which now exists as a link on this article (though even that has strangely been removed a few times without explanation). Per MOS:LEAD, it should be a significant part of the article body if it is going to be included in the lead. Doesn't seem likely that it is WP:DUE to be mentioned in the way you are suggesting either way though, we're talking about millions of Ukrainian refugees compared to a much smaller number of Russians who have fled to avoid consequences of the invasion, mostly to avoid being forced into the military through conscription. Either way, it needs to be back on the article in a more significant way before it can even be discussed being in the lead. TylerBurden (talk) 01:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I wrote wrongly: "Yes, if the editors don't want it to be written in the first paragraph", I meant: "Yes, if the editors don't want it, it should be written somewhere else". Parham wiki (talk) 08:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree, of course, most of them fled because of the sanctions and the retreat of democracy. Parham wiki (talk) 08:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I don’t believe the vast majority are refugees, if any. Refugee is a specific category of asylum seekers, which is a specific category of migrants. Are there any statistics about any Russians getting refugee status? The specific article is Russian emigration following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I think the statistic may belong in the body along with other detrimental effects on Russia of its invasion of its neighbour.  —Michael Z. 01:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

That's right, it should be written next, but in any case, they fled from their country like the Ukrainians, and in the first paragraph it is written: More than 8.2 million fled the country by May 2023. In addition, did all Ukrainians become refugees? Some of those poor people became slaves of smugglers. Parham wiki (talk) 09:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Enormous difference in significance and notability.

In Ukraine, 44% of the population displaced by a war by an invader accused of genocide, half of those to other countries, to escape being kidnapped, tortured, raped, wounded, or killed, placing a huge burden on the state’s economy. Many have had their homes or entire cities completely destroyed. Some have been displaced for over nine years.

In Russia, a fraction of one percent left, mostly economic migrants, draft dodgers, and dissenters, due to internal causes: the actions of their own government.  —Michael Z. 13:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Already in the early part of the war, Ukraine had more people displaced in absolute numbers as a result of Russia’s war, than Russia has had migrants related to it to date. In 2017 the UN refugee agency recorded 1.8 million internally displaced and conflict-affected people from Ukraine.[38]  —Michael Z. 13:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

You are right, I am convinced. Parham wiki (talk) 13:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Link to discussion related to the article: Talk:List of genocides#Child abductions in the Russian invasion of Ukraine

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

---

Participate in the discussion related to this article. Parham wiki (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Should the introduction include a mention of the Kharkiv counteroffensive?

As it is now it seems to document all other major offensive/counteroffensive operations, so why not Kharkiv? Trilomonk (talk) 17:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

"Russian troops retreated from the northern front by April 2022". Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

That sentence refers to the initial Russian attempt to strike Kyiv. The Kharkiv counteroffensive, According to its own page, began in September 2022. Trilomonk (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The lead says, "In late 2022, Ukraine launched counteroffensives in the south and east." The "east" is the Kharkiv counteroffensive. - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 12:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Understood. Trilomonk (talk) 16:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

'displaced within their country' vs 'internally displaced' in the lead?

Hi all

I've been doing a little work on the lead trying to reduce its length by improving grammar and including small summaries from article sections which were completely missing (per WP:LEAD). One question I have is was there any discussion of if the lead should say 'displaced within their country' or 'internally displaced'? Internally displaced is the correct term and also reduces the length of the lead by a small bit, but maybe 'displaced within their country' is simpler language? Any thoughts? Its not a bit change but thought its maybe worth deciding

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 15:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

internally displaced seems fine. Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

"Displaced within their country" sounds verbose and less simple than "internally displaced". This isn't the Simple English Wikipedia; we shouldn't be spelling things out excessively for readers. Yue🌙 21:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Merger between Battle of Dovhenke and Battles of Bohorodychne and Krasnopillia

Some time ago, Super Dromaeosaurus suggested that the articles for the Battle of Dovhenke and the Battles of Bohorodychne and Krasnopillia should be merged into one article the "Sloviansk offensive", because they were battles meant to pave the way for the seizure of Sloviansk in the future- sources proving this are pointed out on the suggestion he made.

Super Dromaeosaurus, Jebiguess, SnoopyBird, and I all agreed with the proposal (me months after the proposal was made, though), while Dawsongfg and an IP opposed it. The rationale for a merger was pretty solid so, upon discovering it, I made a draft article to start merging. If other editors could help with it that'd be appreciated- if you happen to oppose a merger than this could also serve as a place to discuss whether or not it should occur - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 00:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I will try to add information to it from time to time. Super Ψ Dro 07:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Likewise. Jebiguess (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

CSTO

CSTO and all its member countries are not enemies of NATO and did not participate or even support the invasion of Ukraine, so remove the image of CSTO. Parham wiki (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Fair point, I've removed it. — Czello ^(music) 19:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a link to other invasions by Russia?

The article starts with "This article is about the invasion that began in 2022. For other invasions, see List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine."

It should limit [link] to other invasions by Russia.2603:8000:2942:4A00:A1C9:5E65:BB17:1760 (talk) 02:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

No such list exists, nor is it be necessary to create separate lists for each specific invader. I'm unsure why that list article exists – same for the only two other such lists list of invasions of France and list of invasions of Menorca – as they are synthesis. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

If they are examples of what we are talking about, no. Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 July 2023

"Rand researcher Dara Massicot" --> "RAND researcher Dara Massicot", as the corporation name is capitalized. Potentially also wikilink RAND to RAND.

2600:1700:38D0:2870:6437:594F:CE03:BAD2 (talk) 08:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

References

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 08:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

New estimate of Russian soldiers deaths at 47,000

Links: Meduza, Mediazona. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 13:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 July 2023 (2)

In the Ukrainian unrest, Russian activity in Crimea and Donbas or Prelude section, write: In mid-2021, the Taliban, allegedly supported by Russia, overthrew the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan during the U.S. withdrawal from the country.Security Council of Russia secretary Nikolai Patrushev compared the situation to Ukraine–United States relations, stating that "a similar situation awaits supporters of the American choice in Ukraine". Parham wiki (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Why, what does it tell us? Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The second round of preparations for the invasion began two months after the victory of the Russian-backed Taliban and al-Qaeda (the group responsible for the September 11 attacks and other attacks on American citizens, interests and soil) in the war against the United States. The Russian government asks itself: "The United States could not defend itself and its main ally outside of NATO, so how can it defend a country that is not a member of NATO? Patrushev predicted that the United States would also abandon its allies in Ukraine, saying that ...Kyiv is obsequiously serving the interests of its overseas patrons, striving to get into NATO. But was the ousted pro-American regime in Kabul saved by the fact that Afghanistan had the status of a principal U.S. ally outside NATO? (No). A similar situation awaits supporters of the American choice in Ukraine. Parham wiki (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Then say "and Russia believed that the USA would abandon Ukraine as it did the Afgan regime". Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree, write. Parham wiki (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I will wait for others to agree. Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

OK, thanks Parham wiki (talk) 16:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

1. The reference for the claim of support from Russia isn't RUSI itself, but rather, commentary from Antonio Giustozzi: "The views expressed in this Commentary are the author’s, and do not represent those of RUSI or any other institution." This is WP:NOR.
2. Reference number 2 only covers the claim that the Republic of Afghanistan was overthrown, a wildly broad statement that tells readers where and who but not when, how, or why.
3. References 3 and 4 only confirm the comments made by Patrushev where they highlight a comparison, which is highly subjective.
4. IMHO, putting all these references together to claim that Russia backed the Taliban is WP:SYNTH in all its splendor.  Spintendo  03:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

   OK, thanks Parham wiki (talk) 09:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Typo

There's a typo I would edit if the article wasn't protected, so I'll just point it out here.

Under the environmental section of Impacts "Around 30% of Ukraine's land is now litered with explosives"

It's littered not litered. 184.103.36.165 (talk) 11:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done Mr rnddude (talk) 11:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Brain drain vs emigration

I am a bit confused as to why we are using the term "brain drain" in this article to describe the uptick in emigration from Russia?

I appreciate that there may be more than 100 million hits on Google for the term "brain drain", Rjensen, but in the same breath there are also 152 million hits for "emigration" when I check. This is also despite the inaccuracy of Google's hit count. Looking at Google Trends though, emigration is much more commonly used than brain drain.

Anyway, the section content is talking about the broad departure of general populous Russians from the country, not specifically the exodus of skilled individuals which is what "brain drain" refers to. Even Wikipedia's page, brain drain, redirects to human capital flight to describe the movement of skilled persons rather than the general population. The term itself is also in itself Westernised slang, and not of encyclopedic tone. Tim (Talk) 04:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

"emigration" is the general term and adds nothing. "Brain Drain" says emigration AND highlights three factors that are very important according to the reliable sources: a) who left (the better educated) and b) the impact on Russia (a massive loss of top-of-the line human capital and skills. In my experience most of the news reports on the post 2020 emigration from Russia include the loss of human capital. c) Let me add a 3rd factor: Brain Drain includes the loss of many (or most) high tech western companies and their non-Russian experts--their departure is not called "emigration" but is called "brain drain." I think you will agree that the surge of departures in last 3 years does not reflect the "general population" (which is mostly lower income / less educated people). Rjensen (talk) 05:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

According to BBC: [{Cite news |date=2023-06-03 |title=Why are people leaving Russia, who are they, and where are they going? |language=en-GB |work=BBC News |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65790759 |access-date=2023-07-09}}] "They come from different walks of life. Some are journalists like us, but there are also IT experts, designers, artists, academics, lawyers, doctors, PR specialists, and linguists. Most are under 50. Many share western liberal values and hope Russia will be a democratic country one day. Some are LGBTQ+. Sociologists studying the current Russian emigration say there is evidence that those leaving are younger, better educated and wealthier than those staying. More often they are from bigger cities." I added the quote to the article--the BBC was already there. 05:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

There are 1,190 scholarly articles in Google Scholar using the terms "brain drain" and "Russia" and published thus far in 2023! see this link to all of them Rjensen (talk) 05:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Was not the real "Brain Drain" here from the press hack that came up with the term? For instead of using this Brain Dead idea - why not replace it with a less loaded term? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.75.57 (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses the terminology that is devised by the reliable sources, and "Brain Drain" has been widely adopted by the media and by the academics. Rjensen (talk) 03:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Rjensen, brain drain is not in misuse here. TylerBurden (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I can see that this has already been addressed and that the section has been repurposed and renamed. At the time of first raising this, there was no mention in the article about the specific lost of highly trained or skilled individuals, hence my concern with the term "brain drain" versus general emigration. I am glad to see that this has since been rectified. Tim (Talk) 07:37, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Still an invasion?

This is not really an invasion anymore. Since 2022, it was just another phase of the war. I think it will be good to call it: Russo-Ukrainian War (2022–present), just like with the Somali Civil War (2009–present) page. If this phase lasted for only 4 months or less, then it would be just an invasion. Unless we change the Russo-Ukrainian War page to Russo-Ukrainian conflict, which would most likely not happen. WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 19:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

It is an ongoing invasion, that is, Ukraine is still being invaded by Russia. BeŻet (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

However, the brave Ukrainians are resisting it, so it’s no longer just an invasion. WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I feel like the invasion was until around the time Russians just stopped advancing. Same way how by 1943 or so the German invasion of the Soviet Union transitioned into becoming the Eastern Front. Juxlos (talk) 04:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

True. WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 06:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

If you support my idea, you could simply make a request to move it, since you are an Extended Confirmed user. If you don’t want, it’s fine! WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 06:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

• The problem with this interpretation of the word "invasion" is that editors never try to define what would its meaning be according to it and how would it affect the articles, which it clearly would. I feel like the invasion was until around the time Russians just stopped advancing and when did they stop? In April 2022 after they retreated from the north? In July 2022 when they took Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk? In May 2023 when they took Bakhmut? When exactly did the invasion end according to this abstract interpretation? All of this is nothing but personal subjectivity. It is why our current practice, calling the whole thing an invasion, which is unambiguously accurate, is superior. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 08:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree and with your reasoning + juxlos's reasoning, but there should probably be a formal move discussion given the amount of traffic this article gets. DarmaniLink (talk) 09:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Leave it as it is, people are always going to want to change the name anyway and WP:RS are still using the term to refer to the full scale war started by Russia in 2022 that is still going on. TylerBurden (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to add the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria to the Ukrainian side, and Iran to the Russian support section

With the direct military involvement of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria’s government-in-exile, I propose that we add it to the pro-Ukraine combatants. After all, it is like Donetsk and Luhansk in a way. All are only recognized by a few countries (Ichkeria, one), but only Donetsk and Luhansk are shown as combatants.

In addition, with the recent Ukrainian strike that killed ten Iranian soldiers, I also propose that we add Iran to the Russian support section, as it is clearly now supporting Russia in an advisory role. Blepii (talk) 04:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Ichkeria is currently only recognized by Ukraine, and only since November (in a similar vein to how DeepStateMap.Live now depicts various areas generally recognized as Russian territory (everything annexed during WW2, as well as Chechnya) as "occupied". There is no real difference between Chechen contingents and other units such as the Kastuś Kalinoŭski Regiment. On the other hand, the DPR and LPR were actually de facto functional governments exercising stable control and administration of territory, and also received a few recognitions from Russian allies such as Syria, North Korea, and (depending on the interpretation of official statements) informally a bunch of others.

More importantly, the DNR and LNR were putting in about twenty times the manpower into the fight, and their level of involvement was so intense that the number of casualties has been estimated at more than the total pre-war size of their armed forces.

As for adding Iran, all I can find is Ukrainian government claims of such a strike from last November. Besides, by that criterion, we would have to revisit the Infobox Wars with regard to the UK and several other countries. While I, for one, actually might want to do so at a later point, that would necessitate novel arguments which I haven't finished carefully preparing, and an overwhelming case would be necessary to avoid a long-running furball over the issue. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 10:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

What is “were actually de facto functional governments exercising stable control and administration of territory”? Nonsense.

They were Russian-controlled since May 2014. Current sources label that territory “Russian-controlled territory as of 24 February 2022” (Plokhy 2023, The Russo-Ukrainian War) or simply label the “line of contact before invasion,” or earlier “held by Russian-backed forces.[39] At this point they shouldn’t even be in the infobox as belligerent actors, because they had no independent national identity or statehood, nor any agency in the conflict.  —Michael Z. 00:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Being a proxy/puppet/client or what have you does not mean that they weren’t acting as discrete entities. It’s not as if the Kremlin was micromanaging every administrative decision (far from it) and as we saw, the 1st and 2nd AC were not integrated into the Russian force structure until recently.

A more or less analogous case, Japanese invasion of Manchuria, lists Manchukuo under a bullet point.

About not having an “independent national identity” — you’d have to ask the residents of those regions if that’s an accurate representation of their feelings. As for statehood — it depends on which definition one uses.

In any event, the current question is about the Chechen government-in-exile.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 04:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Yea, I am not sure this does not fail wp:undue. Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Support Parham wiki (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Article idea: Telegram during the Russian invasion of Ukraine

There are a ton of articles existing on this topic that could be used as sources: [40][41][42][43]

The main reason I could see against creating an article like this is that there might already be an article that covers a similar scope. Anyone know if there’s some article already existing, like “Social media during…” or “Information ecosystem during…”? If not, I might get started on a draft. HappyWith (talk) 14:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

There are no such articles. Parham wiki (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I incite you to propose this at this article's talk page at Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedia. I think its very likely someone at any of the two decides to write an article, which we will later be able to translate, considering the popularity of Telegram during the war. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the above that this is a very good idea for an article. – GnocchiFan (talk) 16:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Start with Social media during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and break off sections summary-style as necessary.  —Michael Z. 18:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

That's a good idea, thanks. HappyWith (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

It’s definitely a topic that would meet Wikipedia’s notability requirements. Mzajac’s suggestion is also a good one. Volunteer Marek 18:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Update: I’ve created a very initial draft at Draft:Social media during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Other editors are welcome to contribute. HappyWith (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Could the article titled Social media during the Russo-Ukrainian War? From quick searching I found this chapter in a book published in 2015, that chapter cited by 61 in Google Scholar (see subheading "Social Media in the Russian-Ukrainian Conflict"). Hddty (talk) 05:51, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

This may be the best idea, tbh. As I've been writing the article, it has expanded in scope naturally to cover the larger war, and I'll probably move the page after writing a little more. Thanks for the suggestion! HappyWith (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for the suggestions! The article is now in mainspace at Social media in the Russo-Ukrainian War. HappyWith (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Claims of Human Rights Abuses

At the risk of being attacked as a pro-Russian troll, I have to ask why Wikipedia is willing to publish (unconfirmed) reports of Russian human right abuses - while down-playing claims of Ukrainian war crimes?

For an AP report within the Wikipedia article stared that "several videos started circulating on different websites purportedly showing Russian soldiers beheading Ukrainian soldiers."

Yet, following the links from the AP article, another AP report presented evidence that the Ukrainians killed Russian troops surrendering. This report was not included within the Wikipedia article.

A case of innocent until proven Russian?

Because RS do. Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

NOw if you want to add claims of Ukrainian ones please do so. Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Article for pro-war Russian nationalists / “Z-patriots” / “angry patriots”

They don’t really have an established name in English or Russian (that I know of), but essentially I’m talking about the pro-war nationalists who think Putin hasn’t gone far enough, like Igor Girkin and his friends as well as Prigozhin and others who have criticized Putin. I think they probably deserve an article, given their rising importance in the Russian sphere and all the references to them in existing WP articles.

Some examples of the group being referred to as a distinct faction:

• What Igor Strelkov’s arrest means for Russia’s ‘patriots’ faction: "…It became clear that after the regime had managed to cope with the criticism from the liberal-minded people by either throwing them to prison or forcing them out of the country, the next target would be the “patriots”..."

• Idol of the Z-patriots. Next to him, Putin seems to be a respectable leader.

• Pro-war nationalists say they are entering Russian politics to counter turmoil: " In Putin's Russia, fiercely nationalist politicians and bloggers have since the war began increasingly taken on the role of critics of the military top brass who they say is failing due to incompetence, corruption and even treachery."

• Vladimir Putin’s failing invasion is fueling the rise of Russia’s far right: " Instead, the most serious challenge to Putinism may come from a newly emerging political movement that is even further to the right on the political spectrum than Putin himself. At present, this is a disorganized but vocal movement that has found its voice in the many unofficial Russian “war correspondents” and social media accounts reporting on the invasion while bypassing the Russia’s Kremlin-controlled mainstream information space. Most write from a Russian nationalist perspective while employing ethnic slurs for Ukrainians. They are unambiguously pro-war and often apparently pro-Putin. However, their content is frequently at odds with Russia’s official propaganda and highly critical of the military officials leading the invasion."

I wouldnt really know what to call the article, given there isn’t a clear WP:COMMONNAME at all. If other editors have ideas, let me know. HappyWith (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I've seen a common colloquial name arise on social media, but its more of a disparaging term rhyming an ethnic slur, so I don't think it would be appropriate for here as the common name. You could do it in a sorta-roundabout way and make it the term itself (and about the term itself), then use that as a means to include the history and circumstances of the term, where when/if a common name does emerge, it can be replaced with that, but that's getting into WP:CRYSTAL territory.

The other option took would be to just call it something descriptive like "Pro-war Russian Nationalists in the 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine" DarmaniLink (talk) 03:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the descriptive name you propose would understate their zeal. Lots of Russians are pro war and lots of them are nationalist. What makes these guys different is that they think Russia’s current methods aren’t extreme and brutal enough. Volunteer Marek 04:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it was just kinda the first thing that popped into my head.

I tried playing with chatGPT for a bit and got something like:

"Proponents of Escalated Russian Military Operations in Ukraine"

Maybe "harsher" instead of escalated

How does that sound? DarmaniLink (talk) 05:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

No, that doesn’t sound right. I don’t think ChatGPT will be useful here. HappyWith (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I’ve created a very bare initial draft at Draft:Z-patriots for now. Feel free to contribute there. HappyWith (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

...Now published to mainspace at Angry patriots. HappyWith (talk) 14:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, as we say be bold. Thanks for making the executive decision so we didnt languish over this too much. DarmaniLink (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Naval Map recognizes Chinese claims in South China Sea

For some reason the sanction map shows naval territories. It seems to recognize Chinese claims in the south china sea. I propose we switch to a map that does not show naval sovereignty to ensure NPOV on this issue. 86.107.186.224 (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done Was a bit tricky technically.

That image had been flagged as problematic before for other reasons, but iirc no action was taken then. I’m going to go and remove it from the other articles too.

The example you gave is only one of the issues as there are a lot of EEZ disputes worldwide.

Furthermore, the unnecessary EEZ markings were cluttering.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

EEZs is important, since the sanctions relate to issues of navigation and the admission of ships to maritime zones. In addition, this map better visualizes the island states. If you have authoritative sources that describe the borders differently, edit the map--Artemis Dread (talk) 16:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@Artemis Dread I don’t understand how EEZs are significantly affected by sanctions. Can you explain the mechanics?

In my view, any benefit is outweighed by the issues of NPOV and visual clutter.

Besides, it’s not typical to depict EEZs in similar cases.

As far as maritime borders go, there are so many significant EEZ disputes out there that there is no widely recognized border.

As a proud flag-waving American, I take personal umbrage to your depiction of an oil-rich wedge of the Beaufort Sea as belonging to Canada’s EEZ!!

Just imagine how many other people around the world feel the same way about far more serious maritime disputes.

Afaik there are relatively few island states actively sanctioning as of now, and there are other options to depict them.

The easiest thing to do would be to simply create a new map without EEZs, and let each individual WP decide which image to use. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@RadioactiveBoulevardier, advise a neutral basis for an alternative option--Artemis Dread (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Land borders only would avoid most issues. I believe the template maps for those use dotted lines for disputes. There’s also the option of using stripes for the small number of disputed areas. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Fresh Discussion on Adding Countries to the Infobox

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

---

Its been over a year since the last discussion on this when a vote was held that was inconclusive and in light of how much support Ukraine has received at this point a new discussion is in order. Ukraine has received or been promised billions of dollars not just in financial aid but also valuable western equipment such as APC's, IFV's, and even tanks. Russia has also recieved albeit less but still support from nations such as North Korea and Iran. To not list these countries in the infobox in some capacity seems more misleading than not including them in my opinion. Nations that only provided medical aid are listed in the infobox for the Korean War article and I'm not going to list them all but you can find other examples so clearly there is precedence for putting countries that aren't directly fighting in the infobox. The aid Ukraine has received has been undeniably important in their ability to continue fighting and conduct operations such as the recent counter offensive and currently a reader that just reads the lead of the article and the info box might not realize this since financial aid and military aid to Ukraine is only briefly mentioned. I read the concerns people had about including NATO in the infobox because it might make people think NATO is at war with Russia but if NATO and other countries are clearly labeled as only providing arms and not as belligerents I don't see this being an issue. UkraineWarProposal (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The problem is who do we add, what criteria, as you say Russia has also received assistance. Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Hopefully in this discussion a consensus can be reached on the critera. In my opinion any nation thats sent military equipment which has been used in the war by either side should definitely be included. Certain nations such as the United States which have provided the most aid should be prioritized for inclusion. UkraineWarProposal (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

That’s far too broad a proposal to be likely to gain traction. I invite OP to pore through the archives. Actually, I believe the big banner up top links to the most important archived discussions. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 15:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

1. The argument is poor. So many things have such influence on the course of the war. Ukraine’s strong sense of civic national identity. Ukrainians’ ability to adapt to, use, and develop technology. Their defensive advantage. Russia’s high level of corruption and political infighting, Soviet military mindset, and poor preparedness for an invasion. But none of these belong in the infobox. Don’t write the article in the infobox.
2. It certainly doesn’t override all of the arguments against discussed previously.
3. Since previous discussions, there is a new consensus established to just not do this: shoehorning a “Supporters” column, under “Belligerents” where it would never belong, in an infobox where there is no consensus to include non-belligerent supporters. It should probably be removed from most other articles. It should definitely not be added anywhere, and especially not in a highly debated and questionable instance such as this one. See Template talk:Infobox military conflict#RfC on "supported by" being used with the belligerent parameter.

 —Michael Z. 16:46, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

A good point, two wrongs do not make a right. Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

In response to point one all those things you listed that aren't included in the infobox are just as important if not more so then the military aid to Ukraine. However I believe it is useful to a reader and improves the article if they can at a glance in the infobox see which nations are supporting who in a conflict and there is no good reason not to include this information. I also was not aware of that more recent consensus you mention but I disagree. I think it is useful to a reader who doesn't have time to read the article to see at a glance which nations are supporting which side in a conflict. If it is clearly labeled that the nations are only supplying arms I don't see what negative effect this could have on the article and a readers interpretation. UkraineWarProposal (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Just as a side note, I’d be wary of arguments based on the RfC over there, as 1) we have our own very special infobox all to ourselves 2) adopting the deprecation would raise new issues regarding the continued inclusion of Belarus.

Pinging @Cinderella157 for comment on this point as they have been heavily involved in that side of things. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Support if along with NATO we add mosquitos. Source TylerBurden (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

It’s been about 8 months, I believe. Last RfC was closed Dec 30. I don’t really see that anything has changed. Volunteer Marek 15:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

What about fuel for tanks, tires for armoured cars? Military aid is not just guns and bullets. Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

If the amount of fuel or other forms of logistical support is significant enough yes that would merit inclusion I believe. UkraineWarProposal (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The issue is that OP isn’t bringing novel arguments. I believe fairly strong ones do exist, but it isn’t a convenient time for me to get too deeply involved in a discussion like this due to IRL personal tasks consuming my headspace. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Also that RfC was closed with a plea by User:ScottishFinishRadish Also, can we not do this again in a couple months?. I guess 8 months doesn’t qualify as “a couple months” but I think the idea still applies. Volunteer Marek 15:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it does. Lots has changed in the 8 months since that discussion. Ukraine has recieved lots of essential western military and financial aid which it has used to prepare and now conduct a critical counter offensive. I don't think you or anyone else is denying or even can deny how important and useful the aid from countries like the U.S. has been to Ukraines war effort. It says in the counter offensive article itself that its success is important so western nations will see how valuable their support has been and will continue it. Not to mention the leaks back in April revealed certain NATO countries have gone so far as to even send in special forces for secret operations. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65245065 UkraineWarProposal (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I think its clear NATO and other nations are doing pretty much everything they can to support Ukraines war effort short of a military intervention which isn't an option for many reasons. North Korea and Iran are supporting Russia to a lesser extent but enough to merit inclusion as well in my opinion. I think the only real issue with including more nations in the infobox is a lack of consensus on criteria for inclusion which I am hoping we can fix in this talk page. UkraineWarProposal (talk) 16:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

That says one country, and it does not say “for secret operations.” For all you know, they were a security detail for the embassy or for their visiting head of government. This does not belong in the infobox.  —Michael Z. 16:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

As is China. Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

My mistake you are correct. Its unknown what they were doing there but why was it classified and why special forces just for protecting a visiting head of state? Anyway I'm not saying that should be in the infobox anyway. I was just trying to illustrate my point that NATO has given Ukraine LOTS of support and therefore should be in the infobox. UkraineWarProposal (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The article literally says the UK always treats its special forces’ actions as classified. That’s why. It doesn’t illustrate that, because you have no evidence they had anything to do with support to Ukraine.

And why keep repeating NATO NATO when we know about seventy or more states and many international organizations have provided diplomatic, civil-society, economic, humanitarian, or military support to Ukraine?  —Michael Z. 16:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, "NATO support" does now seem to include most of NATO. Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Well put.  —Michael Z. 17:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

In the interest of completeness, it’s worth reviewing statements Josep Borrell, Jens Stoltenberg, and other intergovernmental officials have made on the topic.

Funny though how people keep suggesting NATO, but not the EU.

Anyway… RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Im just mentioning NATO lots because they are the most prominent in the news I guess my bad. In any case let me clarify that my proposal upon further thought is now for any nation that has provided significant military aid to Ukraine or Russia to be included in the infobox. I am not sure what should be considered significant however. UkraineWarProposal (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Most, not all, individual NATO member states, the EU, the G7, the IMF, the International Criminal Court, the IAEA, the UN OHCHR, and the UN General Assembly, for example, have all been prominent in the news for their support of Ukraine. But if it’s not supporters that you want to add, please do define what it is and propose an appropriate heading. Leaving supporters out of a “Supporters” field is more of an omission than not kludging the template with a write-in sub-field.  —Michael Z. 17:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

And there's the rub, we would have to decide what is significant, and that is far too subjective. Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I am not proposing the infobox be every nation and organization thats ever come out in support of either Ukraine of Russia. I am proposing any nation or organization that has provided notable and significant military, financial, or humanitarian aid be included. I ask that other contributors give their opinions on what the criteria for inclusion should be so we can possibly reach a consensus. UkraineWarProposal (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes I got that, my point was "how do we define that?". Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Thats the entire problem. We all need to come to a consensus on whats "significant" which I don't think is subjective nor impossible. Colombia and Cambodia for example have given much less support to Ukraine then countries like the U.S. and are therefore not necessary to include in the infobox. UkraineWarProposal (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Issue is that OP didn’t suggest a clear standard. It’s one thing to suggest putting a few larger countries in on a case by case basis due to a visible and demonstrable pattern of large-scale support clearly independent of the wider effort. It’s quite another to just suggest that all arms suppliers be added.

The end goal should be to provide something helpful at a glance to the reader. Adding minor European countries that sent some small arms at some point isn’t helpful.

At the same time, the status quo is also potentially problematic relative to MOS and P&G, but that’s a topic for another thread.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with the entire approach, unless you label it “Biggest sources of arms,” or whatever specific criteria it’s supposed to reflect.

But “Supported by” looks like a List of supporters of Ukraine. It broadly implies this is who supports Ukraine and those omitted do not. In terms of significance, the insult against “minor countries” ignores that Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have contributed 1% of their GDP! It ignores that, again, over 70 states support Ukraine. So if they’re not all listed then there should be a link to the full list, and we’re back to trying to shoehorn an article section, or rather a separate major listicle, or two, into the infobox to convey an entire subject that the infobox has no field for, by design.  —Michael Z. 22:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

You are focusing in on the UK and their special forces but remember that the leak says special forces from other countries such as the U.S. are in Ukraine as well. We don't know what they are doing in Ukraine but why do we have to assume it's just something mundane? UkraineWarProposal (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

No reason, which is why we also can't assume it's not mundane. Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

True. But it doesn’t even say they’re armed, so it’s a stretch to claim they’re “operating.” We know the US has diplomatic security and unarmed weapons auditors in Ukraine. States have military liaison in their embassy staffs as well. Anyway, this is all chatter since you’re not proposing it be included in the infobox.  —Michael Z. 17:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

OK lets play a game.

What is the better one really good tank or 6 very bad ones? What is better, one piece of intel that stop an attack or 15 pieces of intel that have no impact? Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Well this just prompts another decision in regards to the criteria. Should we include nations that send "bad" outdated equipment in big numbers or not? In my opinion we should concern ourselves more with the quantity of aid sent then the quality since that gets very and unnecessarily subjective and complex for an infobox. Maybe we could decide how valuable the equipment sent is based on monetary value? For example the U.S. is sending only 31 M1 Abrams tanks out of the thousands that they have but that's an almost 9 million dollar very capable tank. UkraineWarProposal (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the best approach would be the most time consuming but it would be the best. We could analyze the aid that each nation has sent to Ukraine or Russia on a case by case basis and decide whether its significant or how big of an impact its had. I guess the biggest challenge would be finding reliable sources to make an informed decision but I'm sure they exist. If not then I guess it will have to wait until a few years after the war is over. UkraineWarProposal (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

And any such analysis must wait till after the war, and historians judge what was and was not significant. So this needs closing until then. Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough then thats a good point. I think a good consensus would be then that not just for the Ukraine war but any current conflicts the infobox should be left empty of anyone except directly involved belligerents. UkraineWarProposal (talk) 18:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree, but this is not the place for this discussion. Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. There are no new arguments here, and there’s a recent general consensus against this at Template_talk:Infobox_military_conflict#RfC_on_"supported_by"_being_used_with_the_belligerent_parameter. It’s a waste of energy to start discussions about what exactly should be listed in a write-in “supporters” field when there is no consensus to have one. Per WP:GS/RUSUKR, non-extended-confirmed users are not permitted to participate in project discussions, and this discussion to go against consensus initiated by a WP:SPA has gone beyond the threshold. —Michael Z. 18:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  • Procedural close but as I stated above, I don’t think the “general consensus” from that discussion is necessarily applicable here, and if it is, then it needs to be applied completely.

  RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  Why isn’t it applicable? This has been discussed multiple times with no consensus to add it, so it is definitely a controversial case. If it’s generally not to be applied generally, then it’s definitely not to be applied controversially.

  What do you mean “needs to be applied completely”? Go right ahead and update 10,000 other articles to reflect the current consensus. But please don’t say we shouldn’t respect it here until you’re done.  —Michael Z. 20:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Responding tp ping by RadioactiveBoulevardier regarding Template_talk:Infobox_military_conflict#RfC_on_"supported_by"_being_used_with_the_belligerent_parameter. That RfC was worded Template:Infobox military conflict and related templates. The consensus is for this article to have its own infobox as a temporary expedient and regardless, it is captured by the RfC. And yes, it does raise the issue of continued inclusion of Belarus. To comment on the broader discussion here, the overwhelming response to the OP is that no new or novel arguments have been made that would negate the reasons given in the previous RfC and the consensus it represents. While it is appropriate to give them a hearing, the question has been asked and answered. It would appear that nothing would be accomplished by dragging this out further - ie closing the discussion, as indicated by RadioactiveBoulevardier, would be appropriate. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah you guys can close this I don't mind. I still disagree and think every conflict should list major supporters of each side in the infobox but I now better understand the current consensus and the reasons for it. Thank you all for your answers and patience. UkraineWarProposal (talk) 05:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Keep in mind that most of what's going on during a war is shrouded in secrecy for understandable reasons. Whatever is made public by a country is what they want their enemies to know, and is rarely everything. A solution is to wait until the end of the war, after the dust settles, then the victor gets to write history. Dhrm77 (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

The right way to include this in infoboxes is to propose the addition of a separate top-level “Supporters” row at template talk:infobox military conflict.  —Michael Z. 14:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Ukraine war liberated Staromaiorske

Ukraine war liberated Staromaiorske 182.224.89.144 (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 July 2023

Add North Korea and Iran in the support of Russia in the belligerents section Napalm Guy (talk) 11:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussed many times, you have offred no new insights. 11:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Access to Article

But how can I include the words Matilda Bogner (head of the U.N. monitoring mission in Ukraine) that they "have received credible allegations of summary executions of persons hors de combat, and several cases of torture and ill-treatment, reportedly committed by members of the Ukrainian armed forces”, when article appears to be locked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.175 (talk) 11:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Provide a source, and ask one of us to do it for you. Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Is their Press Release: "UN Human Rights Ukraine released reports on treatment of prisoners of war and overall human rights situation in Ukraine" a reasonable place to quote from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.175 (talk) 11:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Should be, care to suggest a text? Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

"PRISONERS OF WAR

I will turn now to our report on the treatment of prisoners of war, during all stages of captivity – from initial capture, to transit and then places of internment.

Our team interviewed more than 400 prisoners of war, approximately 200 on each side. Ukraine provided us with unimpeded confidential access to official places of internment of Russian prisoners of war. The Russian Federation did not give us access. However, we were able to carry out confidential interviews with Ukrainian POWs upon their release.

I will start with Russian prisoners of war in the hands of Ukraine. We are deeply concerned about the summary execution of up to 25 Russian POWs and persons hors de combat by Ukrainian armed forces which we have documented. This was often perpetrated immediately upon capture on the battlefield. While we are aware of ongoing investigations by Ukrainian authorities into five cases involving 22 victims, we are not aware of any prosecutions of the perpetrators." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.175 (talk) 11:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

We can't add this, at best we can say "According to a UN report Russian POWS claimed to be victims of human rights violations, as well as summary executions". Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Since the report by Matilda Bogner (head of the U.N. monitoring mission in Ukraine) is a public statement - why cannot Wikipedia use it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.175 (talk) 12:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

No one has said that. Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Put another way, while allowing claims of Ukrainian abuses, you did say that Wikipedia is not willing to print clear evidence of Ukrainian war crimes?

1. Sign your posts. 2. Wikipedia would need to be provided with clear evidence (from a reliable source as usual) to print it. --2001:8003:1C20:8C00:F211:A254:7DA9:FB24 (talk) 05:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

So a Press Release by the Head of the U.N. monitoring mission in Ukraine is not a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.138 (talk) 08:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

It would be advisable for you to read WP:COMPETENCE and WP:RELIABLE before continuing to ask questions that you should already know the answers to. --2001:8003:1C20:8C00:F211:A254:7DA9:FB24 (talk) 08:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

"UN Human Rights Ukraine released reports on treatment of prisoners of war and overall human rights situation in Ukraine" Press Release 24 March 2023

Not knowing the answer, I again ask why the United Nations report is not considered to be a reliable/usable source? Could it be that Wikipedia wishes to avoid showing the Ukrainian Govt in a negative light? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.138 (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

No one has suggested it not, but it might well be a wp:primary source, and thus we need to work carefully what we use it for. Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Is not the UN Report a "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? But if the Report is breaking the rules - please state HOW? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.2.79 (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Proper English grammar?

In the lead it says:

"More than 8.2 million had fled the country by May 2023, Europe's largest refugee crisis since World War II."

Shouldn't there be a word such as "becoming" after the comma? 195.178.166.244 (talk) 13:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Works either way. Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

@Slatersteven Not really. While it might parse as acceptable grammar/syntax, no style guide would ever recommend such a construction. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 05:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

The meaning of the blue areas of the map

The meaning of the blue areas is not written in the infobox. What does that mean? This should be written. Parham wiki (talk) 23:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

See the legend accompanying the map. The blue areas are liberated territory. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: Thanks. Parham wiki (talk) 00:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to incorporate that information into the 'controlled by' line below the caption. The legend template seems to suggest that a box can only contain one colour. Since both yellow and blue areas are ultimately controlled by Ukraine, I guess [c]ontrolled by:       Ukraine    Russia would work? That raises the question: why two different colours? I suppose controlled by:    Ukraine    Russia ; liberated by:    Ukraine is another option. Maybe someone has a better idea for that specifically. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest formerly controlled by Russia since there is both an NPOV issue we should avoid and ambiguity with just liberated (by who?), which is used in the actual image's caption. Recaptured by Ukraine or Recaptured from Russia would also work. If we reach a consensus, we should get the actual image's legend changed too. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I think yellow is just Ukraine: does it need a label at all? Superimposed over it is red, Russian-occupied territory, and blue, previously occupied and since liberated territory.  —Michael Z. 03:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

If I were to colour this map, I would make the yellow areas white or grey, to read as neutral/normal, contrasting only in tone with the territory of other states. There are good precedents.[44][45][46][47][48]  —Michael Z. 03:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Did someone change the particular shade of blue at some point?

It looks different, and not totally pleasing. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 02:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree, it also looks far too similar to the shade of blue used for waterways. BogLogs (talk) 23:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Infobox image

Couldn't find any previous discussion on it, surprisingly. There is this montage [49] of the war that may be useful for the infobox. Other conflicts, such as the American Civil War, the Second World War, the French invasion of Russia, or the Second Congo War have montages that illustrate the article. Can I get any sort of consensus for putting the photo montage in?

Bremps... 19:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and be bold. Bremps... 22:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

That WP:OTHERTHINGS exist is not a valid argument unless they represent best practice as evidenced in articles of the highest standard. My recollection is that the addition of a photo image (and/or collage) has been previously discussed and rejected. At the very least, there have been photo images in the infobox but these have been removed with a consensus. Perhaps a little more time should have been given before acting on this idea but one can also be WP:BOLD.

There is WP:P&G on use of images, images in the infobox and collages. Per WP:MONTAGE: [Montages] illustrate multiple closely related concepts, where overlapping or similar careful placement of component images is necessary to illustrate a point in an encyclopedic way. Per WP:IMGCONTENT: The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central. Per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE: Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. Per MOS:LEADELEMENTS: the image used should be relevant ... Per MOS:LEADIMAGE: It should be a representative image—such as of a person or place, a book or album cover—to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page. and Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see.

I don't see a need to add an image/s other than the map at this time. If there is a consensus to do so, the selection should comply with the prevailing P&G. It/they should be one readily associated with the invasion (ie near iconic) and not just one from the invasion. Collages in an infobox are rarely anything but decorative and ten images is way too crowded. It is also important that such images be undisputedly in the public domain. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! I wasn't aware of WP:MONTAGE. Could you clarify what you meant by the final sentence? Would Creative Commons images not be allowed? Bremps... 19:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Creative Commons images should be allowed but before using them to create a montage (ie a new image) I would double check their provenance. In an event like this, images that are not in the public domain have a tendency to creep into the collection. Cinderella157 (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

WMD

Do we have coverage of all types of weapons of mass destruction threats and use in this conflict in a central place? We do have articles:

• Nuclear threats during the Russian invasion of Ukraine
• Ukraine bioweapons conspiracy theory
• Use of incendiary weapons in the Russo-Ukrainian war (some of which fall under international law concerning chemical weapons)

But there have been reports of other chemical agent threats and use, etc. Some random examples:

• “White House warns Russia may use chemical weapons in Ukraine” (March 2022)[50]
• “Russia accuses Ukraine of ‘chemical terrorism’ using toxin” (August 2022, subject was botulism)[51]
• “U.S. concerned Russia could use chemical weapons in Ukraine” (November 2022)[52]
• “Without giving evidence, Russia says it probes Ukraine use of chemical weapons” (February 2023)[53]
• “Have Chemical Weapons been Used in Ukraine?” (June 2023)[54]
• “Commander: Russia continues to use chemical weapons in Ukraine” (today)[55]

We should have an umbrella article about WMD in this conflict (at least a stub with relevant links), and probably a short section in this one and in Russo-Ukrainian War, and possibly a specific article about chemical weapons during the war.  —Michael Z. 17:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

A bit dubious about including threats. Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean? Nuclear deterrence has determined the shape of the world for around seven decades. The use of nuclear threats to facilitate the invasion of a non-nuclear state is unprecedented since the signing of the UN Charter. Russia has advertised its intention to commit illegal nuclear acts, and there are indications that it has affected the provision of aid to Ukraine. While invading Ukraine, Russia has moved its nuclear weapons into Belarus adjacent to Ukraine. Hundreds of sources have reported these scores of events as significant.  —Michael Z. 23:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

So policy is clear, just because something can be cited doe not mean we should include it. This has to add something, and I do not think this does. We should wait until sobber analysis determines the real impact, in fact this is why we should not have articles on current events. As we do not know what is oir is not important until after the event. Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree Parham wiki (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the threats should be covered in a limited way, per WP:CRYSTALBALL unless it can be demonstrated that reliable sources covering the conflict in its entirety consider them important.

Other than that, I think that it's worth adding information about WMD to the article. Somehow, all your links are about the use of WMD by Russia, but in fact HRW says that [As of November 2022], it is not possible to attribute responsibility for specific attacks, but Russia and Ukraine both possess 122mm Grad incendiary rockets and Ukraine definitely has used incendiary munitions during the conflict [56]. We should make sure we follow WP:NPOV. Alaexis_¿question? 18:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Per Slatersteven and Alaexis, we need to be a bit circumspect per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTALBALL but people seem so hungry to add every little tidbit they come across and create articles for anything conceivable and some that aren't. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I actually found those searching for “Ukraine chemical weapons,” but it’s just a quick survey to demonstrate notability and range of the subject. Of course due weight should be given to Ukraine’s use of WMD and threats to use WMD including any incendiary weapons that are considered chemical weapons.  —Michael Z. 01:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

And Russia is using Ukrainian-built nuclear cruise missiles, given up by Ukraine in return for Russian security guarantees, against Ukraine.

• “Russia Is Using Old Ukrainian Missiles Against Ukraine, General Says: The missiles, returned to Russia in the 1990s under an agreement aimed at assuring Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, have shown up in rubble,” NYT.

 —Michael Z. 14:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Wording of lead section

The lead section makes it sound like all this is primarily some sort of "refugee crisis". That is misleading. It is a war. Civilian matters aside, the military side of things is extremely intense with tens of thousands of artillery shells used and many hundreds of soldiers killed or wounded every day. Here is a reliable source referring to it as "the largest land conflict in Europe since World War 2". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjInnRL-HUg (Fareed Zakaria, CNN) I suggest changing the wording to reflect that. Trying to hide, ignore or distort the absolutely massive scale of the fighting and destruction is serious misinformation to the general public.

If the wording has been what it is because of a lack of a "reliable source", well there you now have a source. I suggest we use it.

ShouldIHide (talk) 08:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The first sentence could be expanded.  —Michael Z. 14:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I think OP raises a point I’ve alluded to before.

Immediately following the brief lead sentence, we have this:

The invasion has killed tens of thousands on both sides. Russian forces have been responsible for mass civilian casualties and for torturing captured Ukrainian soldiers. By June 2022, about 8 million Ukrainians had been internally displaced. More than 8.2 million had fled the country by May 2023, becoming Europe's largest refugee crisis since World War II. Extensive environmental damage, widely described as ecocide, contributed to food crises worldwide.

This is a fairly unsubtle WP:DUE issue in that it not only stresses the humanitarian aspects well above anything else, but that it uses a journalistic flow of words to intentionally put a spotlight on Ukraine while almost entirely ignoring impacts on third parties. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to document phenomena in a clear and cohesive manner, not to document a POV in its most literal sense. In support of various aspects of the status quo, we have often seen the same tired old arguments being reprised, which frequently include plain “appeal to” fallacies, or implied versions of the old “with us or against us” line that willfully ignores that there are many possible views on the situation besides the two promulgated in Kyiv and Moscow.

In addition, WP’s unabashed double standards between the amount of coverage granted to white Christian refugees and that granted to other recent refugee crises is mildly abhorrent.

I’ll see if there’s a possibility of smaller adjustments without a full rewrite of the lead (which may be warranted but would be controversial and shouldn’t happen during this discussion). There might not be.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 03:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

“Impacts on third parties”?

It’s certainly not great, but what’s UNDUE is the blatant both-sidesism of the first sentence. Russian soldiers and mercenaries being killed in their illegal, aggressive war of choice is hardly equivalent to Russians killing Ukrainians, including civilians and children in their homes and workplaces by strikes all over Ukraine, disappearing them, torturing and raping before arbitrary executions, while being credibly accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity, incitement to genocide, and genocide.  —Michael Z. 03:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree with this - the lead is very sympathetic to Russia in an unjustifiable manner. DCsansei (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Don't get this at all, the most significant consequences are summarized straight away giving the reader an immediate overview of the effects of the invasion. What kind of “third party“ effects are more due than millions of refugees, mass murder of civilians, torture etc? Do discuss any changes you plan on making first. TylerBurden (talk) 14:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Please make the following change to the article

−

[[Vladimir Putin]] [[On conducting a special military operation|announced]] a "[[special military operation]]" to support the breakaway [[Donetsk People's Republic|republics of Donetsk]] and [[Luhansk People's Republic|Luhansk]], whose [[Russian people's militias in Ukraine|military forces]] were fighting Ukraine in the [[War in Donbas (2014–2022)|Donbas conflict]], claiming the goal was to "[[demilitarise]]" and "[[Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine#Allegations of Nazism|denazify]]" Ukraine.

+

[[Vladimir Putin]] [[On conducting a special military operation|announced]] a "[[special military operation]]" to support the Russian-backed breakaway [[Donetsk People's Republic|republics of Donetsk]] and [[Luhansk People's Republic|Luhansk]], whose [[Russian people's militias in Ukraine|military forces]] were fighting Ukraine in the [[War in Donbas (2014–2022)|Donbas conflict]], claiming the goal was to "[[demilitarise]]" and "[[Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine#Allegations of Nazism|denazify]]" Ukraine.

It's very important to clearly state that Russia was involved in creating the republics of Donetsk and Luhansk and supported them. If this isn't made clear, people might mistakenly think they started as local grassroots efforts. Krestenti (talk) 14:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree, but that’s still way understating it. It was Russian forces and Russian-controlled separatists that were fighting a war, and the invasion and attack on all parts of Ukraine wasn’t to “support” any fake republics but to destroy Ukraine as a state and a nation, and to assert Russian control over it.  —Michael Z. 16:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

propose your change to the article then. Krestenti (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 09:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@M.Bitton @Mzajac as far as I can see, only one person responded to my proposal and supported it. Krestenti (talk) 10:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@Krestenti I implemented it per MOS:LEAD, because that is precisely how the body puts it. TylerBurden (talk) 15:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Also, that {{td}} template should be made mandatory for edit requests. It'd cut down the number of imparseable edit requests from too many to approximately zero. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree with the {{td}} template suggestion. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

New article (2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive - South Front)

Two new articles related to the southern front are needed considering the length of time, the amount of army concentration and the number of casualties on both sides. The first will be the Battle of Staromaiors'ke and Urozhaine in which the Ukrainians won or are 1% close to it, and that article should not be included in the Zaporizhzhia campaign, because those two places are located in the Velyka Novosilka Raion, which is part of Donetsk Oblast, and therefore requires a separate article. The second article will be called the Zaporizhzhia campaign, which will also be a sub-article of the current major 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive and will include all the ongoing heavy fighting from the city of Kamianske in the west to the city of Priyutne in the east and will last from June 7. First I will create an outline for new articles. — Baba Mica (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Spellings Staromaiorske and Pryiutne, per WP:UKR.  —Michael Z. 03:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I haven't thought about the rest of your proposal yet, but I disagree with your idea that the Velyka Novosilka front does not belong in the Zaporizhzhia campaign. While it's technically not part of the same oblast, militarily it is part of the same effort pushing south. I believe the area does actually fall into the broader Zapo. historical region anyway. We shouldn't put technicalities of administration over a cohesive experience for the reader. If it's really that big of a deal we could also just change the title of the article to include the small parts of Donetsk. HappyWith (talk) 04:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Because of those technicalities, there is general confusion in the article War in Donbass (2014-2022) about the start date, although it is clear that the general uprising began on April 6, while the armed uprising began on April 12. However, after nine years of war, someone "smart" changed the date to April 12 and put the emphasis on Sloviansk and Kramatorsk instead of occupying state institutions, police stations, looting warehouses and general shooting on April 6 in Donetsk, Makeyevka and Yenakiyevo on April 6. For weeks, I led a rhetorical battle that the motive for the outbreak of war is important, namely the events of April 6 after several unsuccessful attempts in March of that year, and that the Russian success in capturing institutions and mass desertion is otherwise the beginning of war events, but it is not worth it. One member of Wikipedia got into an editorial war with me, and then a rhetorical war, breaking a rattle with sources. However, he has a higher position here and I couldn't do anything, so the other members found an intermediate solution neither there nor here, ie. "early April 2014" which is nonsense. I gave up on that topic because that is when the Syrian Civil War would be treated as having started on April 4 (after the first use of the military) or July 29, 2011 (the formation of the FSA) or April 21 (the collapse of the first ceasefire) or July 19, 2012 ( the bloody battle for Aleppo) instead of a general uprising on March 15, 2011, when a large part of the population took to the streets and clashed with the forces of order and security. If we form an article Zaporizhzhya campaign from the town of Vasilevka to the town of Velyka Novosilka, then we have to create another article Ukrainians are conducting major operations, and that is the city of Bakhmut. Then we have to do the Bahmut campaign, which started a month before the official counter-offensive, on May 10 to be exact. Then they would have to change the start date of the counter-offensive from June 4 to May 10, and look back on the Kherson campaign, which has been going on since June 26 and is part of the Dnieper campaign. And what will we do with the Russian summer campaign on the Svatov-Kreminna line that has been going on continuously since June 19, where the Ukrainian side is suffering defeat after defeat with terrible losses and is still planning a retreat similar to the Russian retreat from Kherson during last year's Ukrainian Kherson counter-offensive that forced General Surovikin to urgently withdraw forces from Kherson without any fighting? The matter is complex and then double standards immediately appear. That's why I think that we should keep the cities of Staromaiorske and Urozhaine out of the Zaporizhzhya campaign article and give them a special accent because enormous human casualties fell on both sides, as well as military equipment, just at those two places, perhaps the most in this war after the Battle of Bahmut, and it only lasted month. Maybe the Russians won't like it, but realistically, the Ukrainian side, with much greater casualties, won the battle that lasted from July 16 to August 16. Krasnohorivka in the Pokrovsk Region and Donetsk Oblast, 25 km west of the city of Donetsk, still has a special significance because it is a rather remote place, but a large enough fortification like Avdiivka and Marinka to be able to bombard the city of Donetsk every day without any problems, and it is a big dam for Russian troops to connect the corridor between Marinka and Avdiivka and to try any kind of quick penetration from Donetsk towards the city of Kurakhovo, which is a huge military force in that part of the battlefield. I'm not counting Sloviansk and Kramatorsk, which are the main military operational centers for the entire front. The Battle of Krasnohorivka has a draft and is waiting to heat up if there is one at all and that article can wait as well as the Battle of Dvorichna which is higher in the air and awaits the outcome of the Battle for Svatove-Kreminna line. Baba Mica (talk) 16:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this is way, way too long to read. Please try to keep your talk comments concise and to the point. HappyWith (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

So how do I cooperate with lazy people who can't read or don't have the will to do detailed work? This is the end of my cooperation. Thank you for the discussion so far. You have said it all. I will reach out to other members and admins. Baba Mica (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

We don't need more articles. All notable battles of the war have their own already. It's been 18 months. It's time to drop this recentist attitude. Not every skirmish in any random village can have its own article. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 10:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

OK. It is so much easier for me to devote myself to other things, and not to waste time here, from which I have no benefit, only damage and annoyance. I thank you. Baba Mica (talk) 10:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Economic impact

So I'm reading through the Soviet-Afghan War and I see a lot about the economic impact on the Soviet Union in that article, but nothing in this article under impact. Does it have it's own article? Or should it not be mentioned under the Impact heading? There are plenty of detailed economic reporting from varied trusted sources available. In particular how much the Russians are spending on the war could be relevant to mention directly in this article. 85.165.160.51 (talk) 07:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The article you're looking for is presumably Economic impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (it's broader than just Russia or Ukraine). For some reason it is not linked as a main article in any section and there isn't a summary of it in this article. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Ukraine war liberated Robotyne

Ukraine war liberated Robotyne 223.39.180.91 (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done with this edit. HappyWith (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Hostomel#Result in infobox 2

Input is requested at the subject discussion as to how or whether a result should be reported in the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Please make change to ‘belligerents’ section.

I noticed in the ‘belligerents’ section that it shows that Belarus supports Russia (which is correct) but not NATO supporting Ukraine. Should NATO not be seen as a supporter of Ukraine as they have supplied almost all of Ukraine’s weaponry, tanks and now fighter jets as well? Could also be generalised as just ‘The West’ as non-NATO countries have also given support. 51.37.77.186 (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

See talk page archive, regularly discussed, you have added nothing new. Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

See also: Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine/FAQ, specifically Q2 and Q4. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I deleted Belarus. Parham wiki (talk) 18:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

You should not have, not the same. Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't see them making any edit on the article history, but Belarus no longer appears in the infobox. It has been discussed plenty why Belarus belongs there, so yes that should not have been removed without consensus. Is my WP acting up or has this change been made in some strange way not showing up on the history? Either way, it should be restored. TylerBurden (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

The infobox transcludes a unique template, a questionable practice that has been discussed extensively at TfD and elsewhere in the past. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 18:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Slatersteven Use of "Supported by" in the belligerent parameter is deprecated per Template:Infobox military conflict. Why shouldn't this procedure be implemented in Template:Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox? Parham wiki (talk) 18:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

As I recall they were listed as a belligerent, it was removed without discussion. Slatersteven (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I’d prefer to wait and see if someone cares enough to revert as removing Belarus would likely limit the amount of back-and-forth about the issue, especially among EC editors. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 18:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Well I restored it, odd indeed that the infobox is handled on a seperate page. @Parham wiki since Belarus's inclusion is long standing and has been discussed extensively, you would need to gain consensus to remove it. TylerBurden (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@TylerBurden: OK Parham wiki (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Deprecation of "supported by" is the result of a recent RfC. In light of the broader community consensus, this should be removed unless there is an equally strong consensus to retain. A goodly number of participants at the RfC edit here and supported deprecation. If the presence of Belarus is disputed, there is probably only one way to resolve this? Cinderella157 (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

As I said I seem to recall them being listed as actual combats as attacks were in fact launched from their territory. Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Belarus is not fighting therefore not a participant in hostilities, but it is guilty of the crime of aggression by enabling Russian aggression through Belarusian territory. It is also participating in kidnapping Ukrainian children which is possibly a war crime, crime against humanity, and genocide.

I would argue its role is more than just support, but integral to the aggression committed against Ukraine, and it should remain in the infobox. Unlike supply and training, the provision of territory for invasion and attacks is not something that goes on routinely during peacetime, but can only happen during war.

Perhaps the legend can be changed from “Supporters” to something more specific. “Co-aggressor”?  —Michael Z. 17:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

This was always going to be a consequence of the RfC. I recall that it even rated a mention in the discussion. Changing the heading to get around the letter of the RfC does not change the spirit and intent of the RfC and would be considered pettifogging. If we are to retain this, then the consensus to ignore the RfC here needs to be as strong as the broader community consensus to remove it - ie an RfC to retain Belarus as "supported by" is probably the only way to resolve this. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

A) Belarus is not supporting Russia’s war in the same way 70 other countries are supporting Ukraine’s defence, and labelling it with clear language is not “pettifogging.” B) Yes, it needs consensus.  —Michael Z. 01:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Many of us have heard this argument to retain Belarus multiple times. Yes, it needs consensus. The inclusion has been challenged in the light of the RfC on "supported by". Do you agree that we need to confirm there is a consensus to retain Belarus in light of the RfC on "supported by"? Cinderella157 (talk) 01:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

@Cinderella157 Can you link to previous discussions specifically on Belarus? Was there ever an RfC that demonstrated a positive consensus to include it?

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 05:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

No, there has not been an RfC on Belarus' inclusion as it has existed in the infobox since the earliest revision of the article.It was initially listed as a belligerent, not as a supporter. However, in every discussion opening with a comment along the lines of 'well Belarus is listed, so why isn't NATO?' Belarus has been re-affirmed because the invasion was launched in part from Belarusian soil.

Could you please reformat the comment below more compactly? Either use the <br> tags without listing them in separate lines or use the {{pb}} template. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I would only be repeating what Mr rnddude has said. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

First of all, please provide RS that Belarus has been involved in the involuntary relocation of Ukrainian children.

And please provide RS that Belarus's role has been integral to the aggression committed against Ukraine. Obviously it enabled the Kyiv offensive for geographic reasons, but it's difficult to fathom why Belarusian support would, and would continue to be, necessary for the campaigns in the south and east.

The distinction you drew is also less than solid given that 1) there is extensive RS analysis, and reporting of official statements, that the provision of arms and materiel are far from isolated acts, but part of a large-scale coordinated effort of support for the stated purpose of helping Ukraine achieve victory; and 2) the also extensively well-documented provision of large amounts of intelligence at all levels, including tactical targeting information (which, while it may well be legally justified, is inarguably "support" according to the same legal norms you appeal to).

Finally, this last suggestion to nakedly insert POV into the infobox, whether ironic or otherwise, is going much too far, and given your experience you must be aware of that. Given the context of previous discussions and your previous activity, I don't understand why you believe this is constructive behavior. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 05:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

This is not about the latest phase, and yes Belarus was vital in the early stages. Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

"Vital" is a poor choice of word, since it implies "necessary for life", while a war is all about death, on both sides. Dhrm77 (talk) 11:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

It also means "necessary or extremely important for the success or continued existence of something:". Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

This article, as has been extensively discussed in the past, covers the entire period of high-intensity war. Putting a spotlight specifically on one campaign of one phase is problematic for multiple reasons. When people think of WW1's Western Front, most of them almost forget about the 1914 defense of Paris, but everyone thinks of Verdun, the Somme, etc.

And I'd like RS for that claim anyway. The Russians could easily have concentrated on fewer axes to invade and plenty of RS analyses suggest that that would have been the more strategically sound course of action. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 12:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Belarus is involved in the war on a different level than any other country supporting either side, it's wrongful to imply Belarus was only "enabling" in the first phase of the war, as it continues to allow itself to be used freely by Russia, including as a launching pad for Russian missiles striking Ukraine, which is covered on the article. No NATO member, nor Iran or other Russia supporters have gone to the lengths Belarus has when it comes to direct involvement, that's why it is included in the infobox and other countries are not. TylerBurden (talk) 19:26, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Belarus not only let Russian forces attack across its border, it also let them retreat and take refuge when they were defeated. And Belarus has let Russian Wagner PMC forces move onto its territory as an escalation of the threat against Ukraine, fixing Ukrainian forces that are then unable to,otherwise participate in the defence from invading Russians. And Lukashenka has explicitly threatened to go to war if Ukraine strikes in Belarus.

Not incidentally, Belarus says it has allowed the proliferation of nuclear weapons on its soil during the war, while Russian nuclear bombers continue to launch cruise missiles from its airspace across the Ukrainian border.  —Michael Z. 01:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Re: RS, for example:

• “Belarus Red Cross says it helped deport Ukrainian children to Belarus ,” CNN.
• “Ukraine: The Latest - Belarus implicated in kidnapping of Ukrainian children,” The Telegraph.
• “Belarus Is Abducting Ukrainian Children in Plain Sight,” Foreign Policy.
• “Belarusian leader approved forced transfers of Ukrainian children, says opposition figure,” ABC News.

Committing war crimes also implicates one in war.

“It enabled the Kyiv offensive for geographic reasons” is enough. Although it’s not necessary for inclusion, it is easy to fathom why it continues to be important, because Ukrainian forces continue to have to be prepared to defend the 1,100-km border of Belarus, where Russian forces and Wagner PMC are stationed, and they continue to have to position air defences to defend against Russian cruise and ballistic missiles crossing the 1,100-km Belarusian front. And they are politically unable to strike Russian forces in Belarus for fear of Russia and Belarus escalating in response.

You see, this is more than “support.” Belarus is legally a co-aggressor because it has violated international law against aggression (see the definition, art. 3f).[57] If you think this is POV, blame the UN.

Provision of arms is something that goes on in peacetime, it does not create a state of war, and it does not involve the providing state in a war. I don’t know about any “tactical targeting,” but giving Ukraine satellite photos of Ukraine isn’t waging war either.

That is exactly support, and nothing more. It’s support of Ukraine’s defence, which is the legal right of Ukraine and its allies according to the UN Charter ch. VII art. 51.

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.

Trying to cast the illegal aggressors and a state conducting its own self-defence as two equivalent sides would also be pushing a POV. And cf. the irony in ignoring that Putin cynically cited article 51 in his declaration of war, three days before openly invading his neighbour.  —Michael Z. 02:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

First of all, I appreciate your provision of RS about Belarus and the children.

About targeting information, there are many sources but just as an example: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna26015

Regarding participation, here's a West Point professor suggesting that Starlink is a legitimate military target, albeit one that can't really be hit kinetically without unlawfully disproportionate collateral damage: https://lieber.westpoint.edu/can-starlink-satellites-be-lawfully-targeted/

And to be clear:

1) Jus ad bellum is separate from jus in bello.

2) The fact that one side's supporters are presumably justified in giving aid and comfort, and the other one's presumably are not, is of legal/ethical significance only. There is plenty of room in the body to make cited characterizations, but using the infobox as a pulpit to proclaim Belarus' guilt is totally inappropriate. I'm sure you're familiar with the relevant guidelines and essays that outline the problems with that.

Trying to cast the illegal aggressors and a state conducting its own self-defence as two equivalent sides would also be pushing a POV.

This is the nub of the issue here. With respect, the argument you put forth is sophistry that runs roughshod over the relevant guidelines. These explanatory essays, among others, may be of interest to you: Wikipedia:Let the facts speak for themselves and Wikipedia:Let the reader decide.

Also, for the record, RS (including but definitely not limited to repeated statements by ISW) say Wagner's move has little to anything to do with Ukraine (or Poland) and that Wagner is currently not a significant threat to any of Belarus's neighbors, except perhaps Russia. The narrative that it is a sock-puppet Sword of Damocles or whatever is more or less propaganda to encourage more support for Ukraine and motivate the Polish people in particular to be less complacent. It might be for a noble purpose, but that doesn't change its factual inaccuracy. That could be said of a lot of things, in fact. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 04:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Losses still not updated

RuAF: 120000KIA 180000 WIA

UAF: 70000 KIA 120000 WIA

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/18/ukraine-russia-war-battlefield-deaths-rise

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/troop-deaths-injures-ukraine-war-nearing-500000-nyt-citing-us-officials-2023-08-18/

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/18/us/politics/ukraine-russia-war-casualties.html 02:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

The Slow-Motion Counter-Offensive

With growing MSMedia and US Govt disappointment at the slowing, halting (failing?) Ukrainian offensive, could this article have a section highlighting the problems facing the Ukrainian army facing fixed Russian defences? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.169 (talk) 08:50, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Anonymous posts don't get a lot of respect. Sign with four tildas (~ ~ ~ ~) -HammerFilmFan — Preceding unsigned comment added by HammerFilmFan (talk • contribs) 15:29, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

This stuff is covered in 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive in better detail, but yes, we should probably add some of the challenges they face to this main article in a brief summary. HappyWith (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Putin gave up (?)

[58] [59] 79.185.130.94 (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I woud rather have better sources for a claim he has given up. Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)