Talk:War in Donbas/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Horlivka casualties

I am not watching this page and not going to edit it, just came across an inconsistensy. The paragraph which starts "During the third day of the..." first says that on 27 July between 20 and 30 civilians were killed in Horlivka, and later on the same paragraph states that by July 29 (in my understanding, this is equivalent to before July 30, which means in also includes July 27), 17 civilians were killed. No opinion on what actually happened, it is just not consistent: 20> 17.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Thanks for picking up on that. I've checked the sources and have changed it to 'a further 17 were killed'.--Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Missing soldiers, information from government

http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2014/08/19/7035256/ 12 policemen and 65 military and border guards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.123.161.253 (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Shelled military convoy

The German news website Spiegel-Online published a good article about what happened – or didn't happen – at this incident: Wenn Hysterie brandgefährlich wird (If hysteria becomes a loose cannon). A short summarize:

• The convoy existed and was reported by but convoys like cross the border nearly daily.
• The alledged shelling happened in the morning but was not disclosed until evening.
• No evidendence of the alledgedly destroyed convoy were published by the Ukrainian government or independent journalists.
• Ukrainian news-agency UNIAN has no reports about the incident

All this is not reflected in the article. --EPsi (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

This is called "speculation", and is only found in this one little "exposé". Anyway, nothing in the War in Donbass article at present states that the convoy was certainly destroyed. It merely says that the Ukrainian government said they destroyed, which they did. Speculation and WP:Original research have no place in our encyclopaedia. RGloucester — ☎ 23:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Your insistence on the use of the word "claim" is in violation of the Manual of Style guidelines, and is also stupidity incarnate. Neutrality dictates the use of "said", if someone says something. Do not twist words to imply a lack of credibility on behalf of the speaker. If there is reason to doubt the speaker's statement, merely provide the evidence that said statement was false. Do not, however, use "claimed" to denigrate a speaker in a non-neutral manner. Please read MoS:Words to watch. RGloucester — ☎ 23:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I neither speculated nor did any original research, only checked. And it is not only found in this "exposé". Even Shaun Walker who reported the convoy writes: Ukraine president claims Russian vehicles that crossed border have been destroyed. The aftermath and analysis of this incident ist more interesting than the incident itsself. Strangely it is not mentioned, that Russia strongly denied the incident. The media reported a lot without evidence or verification and one copied the other. BTW: If you talk about "our encyclopedia", who is "we"?

There is a lack of credibility on behalf of the Ukrainian President. Saying there was a military operation without presenting any evidence, what do you call that? Until now there is absolutely no reason to believe the speaker, that a "substantial destruction" of a Russian convoy really happened. I do not use "claim" in a non-neutral manner. --EPsi (talk) 00:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

P.S.: Insults do not replace reasoning

"Claim" is inherently non-neutral, except in certain circumstances (see WP:FRINGE). I don't know who "Shaun Walker" is, but he has a horrible name. Regardless, we are WP:NOTNEWS and have our own Manual of Style. We have a burden to maintain WP:NPOV, which journalists do not. Original research about "evidence" is highly inappropriate. We are here to report what happens. If you want to talk about media problems, please go to Media portrayal of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. RGloucester — ☎ 00:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Someone, who sneers about the name of a person he does not know, want's to instruct me on "Manual of Style"? And again, whom do you mean with "our/we"? --EPsi (talk) 00:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

"Our/we" is in reference to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. "We" also refers to the Wikipedian community. You are engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND editing, EPsi. Familiarise yourself with project before you continue making tendentious edits. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I asked because sometimes "our/we" is the consequence of overidentification. As long as the article of "The Guardian" is linked as source, background-information is nearby. On my behalf this is settled. --EPsi (talk) 01:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm pleased that it's settled. For future reference, please try to remember to assume good faith. Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Undue and misleading use of 'Foreign volunteers' in infobox

Considering that the infobox is getting out of hand in terms of clear, common sense usage, I'm proposing to remove the 'Foreign volunteers' sections appended to both sides of the 'Units involved' section.

Every single volunteer from any country outside of the main nationalities of combatants does not need to be accounted for. There are literally thousands of combatants, yet these lists are comprised of the identification of one American national, two Spanish nationals, a Swede, etc. While that is fine for the body of the article (i.e., the Azov battalion incorporates most for the Ukrainian government already), it is WP:UNDUE for the infobox... in fact, it's downright disproportionate and misleading.

If anyone has any reasonable objections to the removal of this sub-subsection, please discuss it here ASAP as I'm about to go bold and remove them. If the sourced information is considered valuable in the body of the article, please consider using it in the relevant section of the article when it's removed from the infobox. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe this is something that should be quantified. While I agree that, for example, Swedish or Canadian may not be due weight given that there are only 1 of each fighting, it is relevant for larger units like the Serbians (a few dozen at least), Chechens, Russians, etc. Maybe this can be handled with regard to notability? --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 19:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I've now deleted "Spanish" from the separatists side and "American" from the Ukrainian side, because the sources I've consulted (also in Spanish) display no more than 2 Spanish volunteers and 1 American volunteer. I guess it takes more than that, no? But it would be interesting to know how many, nevertheless.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The sources stated the American actually had the ukrainian nationality, although he was born in the USA. I don't know if he had it due to his parents being ucrainian or acquired by other means, though. 79.150.54.174 (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree that notability should be the guideline. There are WP:RS sources attesting to an (note the singular) Italian extremist and others joining the Azov battalion, and I'm sure that there are RS reports of individual extremists from countries not currently mentioned on the pro-Russian side. Having each and every instance depicted as if they were representatives of that country is misleading. It really needs to be proscribed to a significant presence only for the purposes of the infobox. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Messy Battle box.

There is a source of over 1,000 insurgents dead, but the source states that those are Goverment Claims and that numbers only include dead by air attacks. Another point kyievpost report a Goverment Official showing 1,000 Ukranian Service men captured by separatist.200.48.214.19 (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Obviously the first source is not true. A single airstrike carried out by a puny couple of planes at the most cannot possibly cause 1,000 KIA. As for the second source, 1,000 is the low estimate, and the spokesman clearly said that the actual number is likely much greater than 1,000.199.7.137.211 — ☎ 19:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

"By air attacks" does not mean a single attack. Helicopter sorties are also air attacks, not only the puny couples of planes. Oscar-HaP (talk) 21:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Allegation of Hungary supplying armoured vehicles to Ukraine

Lately Russian sources stated that, according to a Hungarian website, Hungary transports armoured vehicles (including T-72 tanks) to Ukraine on rail. Hungary says the claim is false, and the operation is a normal logistic operation to transport vehicles from one military base to another one.

Even if the allegation is likely false, I think this deserves a mention somewhere in the article. One of the sources related to this: GlobalPost --Rev L. Snowfox (talk) 22:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

To say what? That Hungary is probably not supplying weapons to Ukraine? Let's not forget that Hungary itself has its own old issues with Ukraine over Ruthenia, which was lost in WW1, and the corresponding region of Zakarpattia is still mainly inhabited by Rusyns (Ruthenians) and ethnic Hungarians. I'm less surprised about the existence of that pro-Moscow website in Hungary than I'd be about Hungary supplying weapons to Ukraine, at this stage, but that's my opinion.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

In the simplest of terms, it's WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia is WP:NOTEVERYTHING. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Reliable-looking sources both talk about a) an allegation which carries a significant importance if it would be true, and b) official refusal of the allegation. The original website making the allegation is probably not reliable and biased, true, but Russian media did use the allegation. I don't think that mentioning the fact that an allegation was made against Hungary (a NATO member suposedly breaking international law with arms export) and that it was officially refuted by the government, in say, two or three sentences would constitute "undue weight" in a complex article several paragraphs long already with minute details, including daily casualty data and minuscule named villages being sieged/occupied on a day or another. I believe that the sole fact that this allegation and its refutation were covered by both reliable-looking Russian and Western sources and the inherent political implications makes it notable to mention it in the article. And by the way, Hungary wouldn't attack Ukraine to gain back territory as a member of NATO and EU. Let's not kid ourselves with this silly idea. --Rev L. Snowfox (talk) 22:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Judging by your last line, ultimately, you perceive this as being worth mentioning as a piece of parody. There's another article called Media portrayal of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. I doubt that it's particularly valuable, but if you're determined to WP:POV push content into an article where far more pertinent content has been rejected for lack of value in building a cohesive and coherent encyclopaedic article, it might be worth a try there... although I'd also challenge its value in that article unless there were a section dedicated to 'silly things being said by all interest groups involved'. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I would feel honored if you would stop linking me WP policy pages assuming I'm dumb and don't know how WP works as a cohesive and coherent "encyclopaedia". I am well aware that this piece of "silly thing said" does not matter much at large, but I see way more minuscule things mentioned in this and the related articles for supposedly being "encyclopaedic" knowledge, such as telling everyone there is a sole Swedish sniper out there just because he felt like going there. Which doesn't really add much content or essence to the article in my opinion. Also, I'd say accusing someone of "pushing POV" implies a somewhat malicious intent or a need to gain something. On the contrary, it's not my view that it's worth mentioning, and I won't gain anything if it gets mentioned, this "silly" allegation (or was it just an allegation...? who knows) was the thing here in the media. Here, as in Hungary. I know that in general, this doesn't really look like something important from a Russian or American viewpoint, but we are actually a neighboring country to Ukraine, a country which is developing a war of sorts with Russia, as it seems. And naturally we are one of the two closest NATO members of Ukraine. You sounded like I'm actually want to insert some bias in the article (POV pushing) for one side of the conflict, when in fact, I just mentioned a media happening. And yet, you bombard me with policy links, instead of just saying you think it isn't worth mentioning. Well, as you wish, cheers. --Rev L. Snowfox (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Rev L. Snowfox, I appreciate the fact that you used the talk page first to gauge the response as to whether this is of significance to English Wikipedia. I would also be honoured if you didn't make assumptions about where I'm from and whose interests I represent. Evidently, this is of significance to Hungarian Wikipedia, but not to this Wikipedia. As regards the listings of one person (another has been added based on one American having joined the Ukrainian volunteer paramilitary), it's difficult to keep on top of extraneous information when so many IPs and new editors are contributing. Again, my apologies for being curt previously. I understand that you proposed this information in good faith. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be important enough for the English Wikipedia if it's important enough for the Hungarian Wikipedia? Doesn't that go against the spirit of WP:WORLDVIEW? Esn (talk) 01:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to make one thing clear, I did not intend to imply you are siding with any viewpoint, I meant I understood that this allegation isn't really important from the viewpoints of the key actors in this conflict, meaning the separatist, pro-Russian side (i.e. Russian side) and the Western-backed, NATO and EU friendly side (i.e. American side), although this would needed more precise terminology from me, my bad. Good luck with the article. --Rev L. Snowfox (talk) 23:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy is really very neutral in her edits, actually, and very interested, since (I guess) she's of Ukrainian descent (from Zaporizhia, I think). Me, I'm Portuguese (so, apparently Ukraine would have nothing to do with me), and I started to edit aviation articles. But, since I started to edit in the beginning of 2014, and maybe also because of the large Ukrainian community living in Portugal, the EU issues, so on, this issue actually caught my attention, apart from all the geopolitical issues involved. And also humanitarian, in which I'm quite interested, as well (as I should be).Mondolkiri1 (talk) 01:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

A good graphical breakdown of Ukrainian casualties through August 10

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/victims-of-war-infographic-360259.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't say so. This, like many other articles cited, are very biased. They even state that this is "russias war against Ukraine".

In general the massive citing of the Ukrainian yellow press needs to stop. This article and the timeline are turning into Ukrainian propaganda. 89.215.172.157 (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)BLGR

Calling yellow press some media seems, at least, an attempt to introduce bias. If you think a source is not reliable/neutral, open a section and expose your reasons and proofs. Oscar-HaP (talk) 09:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Ethnic conflict???

Who claims (except of Russia) that the conflict in Donbas is of ethnic nature? There is no traces of prosecution of Russian or Russophone population by the government forces of Ukraine. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 13:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC) Actually there are many Russians fighting for Ukraine and some Ukrainians fighting for Novorossya. For example Semen Semenchenko This means that the conflict is not ethnic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.123.161.253 (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Who says it is ethnic? It is clearly not ethnic in any way whatsoever. Only Russian propaganda sites bring up this craziness. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 16:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Someone put it in the "ethnic conflict" category, but that has since been appropriately removed by Mr Grigoryev. RGloucester — ☎ 16:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Ukrainians and Russians are eastern Slavs. Russian speaking Ukrainians are like English speaking German Americans. They are pretty much all mixed in Ukraine anyway. I would say the conflict is about 50 versus 50 with Party of Regions / Communist party and other left wing parties on one side versus Batkivshchyna / Svoboda and other right wing parties on the other side. As with Syria, the conflict is mainly political with a touch of cultural. However, one must accept the fact that just about all rebels are Russian speaking from the east and most of Ukrainian soldiers are Ukrainian speaking from the west.--User talk:199.7.137.211, 20:52, 22 August 2014‎ (UTC)

We do not accept this, because it is not true. Lots of normal people who voted for Party of the Regions candidates in elections are opposed to foreigners from Moscow invading Ukraine and killing and torturing Ukrainian people. It is true that the Svoboda and Right Sector people are a bunch of racist neo-Nazis; but so are the National Bolsheviks, etc. They are very similar.

I do not think the Canadian IP understands Ukraine at all. --Toddy1 (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems you don't understand Ukraine at all either if you're calling Svoboda and Right Sector "racist neo Nazis"--LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 21:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Neo-nazis, maybe not, but far-right, yes (like the National-Bolsheviks).Mondolkiri1 (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, let's please calm down about extreme right claims and accusations. There's a lot of mud-slinging regarding political groups, and this isn't the time (or the article) to POV-push any personal opinions. The fact is that the 'ethnic' category has been removed, so let's just move ahead instead of head-butting each other. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Third side

According to this source among others there is a third side in the conflict fighting against both the Ukrainian government and the pro Russian rebels.Catlemur (talk) 16:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Is there a translation of the article? Jrdplas (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

From Google Translate: "In the fighting in the Donbass participate saboteurs who fight against the Ukrainian troops, and against the militias. In an interview with "Ukrainian Pravda" said Colonel-General of the Ukrainian army in reserve Vladimir Ruban. There are some third party - we (the official Kiev) now call it so - which scatters these shells and dump on one side or the other," - said Ruban. According to him, and the security forces and supporters of independence Donbass now trying to establish the identity of these people. "We call it a third party. Igor Bezler (one of the commanders of the militia) calls a third party, and in Donetsk says so. Looking for them, "- said Ruban. Colonel-General added that the opposition to participate in, and foreign mercenaries. "And with the Ukrainian and Lugansk and Donetsk. Well, here's how to call it, that Poland is fighting with us, and Sweden? "- Said Ruban. For example, in the headquarters of the People's Militia Donbass August 20 reported that Ilovaiskaya managed to eliminate the American volunteer with the callsign "Franco" battalion of the National Guard "Donbass". Currently Vladimir Ruban directs the Center for the release of prisoners of war. Over the past few months, the general, according to the "Ukrainian Truth", was able to release about three hundred Ukrainian military."Mondolkiri1 (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

More reliable sources needed. EkoGraf (talk) 23:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if this source is reliable enough or not, but, according to it, there is actually a third (or a second and a half) side in this conflict, though is quite far away from Donbass, in the Zakarpattia Oblast. According to this source: [1] a separatist movement supposed to represent the Rusyns in Zakarpattia, signed an agreement with Novorossiya against the Ukrainian government. I don't know if it's true or not, I recicled the source (since in the Novorossiya article they had said that the Rusyns' separatists had joined Novorossiya, which is not true) and edited the Federal State of Novorossiya according to the source. If I edited this article wrong, I'd be glad to be corrected, and I think this topic could be discussed here, as well.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 00:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The original interview that the article mentions is here, in the Ukrainian Pravda. As for the separatist movement in Ukraine's far West region, there have been scattered stories about it. I don't think they've done anything serious yet though, have they? Esn (talk) 09:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Odder still, I don't know why they'd want anything to do with New Russia, as the Rusyns strike me as a clearly Central European ethnic minority with historical antipathy towards Russia. RGloucester — ☎ 13:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

It's like that old saying: The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Carpathian Ruthenia was never part of Ukraine until Stalin annexed it to the Soviet Ukraine in 1945.[2], [3] - Tobby72 (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The Carpathian Rusyns under Syder and his crew are hardly a third party if they are working with Russia and with the New Russian militants. It would just be another party to the single side of the conflict within all of Ukraine. (just as DNR and LNR are separate forces)--LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 17:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

There is an article about him: Dimitry Sydor. I ignore if he's involved or not in that agreement, but according to the description of his activities, it wouldn't be surprising.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 19:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

There's less of the 'enemy of my enemy' involved here than an ecclesiastical connection. He's an Archpriest of a Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate), so I don't know whether anyone could vouch for it actually consisting of Rusyns (but it would be the connection with Russia). Whatever the situation, if this group crop up in WP:RS they're not a third group: just more volunteers joining the pro-Russian forces. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy:@RGloucester:@EkoGraf:@Esn:@Tobby72:@Lvivske:I edited that page according to that source. Should it be removed? Maybe it's not very reliable. I used that single source that was there supporting the inclusion of Ruthenian Carpathia in Novorossiya (which was not the case, anyway, according to the source, so I edited accordingly). I've looked for more sources and it's very hard to find any.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI, Getsko's threats are the only rumblings I've heard from that camp. ("3,000 armed men under his control who have “Kalashnikovs, grenade launchers and sniper rifles.”) --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 17:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mondolkiri1: Well, in light of Lvivske's findings (and my not being able to find anything else regarding the issue to shed further light on these claims), it seems that their aim is to start some form of separatist movement in Western Ukraine, not to join the ranks of those in eastern Ukraine). I'm not even going to try to guess at whether this is merely noise for publicity, or whether anything will come of it. As it stands, it's 'rumblings' and not reality, so it's not even relevant to the 'Pro-Russian unrest' in Ukraine unless it evolves into something more than noises. Even there, this would be a separate issue from Donbass. Based on the wobbly reports of nothing actually having happened, I don't see it has any bearing on this article. Cheers for looking into it and consulting! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Well, so far I can't see any reason not to delete it, since I couldn't find any other source to support it and I was doubting a lot about the reliability of that source. I'll correct it in the Federal State of Novorossiya.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 04:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Done!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 05:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Rebel counter-offensive. Attack from the sea in Novoazovsk? According to Ukrainian sources.

Yesterday the Ukrainian ATO centre released a map in which it showed attack from the sea in Novoazovsk. Does anyone know anything more about this and what happened? [4]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Donetsk rebels have announced that they are opening up a new front, and are "fighting (their) way to the Azov Sea" according to RIA Novosti. [5] There's also various evidence on Twitter to suggest that rebel offensives are under way, especially near Amvrosiivka and Telmanove, south of Donetsk city, and north of Lugansk city in NovoaidarRaion. --Tocino 15:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the rebels are in full counter-offensive, videos from Azov Sea[6],[7],[8]. There are other reports claiming collapse of Ukrainian forces in the southern front and mutiny by NG in Mariupol, I guess we will have to wait and see for confirmation.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

From those 3 videos, I guess only the 3rd is useful, because the other 2 are impossible to see where they were filmed... Could they be the 3rd side, instead of the pro-Russian rebels?Mondolkiri1 (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

If this source [9] is correct, they're also attacking from the sea!... Well, the pro-Russian rebels don't have a navy. Either the source is misleading, or a 3rd side managed to get boats or ships or it's the Russian Army itself that is attacking (in that case, escalating even more the conflict).Mondolkiri1 (talk) 22:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Beginning date of the war should be revised?

Methinks, since the ATO only started on April 12, the war started later than the currently stated date of April 6. 192.252.168.208 — ☎ 22:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Rebel Counter-offensive and encirclement of Ukrainian troops? and change of Tactics

http://en.itar-tass.com/world/746532 The rebels say they have recaptured several cities and have tarpped at least 2000 Ukrainian troops \self-defense fighters are also cutting off Ukrainian troops from Ilovaisk along the line of the populated areas of Agronomicheskoye, Kuteinikovo, Voikovo and Osykovo according to the Militia

militia headquarters have also switched from military action by small units to full-scale operations by full-fledged formations and army units which escalates the war even further and the rebels are now using artillery giving the rebels an enormous boost

112.135.43.254 (talk) 11:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

After having edged into Luhansk city on 18 August, government forces began to advance through the city "block by block" on 19 August.

• "After having edged into Luhansk city on 18 August, government forces began to advance through the city "block by block" on 19 August... Ministry said that government forces were "clearing" Ilovaisk of insurgents, and , and later captured most of the city"

This is the last update from a week ago. Do we know what happened since then? Has Luhansk been captured completely already, or are Ukrainian forces still clearing the last remnants of rebels? Is Illovaisk now clear of any remaining rebel forces? Just asking, since a week has passed, perhaps an update is recommended.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

It appears to be misinformation. There is no Ukrainian military presence in either Donetsk or Lugansk. The general rule of thumb is pics or it didn't happen. 199.7.137.211 — ☎ 15:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• [10] ? Can somebody shed a light on this? According to Ukrainian sources they were cleaning Donetsk and Luhansk "block by block" a week ago and now it seems Mariupol is threatened by rebel takeover?--MyMoloboaccount (talk)

We can only report what reliable sources do. Sadly, there has been very little good reporting from Luhansk, as the city has no power or telephony (OSCE observers said that they couldn't send reports as a result). In other words, we don't really know what is happening. As far as Mariupol is concerned, this situation is rapidly developing, but I have read that Novoazovsk is in a state of lockdown, with people hiding in their basements. RGloucester — ☎ 16:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• Rebel leaders were talking about launching counter offensive and now rebels are also reorganized from groups to formations backed by tanks,Artillery and even SAMS either way Russian media show its the rebels winning while western media is saying its the Govt winning.So lets see if the Rebels do launch a attack on any major city in the area 112.135.20.67 (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, as in any war there are 2 versions, and the "only and official one" will be that of the side that ends winning. 79.150.54.174 (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Treating allegations from Kiev as fact

There is a serious problem on this article of editors, many with a pro-Kiev slant, inserting material into this article that treats the reports coming out of Kiev as though they are fact rather than allegations. Most egregious are statements that treat direct Russian military involvement in the conflict as fact. Reliable sources are generally consistent (outside the usual propaganda outlets) in noting these as allegations for which there is no definitive evidence, but insertion of material into this article tends to simply restate what Kiev stated as though it were a proven reality. Kiev is not a reliable source for what is going on in the conflict as their statements regularly conflict with reality and even found to be purely fabrications. U.S. and NATO supporting these allegations does not inherently verify them as they have backed allegations that later proved to be completely false. The most notorious example was a few months ago when Kiev put out several photos it claimed proved Russian soldiers were taking part in the early seizures and the U.S. backed them wholeheartedly until many were found to have false or misleading captions, implying they were taken in Russia when they were taken in Ukraine or the most blatant example of claiming a guy with an auburn beard and one with a black and gray beard were the same person. Reliable sources reported on that fabrication as well. Suffice to say anything coming out of Kiev should be treated with the same skepticism as anything coming from the rebels of Russia.

I should not that these claims are also being used as the basis for inserting several named living individuals into the infobox as "commanders" in the conflict and thus falls under BLP as well.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Er, no one has suggested using "claims" for anything (note that I previously maintained the "supported by" because of the nature of the claims you mention). Russia has admitted to sending a "humanitarian convoy" into Ukraine without permission of the Ukrainian government, and in defiance of a previously made agreement. Ukraine viewed this as an "invasion" and "act of war", as shown in the sources provided. Therefore, whilst it previously did not belong in the infobox for lack of confirmation, there is now confirmation from Russia that it had no qualms with doing something that Ukraine considered an "invasion". In fact, it now plans to send a second convoy. RGloucester — ☎ 18:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

That is an absurd rationalization. Sending a humanitarian convoy into another country, even without their permission, does not make them a co-belligerent in a war.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

If the country considers it an act of war, then yes, it is "belligerent". RGloucester — ☎ 18:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you are wait out of line here with your edits and comments. I know the fucking rules forwards and backwards. Petroshenko claimed they demolished some Russian column, but no one else (even the U.S. which has regularly backed most of their allegations regardless of veracity) could confirm that it occurred and Kiev provided zero evidence that it did. There are many reliable sources noting this fact. The same with the other things I noted as alleged. No confirmation or definitive proof has verified these claims so they should be noted as allegations from Kiev. Per the guidelines you cited:

Words such as supposed, apparent, alleged and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate, although alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial; when these are used, ensure the source of the accusation is clear.

The proclamations of Kiev and NATO are not proof and as such the allegations should be noted as allegations absent confirmation. Kiev has been an especially unreliable source as I noted.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The text doesn't say that "Kiev" (do you mean the city?) destroyed anything. It says that Poro said that his forces had done so. It also says that defence ministry of Russia said that there was no convoy. These are both statements of fact. Must you resort to profanity? RGloucester — ☎ 18:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I get a little incensed at seeing Wikipedia used for war propaganda.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I wish you'd read the talk page, as I told you to. We've discussed the "US/Canada" matter tens of times. Please read the talk page and revert your placement of those parties in the infobox. RGloucester — ☎ 21:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Nowhere on the talk page is there anything resembling a consensus, just one or two people saying in limited discussions with IPs that they do not think it qualifies due to their own personal opinions. The U.S. is sending armored personnel carriers and Canada could not have been any clearer that its military aid was to support Kiev in the war.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The US is sending armored personnel carriers? I don't think so. The costs would be prohibitive. Plus, if rebels see American armored vehicles, you can be sure Russia would send Kornet anti tank missiles as a response.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that America is giving armoured personnel carriers to the city administration of Kiev? That's odd. I'd never have thought that Kiev would be allowed a municipal army. Regardless, given this new revelation about "armoured personnel carriers" being sent to the Kiev city administration, I do believe it is appropriate for America to be included. Canada should not be added, as the non-lethal aid it is sending/sent hardly qualifies it for a spot in the infobox. RGloucester — ☎ 22:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Please don't get smart with me. You know when I say Kiev, I am referring to the national government based there, not the city administration. As to Canada, while I am not deadset on them being there, they explicitly say they are providing support to Kiev in order to aid in its campaign against the rebels.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree, just see above for false propaganda claims that Kiev forces are clearing Donetsk and Lugansk "block by block" which were presented as fact in the article. I also remember that early in the war, security services claimed such absurd accusations as rebels are trying to build a dirty bomb--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing about dirty bombs in the article and even if Russia didn't consider the actions as an act of war, Ukraine did. Remember that there is a line below stating "denied by Russia".Mondolkiri1 — talk 21:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

This article 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine is "nice" too, i think Cathry (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

A complete list off all pro-government paramilitary forces now fighting in Donbass would be great to have

The listing of the pro-government paramilitaries in this article seems not complete... Next to politician's Oleh Lyashko battalion (fellow Ukrainian politician) Yulia Tymoshenko's Batkivshchyna party also claims to have its own fighting Battalion (I had a problem finding a source not from her website that confirmed that). So it would be logic if the party Svoboda would also have its own para-military force now fighting in Donbass too (even if this only did so to not loose voters to Lyashko and Tymoshenko).... (The same would go for the political parties People's Movement of Ukraine & Our Ukraine; probably not UDAR since they usually act not very militant....) Has any source got a complete list off all pro-government paramilitaries forces now fighting in Eastern-Ukraine? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 12:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The most important:

• Dnieper-1
• Dnieper-2
• Azov
• Aidar
• Donbass
• Right Sector (DUK)
• Kiev-1
• Kievan Rus

These are really many battalions, but truth is that some of them don't really fight. Some are made only for political PR, like Lyahko's battalion or Svoboda's Sich battalion and it's a question if they really do exist and fight. Also many of them stay in their homeland regions.

I don't think that they all need to be listed. Only the most efficient and participating in the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.123.161.253 (talk) 14:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that they do not need to be listed here. But it would be very good if they were listed on the Wiki-pages of their "home organizations". Per example the article Svoboda (political party) does not mention this "Svoboda Sich battalion". I also had never heard of it since the media (also it seems the media in Ukraine and Russia) ignores these "political party battalions". — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

This is not my area of expertise, but I'd be happy to see a better summary section of the pro-government paramilitaries, if anyone wants to write it. RGloucester — ☎ 16:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Here is about Sich http://nbnews.com.ua/ua/news/124111/ Nobody writes about it because it is PR and it doesn't really exist :)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.123.161.253 (talk) 07:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't find yet any information about that Sich Batallion apart from that claim on a facebook page, which was revealed on another source. Let's wait until some more substancial information is available, I guess.Mondolkiri1 — talk 23:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

This Sich Batallion seems to be ready now to go to battle (I saw on twitter. Although this Twitter account is probably also not a great source....

PS I found the Twitter account via http://liveuamap.com/. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 13:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

Let's be more cautious with our words. A "belligerent" is an armed group or sovereign state engaged in war or conflict as recognized by international law. Since no formal Russian military operations have occurred, and since no state of war exists between the Russian Federation and Ukraine, the phrase "supported by" is crucial. Even in cases where a direct combat role has been played, i.e. the United States in the Northern Iraq offensive (June 2014), "supported by" is the preferred phrasing. Albrecht (talk) 01:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Please read the talk page before making such edits. This has been discussed numerous times. Sources have been provided. RGloucester — ☎ 01:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

With respect, it's not a question of what "sources say", but of what words mean and what are the applicable conventions. To use my example above, there's clearly no shortage of sources about the U.S. airstrikes in Iraq and U.S. special forces on the ground on Mt. Sinjar, yet the phrase "Supported by" is used—as it is with the Jordanians in Syria, the Chinese in Vietnam, the Italians and Germans in Spain—all of whom provided vastly more combat and material forces to those conflicts than the Russians are alleged to have in the Donbass. Why, then, are you so opposed to applying the same standard here as in virtually every article on military conflicts?

If our positions are irreconcilable, would you agree to request comment from WikiProject Military history? I suspect the answer there will be pretty unanimous. Albrecht (talk) 01:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

In the Northern Iraq offensive (August 2014), USA is listed as a belligerent.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 02:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Britain, despite a peak troop presence of 40,000, is a "Supporter" in the Greek Civil War; the U.S., which provided $42.5 million in military equipment to El Salvador and billions to Colombia, as well as all forms of covert operations, is a "Supporter" in the Salvadoran Civil War and a "Supporter" in the Colombian Civil War. But, again, what is the actual nature of the objection to the heading? According to international law, Russia is not a belligerent in Ukraine. It is providing support to the armed groups—I believe even the U.S. State Department frames it this way. Albrecht (talk) 03:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I really don't care what the "Military history" project does, or what other articles do. I certainly do not care that another article uses "supported by". I only care about this article. We've had tonnes, and I mean tonnes, of discussions on this subject at this talk page. Ukraine considered the crossing of Russian vehicles into Ukrainian territory ("humanitarian convoy", as admitted by Russia) an "invasion", and an act of war. This act of war warrants the placement of Russia as it is. There are many other reports of similar incidents, but Russia admitted to carrying out this one. Therefore, there can be no question whatsoever. RGloucester — ☎ 02:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thankfully for Wikipedia, the article will ultimately conform to editor consensus, and not the whims and desiderata of RGloucester. Albrecht (talk) 03:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Likewise, fellow. Likewise. RGloucester — ☎ 03:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Mondol, the U.S. has been openly carrying out airstrikes against ISIS positions. There is not even the slightest question that the U.S. is directly engaged in combat in Iraq. It is not the case here. Plenty of allegations of support have been made that are at least credible enough to include in the infobox (not exactly confirmed but noting the denial is sufficient in that case), but not a single ounce of definitive evidence has been presented about direct Russian military involvement in the conflict and Russia denies involvement. Absent a Russian admission or some incontrovertible proof, these are just allegations of direct involvement and should only be presented in article text with due consideration for their unsubstantiated nature.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Russia should not a belligerent. At least not yet. There is no proof that the Russian military is directly involved in the war. If Russia is counted as a belligerent, then so should China be too. After all, China significantly finances the war by boosting trade with Russia.192.252.168.208 — ☎ 05:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure that if they come from Russia, speak Russian and have Russian equipment, they can't be Chinese. BTW the tens of Russian soldiers stationed along the frontier don't seem to be doing anything to stop these "non-Russian" militants to cross into Ukraine, either. Oscar-HaP (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of those events, which are not confirmed (and for which I did not suggest we removed the "supported by"), there is an event confirmed by Russia. That is the movement of the "humanitarian convoy", which was viewed as an "invasion" and "act of war" by Ukraine. Russia confirmed that it did in fact move the convoy into Ukraine, despite having no permission to do so. RGloucester — ☎ 17:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

There has been no declaration of war by Ukraine on Russia or vice versa. Nor have there been declarations of exclusion zones, etc. as the British did during their limited war with Argentina in 1982.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

There are rarely declarations of war these days. Poro called it "undeclared war". RGloucester — ☎ 19:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

"Supported by United States" should not be included in the infobox. The two sources do not support this notion. Yes, the US has sent some 8 million $ worth of equipment to Ukraine. A few trucks and some night vision goggles. First, this is a pittance, especially compared to the amounts invested by Russia on the other side. 8m$ is about the size of the Indiana state lottery jackpot. It's about .000002 (yes, that's 5 zeros) of the federal outlays. It's much less than the statistical discrepancy in state government expenditures. It's basically less than the spare change one can find in the White House couch. Given prices of US military hardware that it usually gets charged at, 8 million might get you a hammer and if you're lucky, a few nails to go with it. More seriously, this is an insignificant amount that doesn't even deserve to be called "token". The other source, likewise doesn't support including the above in the infobox - it talks about the *possibility* that US might support Ukraine. "Analysts expect that...", "US may want to bolster..." etc/.

I would genuinely *like* to be able to add "Supported by United States" in the infobox. If only it were true. But for now, like I said, it's just OR. And of course POV pushing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh yeah, 8$ million is also about 1/10 of what a BUK missile system costs, of the kind that Russia gave to their proxies and which they used to kill almost 300 uninvolved civilians, at one go. And that's just one piece of equipment that Russia gave'em.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The rebels' guilt in that incident has not been proven. Others believe that it was the Ukrainian side that shot down the plane. This rather detailed analysis, for example. If it was the insurgents who shot it down, it was almost certainly not deliberate (they had absolutely nothing to gain and much to lose) and Ukraine was at fault for allowing civilian aircraft to fly over a war zone. Have you seen this BBC report? At 0:31, witnesses speak of seeing a military airplane flying beneath the Boeing before it was destroyed. At 3:12, a man claims that it was common for Ukrainian military planes to hide behind civilian ones. In this video, uploaded a month before the catastrophe, the same claim is made: At 1:09, the woman says: "Terrible things are happening. For example an incident that happened recently. A passenger plane was flying by. And a Ukrainian attack aircraft hid behind it. Then he lowered his altitude a bit and dropped bombs on the residential sector of Semenovka town. Then he regained the altitude and hid behind the passenger plane again. Then he left. They wanted to provoke the militia to shoot at the passenger plane. There would be a global catastrophe. Civilians would have died. Then they would say that terrorists here did it." Esn (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Others believe that the earth is flat and that green little men (no, not those green little men) live on Mars. Why are you giving me a link to some blog? Why are you giving me link to some bullshit conspiracy site? Why are you giving me links to some wacky youtube videos?

But hey, I learned something from this. Apparently the new conspiracy theory - what is it, like the seventh or eight one that has been put out by Russian media? - is that the Ukrainian "made the rebels do it" by "hiding their military planes behind civilian aircraft". I never cease to believe the stuff people will swallow just to hold on to their pre-set world view. At some point, no matter what one dearly wishes to be true, it's time to let go.

But this is all immaterial. The comment about the cost of a BUK vs the paltry spare change that US might have given the Ukrainian government (less than the money the Federal US government gives to the state of North-freakin'-Dakota per day) was obviously meant to be illustrative. There is no substantial support by the US to Ukraine. That stuff doesn't belong in the infobox.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The BBC is a conspiracy site? Okay. Sounds like the one holding on to their preset worldview might be yourself. Esn (talk) 00:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Or put it yet another way. The 7 million, is less than one-tenth the foreign aid that the US government gave to ... Russia, in 2010 (I'd have to look around for more recent figures) (edited - it's way more than that, see below). Maybe we should put a little indent in there on the rebel side under "Russia" and put in "Russia, supported by United States".Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually I was way off. US aid to Russia (both economic and military) has been around 1.26 billion. Of that, apparently about 380 million is military aid (not that matters much, recipient countries can always pretty much choose how they spend the received money).Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying we should add "Supported by the United States" to the insurgent side? *cough* RGloucester — ☎ 23:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm saying that's what Devil Advocate's logic would imply. Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Where did you get your numbers from about US aid to Russia? Is that for 2013 or for the entire post-Soviet period? Because I did a quick Google search and the first result was this. Esn (talk) 00:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The 2012 Statistical Abstract of the United States published by the US Census, table 1299. The number is for 2008 and the one for 2009 is higher. To get more recent numbers I'd have to make a trip to the library. BUT. These are numbers which don't change much from year to year since they're part of "non-discretionary spending". In other words, it's the money the government has committed itself to spending - like "we will give you X billion over ten years in installments of Y". You'd need a special law to end that kind of spending. If you do get a hold of the SAoUS and find the table note that it says "Annual figures are in obligations".

Hence, even if it came down since 2009, it didn't come down much and no, it's definitely not the number for "entire post-Soviet period". As an aside, I'm getting the sense that editors here don't have a good grasp on how *little* a billion dollars is for a country like US (indeed, for any half-developed country bigger than a city state). Like I pointed out above, the statistical discrepancy/rounding error in the US budgets is more than ten times that. And since a billion dollars is nothing, seven million is really really really really nothing.

Like someone once said (as quoted by Paul Krugman) "Ten billion here, ten billion there, soon you're talking real money".

USAid is just one agency that administers a very small portion of foreign "aid" spending. Mostly stuff to do with human rights and elections. That's why Putin kicked them out. That and precisely because they don't really have that much to give anyway. From his point of view that was a no-brainer. But they've been taking the other money, including the military money quite gladly. They're probably laughing about it right now.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Geographic errors

In the section "Fighting worsens in southern Donetsk Oblast" there is a talk about Shakhtarsk Raion which is located in the east of Donetsk Oblast rather than the south. Southern Donetsk Oblast usually is considered to be an area around the city of Mariupol. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 12:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You are right. That should read "in eastern Donetsk Oblast". I'll start an edit request. RGloucester — ☎ 14:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 August 2014

Per the above mention, please fix the subheading that reads "Fighting worsens in southern Donetsk Oblast" to "Fighting worsens in eastern Donetsk Oblast". It is a geographical error, presently. RGloucester — ☎ 14:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC) RGloucester — ☎ 14:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Spanish volunteers

There are some Spanish people in Vostok Battailon. --79.157.214.243 (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Spanish volunteers? Wouldn't they be Ukrainian or Russian migrants in Spain? (since there are sizeable communities from these 2 countries in Spain). I ignore what would be the interest of Spanish people going to fight on the behalf of the insurgents, but if you have any source, mention it, please!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)::

They are Spanish. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0K3-KEqyIY&list=UUdnB82ob_V7EXwwcCtB1vUg

Well, they look Spanish, they have a Spanish accent or very similar. It might be mentioned, though youtube videos alone are generally not considered as sources.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 17:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

3 Spanish left wing guys (those are the ones I see in the video and the photo of the source that was edited) are enough for Spanish volunteers to be included? I only can see 3! I wouldn't be surprised if they were Basque or Catalonian separatists willing to help their fellow separatists in Ukraine... But they don't seem to be so. Though, we have to take into account that Spain is now one of the 3 most Eurosceptic countries in the EU (along with Britain and Greece), and a large percentage has voted for very left wing parties in the last European Election... That might be a possible motivation.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

This comment about Basque or Catalonian people is out of place. The ways for the independence in these countries are more in line with the way of Scotland. These Spanish guys are from Asturias. 79.144.134.181 — ☎ 10:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Certainly doesn't belong in the infobox. RGloucester — ☎ 20:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester:Sure, I agree and I'll correct that if it wasn't corrected yet. 3 Spanish guys certainly don't belong in the infobox.--Mondolkiri1(Talk) 21:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

They're still in the list. Oscar-HaP (talk) 15:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

According to what I've read, those Spanish volunteers are there with the reported motivation of returning favors from the Russian (Soviet by that time) International Brigades fighting against Franco during the Spanish Civil War, between 1936 and 1939, on the behalf of the Spanish Republic. Many Spanish refugees were accepted in the UK, Soviet Union, Mexico and probably in other countries as well, but many of the refugees that fled to Russia or their descendants returned to Spain, when the economic crisis in Russia during the 90s hit them harshly. These could possibly be some of the descendants of those refugees from the Spanish Civil War.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

SERBIAN VOLUNTEERS:

there is no confirmed report or information of any Serbian volunteers fighting for Ukrainian side. Statement from Serbian prime minister is not based on any intelligence data or confirmation. It's simply a political statement with purpose to reduce any kind of potential pressure on Serbia because of volunteers who are making it to Ukraine to support separatists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.155.56.91 (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Your observations may be correct, but you have written them on a discussion about Spanish (not Serbian) volunteers. Could you write it somewhere else, please?Mondolkiri1 (talk) 20:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I would if i knew how to create a new talk subject. Anyway i do not know what happened with my revision. However, the statement that Serbian PM made was not confirmed even by Serbian intelligence or anybody else in the world for that matter, nor was a single individual identified fighting as volunteer on Ukrainian side. Hence, his statement is nothing but a missinformation for political and diplomatic purposes, intended to reduce pressure on his government for it's neglect of that subject, the subject of mercenaries and volunteers being allowed to go and fight on foreign soil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.222.18.94 (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Why is Russia listed in the infobox but not the US?

Tobby72 made changes adding the US as a "supporter" of Ukraine in the infobox, based on several mainstream sources talking about US sending advisers and military gear into Ukraine. RGloucester removed it, saying that this has been discussed tens of times and to "look at the talk page". I've looked, and I don't see much. There were these two discussions in early August, and this discussion in early July. A persistent theme in all three discussions was that they all ended with complaints that thinly disguised editorial bias was behind the decision to include Russia in the infobox as a supporter (despite the official denial by Russia, and a history of debunked claims), while NOT including the US as a supporter (despite the US's official, open announcements about at least a portion of their support - there's likely much more happening behind the scenes, if the past history of US involvement in civil wars is any guide).

I am not recommending removing Russia from the infobox. When in fog of war, the mainstream views of both sides should be included until the fog clears up.

But I want to ask, why is the US admitting to donating military equipment and advisors (Russia's foreign minister believes them to number about 100) not enough to put it as a supporter in the infobox? Of course, it's not a no-fly-zone or an invasion, but it doesn't have to be. That's not the established practice in other war infoboxes. See Template:Syrian_Civil_War_infobox, Nagorno-Karabakh War ("armament support"), War of Transnistria (where Romania is listed for providing volunteers and advisors), and Korean War ("combat support", "medical support", "other support").

Esn (talk) 05:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what other articles do, nor do I particularly care, but I do know what the guidelines on infoboxes say. Infoboxes are a critical summary of key information. They are not endless lists of information. Russia's participation in this war, in whatever form, is well-documented in reliable sources in every respect. Only direct parties to the conflict belong in the infobox. Giving Russia parity with the United States in the infobox is not a conclusion supported by reliable sources, and is clearly an example of false balance. A few military advisers and some other forms of non-lethal aid are not equivalent to direct involvement in the conflict. RGloucester — ☎ 06:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think it is absolutely "critical" to include the US in the infobox, since the US has played a very important role in this whole affair. If the mainstream Ukrainian view is that this is a direct war against Russia (which is reflected in the current infobox), then the mainstream view of Russian analysts is that this conflict is a proxy war against the US (which is not reflected in the infobox; I see your WP:GEVAL and counter with WP:WORLDVIEW).

Moreover, mentioning both the US and Russia in the infobox does not imply that their level of support is identical (just like in the Syrian Civil War infobox, not all of the armed groups listed have the same number of soldiers).

I will remind you that the level of Russia's support is not exactly clear, and there are widely divergent views on it. Of the infobox's sources for Russia's participation, the first one listed is an interview with a former American anti-Soviet specialist in which he makes an assertion but gives no proof (not exactly the most neutral source!), while the others talk about the high number of Russian volunteers and leaders (which proves nothing about state involvement, no more than the plethora of Saudi volunteers in the Syrian civil war proves direct Saudi support of ISIS), or disputed evidence (the CIA images released over Twitter, which were immediately disputed by Russian media).

In any case, I think that other infoboxes have it right and this one has it wrong. Officially donating military gear to a country during a civil war should be enough to count as "support". Esn (talk) 06:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted. It would be ridiculous to include US in the infobox for reasons which are so obvious that I (and probably others) won't waste my time with this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Since yesterday it is well-known and well covered by several western media the first death of a US'volunteer.At the section 'Foreign volunteers' USA should be listed , just as it has already been included 'Albania,Azerbaijan etc...No big deal and no reason to hide this and be unbalanced. It is a well-established fact that there was an American volunteer fighting .

He was a Ukrainian citizen, not an American citizen. In his interview he said he got Ukrainian citizenship before joining Donbas Battalion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by O Grego (talk • contribs) 15:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

He was an American citizen as well, I think. But that's beside the point - if I remember right, other editors have already decided not to include a country under "foreign volunteers" if there are only a small number of people from it (as was the case with the two Spaniards on the insurgent side). I don't think it's ever been decided how large a number of people has to volunteer, though - there's a certain grey area in which whether a country is included or not seems to be based on whether influential editors want to include it or not (or maybe there's been some discussion of this?). Anyway, one person is probably too small a number. Esn (talk) 08:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

AFAIK, Ukraine does not allow dual citizenship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 15:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine does not recognize other citizenships if you have the Ukrainian one, but at the same time it isn't illegal to have other ones. From Ukrainian Citizenship: "Ukrainian law currently does not recognise dual citizenship. However there are citizens of Ukraine who hold dual citizenship. Various estimates put the number of Ukrainians with more than one passport from 300,000 to a few million". BTW although born in the USA, his mother was Ukrainian, so he could have gotten the Ukraine citizenship either as a born-abroad (I guess this one) or being naturalized. Oscar-HaP (talk) 19:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Kyivpost states that he changed his US citizenship to Ukrainian citizenship. http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/at-least-620-soldiers-killed-in-russias-war-against-ukraine-361615.html

Mr.Anon, you used my signature after your reply. Remember to double-check and/or preview your edits before saving them. Oscar-HaP (talk) 08:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Here are the articles (from Toddy72's edit) that can be used to support inclusion of the US under "supporters":

• "Pentagon Plan Would Help Ukraine Target Rebel Missiles. The New York Times
• Obama orders Pentagon advisers to Ukraine to fend off Putin-backed rebels". The Washington Times.
• U.S. sending advisers, military gear to Ukraine. Army Times
• Why CIA Director Brennan Visited Kiev: In Ukraine The Covert War Has Begun

Note the New York Times article in particular. Relevant quotes:

The Obama administration is already sharing with the Ukrainians satellite photographs and other evidence of the movement of troops and equipment along the Ukrainian-Russian border. But a senior administration official acknowledged late Friday that the data were “historical in nature,” hours or even days old, and not timely enough to use in carrying out airstrikes or other direct attacks.

“We’ve been cautious to date about things that could directly hit Russia — principally its territory,” but also its equipment, the official said. A proposal to give the Ukrainians real-time information “hasn’t gotten to the president yet,” the official said, in part because the White House has been focused on rallying support among European allies for more stringent economic sanctions against Moscow, and on gaining access for investigators to the Malaysia Airlines crash site.

The nature of the US involvement so far, according to public sources, is:

• Economic warfare support (in the form of sanctions against Russia, and "encouraging" allied countries to enact them - like Bulgaria canceling South Stream at the same time as NATO planes and troops deploy into Bulgaria)
• Limited military support (perhaps up to 100 military advisors, some intelligence sharing, some nonlethal military gear. NYTimes: $33 million in nonlethal support such as bomb-disposal equipment, radios and engineering equipment, and it plans to provide night-vision goggles)
• Propaganda support (in the form of releases to the media from intelligence agencies, and consistent downplaying of the Donbass humanitarian/refugee crisis by US spokespeople such as Jen Psaki and Marie Harf (who famously said, see 5:10 in this video, that the refugees fleeing into Russia could just be going to "visit their grandmothers and come back")).

Esn (talk) 08:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Certainly if the foreign backer of one side is mentioned, then the foreign backer of the other side should be mentioned as well. The US government has played a key role in these events through its support for the Ukrainian government. Everyking (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Plenty of people have "supported" the Ukrainian government. Should we put every country that opposed Russia's annexation of Crimea in the infobox on the Ukrainian side? You are blowing this out of proportion. America is not a direct party to the conflict, whereas, according to reliable sources, Russia is a direct party. RGloucester — ☎ 20:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

How so? Neither the US nor Russia is directly involved in fighting, but both are actively involved through their support of proxies. To ignore the role of one side weirdly distorts the nature of the conflict. Everyking (talk) 00:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Where are you getting this "proxies" business from? That's total POV. RGloucester — ☎ 04:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton announced in 2012 that one of the goals of the United States' foreign policy is to cripple Russia's Customs Union. To quote her statement (first quoted in the Financial Times): "There is a move to re-Sovietize the region. It’s not going to be called that. It’s going to be called a customs union, it will be called Eurasian Union and all of that. But let's make no mistake about it. We know what the goal is and we are trying to figure out effective ways to slow down or prevent it." A leaked phone call in February 2014 ([11]) showed that the US was hand-picking Yatseniuk to be the first leader of post-revolutionary Ukraine, under whose watch the War in Donbass began. Numerous experts (particularly in Russia, but in the West as well) have alleged that the US strategy follows the template laid out in Zbigniew Brzezinski's 1997 book The Grand Chessboard. Brzezinski (famous for, among other things, creating the Afghanistan mujahideen movement) is today considered to be one of Obama's main advisors on foreign policy ([12]). Esn (talk) 08:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

What of it, Esn? Do you propose to engage in some WP:OR by writing a blog into the content? Read the talk page policy: no soap, please. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

If a blog isn't good enough how about the BBC? Also, see my comment below - even the Council on Foreign Relations now writes that this is proxy war with the US and NATO on one side of it. Esn (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

This is silly. The US sending some ready made meals counts as support? Canada sends non-lethal military equipment at least, as does Poland. Should we include every county that does trade with Ukraine as a "supporter"? Should we include the IMF? Anyone who has ever given Ukraine a loan? We can re-enter this discussion if there ever are American boots on the ground, at the moment, only Russian troops are in Ukraine and no other foreign country. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 16:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

There are numerous independent reports of Russia providing weapons, training and soldiers to the Ukrainian separatist cause. So its fair to say its a participant. No one else is giving anything anywhere near the level of support. If any sort of minor support was included, you would have to add country's like France to the Pro-Russian side for selling military ships to Russia, etc. Daithicarr (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Here is an article from the Council on Foreign Relations supporting the view that this conflict is a proxy war between the US and Russia: [13]. According to its wiki article, the CFR is the "most influential foreign-policy think tank" in the United States. Therefore, the view that the US is an important party to this conflict can be considered mainstream even in the West now, and not making any mention of it in the article is a form of unjustified editorial bias. Esn (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

That's an opinion essay. Please read WP:SOAP. RGloucester — ☎ 21:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I have. How is it relevant? If it is a mainstream view that this conflict is a proxy war (in Russia and now in the West as well), why should that not be included in the article? Esn (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

An opinion piece by one professor doesn't make a view "mainstream". Opinion pieces are not suitable for references, as WP:SOAP states. Regardless, there is mention in the "labelling of the conflict" section of the fact that some people view the war as a "proxy war". RGloucester — ☎ 21:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Why was the US snuck into the infobox? Sending ready made meals and calling it "military aid" is a real stretch of the imagination and possible POV push. Canada has at least sent flak jackets and other non lethal aid, what has the US sent that makes it a party to the conflict at all? --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 22:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Training and sending armored vehicles to the Ukrainian forces by the Pentagon counts or not as a supporting role by USA?

According to USA Today, "The Pentagon is rushing new aid — including armored vehicles and increased training — to bolster Ukrainian forces fighting Russian-backed separatists, the Defense Department announced Friday. (...) The gear includes armored personnel carriers, cargo and patrol vehicles, binoculars, night vision goggles and small patrol boats, said Eileen Lainez, a Pentagon spokeswoman. The equipment is valued at $8 million and follows a similar $7 million package of equipment shipped in April." In my opinion, this indicates that USA is supporting Ukraine, not only now, but since April. And there is another source as well, from the Washington Times, corroborating this. This doesn't imply any pro-Russian POV from my side, since, as you might notice, I haven't been particularly benevolent towards the Russian actions these days. And this doesn't imply, anyway, a negative or positive judgement about the American support towards the Ukrainian forces. And I'm not equating or even comparing a supporting role by the USA to a leading role by Russia, by no means, at all! By the way, it wasn't me that included the American support there, in the first place, but I agreed with it. I didn't agree so much with the Canadian support, so I left it out, after it was deleted.Mondolkiri1 — talk 02:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

See above. Not enough to put in the infobox, though it could be mentioned in text - precisely because the details, including how miniscule this "support" is, cannot be adequately described in an infobox. Hence putting this in the infobox DOES in fact "equate or even compare" the role of US to that of Russia, whether that is the intent or not. And that winds up being POV (not to mention that the inclusion is ORish, since good chunk of what those sources discuss is *potential* or *possible* future support).Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

It would be possible future support, if they had not written that it followed a "7 million package of equipment shipped in April". And how do you evaluate how minuscule the support is? $8 million (+ $7 million) is minuscule?Mondolkiri1 — talk 03:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Concerning to "wind up being POV"... check my edits in the last 2 or 3 days, to see if I'm being "pro-Russian POV" or not, if that's the question!Mondolkiri1 — talk 03:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not think we should base it on the amount of support given by the U.S. relative to the alleged amount of support offered by Russia. To me it seems rather lopsided that people are tentative about explicitly confirmed military support for one side, while emphasizing the vigorously denied and generally unproven military support for another side. With Russia we mostly have allegations and evidence from Kiev, which we should not treat very seriously. There are third-party accounts suggesting some form of Russian support, official or otherwise, but quantifying it would be rather difficult. With the U.S. we have confirmed and quantified military support.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mondolkiri1:if they had not written that it followed a "7 million package of equipment shipped in April" - again, see above. And yes, it is very very miniscule. The combined value of the houses on the block I live in (plus maybe the next block) is probably more than that. And it's not like I live in a super nice neighborhood or anything. 7 mil is not even spare change to the US government.

7 million is 7,000,000.

Military spending by the US in one year is 664,840,000,000.

So 7 million is .00001 of its military budget. Or .001%. Or one thousandth of one percent.

7 million is 7,000,000.

Total spending by the US government is about 3,500,000,000,000.

So 7 million is .000002 of its total budget. Or .0002%. Or two ten thousandths of one percent.

The statistical disrepancy in the budget is usually on the order of about 11 billion $. That's the money that no one knows where it went, or just rounding error.

7 million is 7,000,000.

11 billion is 11,000,000,000.

So 7 million is .00063 of the statistical discrepancy. Or .063%. Or a little bit more than one half of one percent of just pure rounding error/money just lost in record keeping.

7 million is so small that it's almost insulting.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@Devil's Advocate. I do not think we should base it on the amount of support given by the U.S. relative to . When on one hand we're talking less than a pittance in some measly aid and on the other hand we have Russian troops entering Ukrainian territory, firing on Ukrainian troops, violating Ukrainian territorial integrity, shooting down civilian planes with Russian made equipment then... yes, then we *should* take into account the relative amounts, since one amount is pretty much zero (or pretty damn close) and the other one is obviously much much much more. It is also FALSE that for Russia's role we "only have allegations from Kiev". We have much more. We have independent journalists documenting Russian incursions. We have statements from other governments. We have video evidence. Etc. etc. etc.

So quit flipping the world on its head, and quit POV pushing. With Mondolkiri1 I think there's just a plain ol' misunderstanding, here, with you, the attempt to bias and POV the article appears to be purposeful.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I guess we shall discuss it a bit more (not just me and you), and if the outcome of the discussion (not based on POV) is to remove it, we remove it.@RGloucester:@Iryna Harpy:@EkoGraf:@Esn:@Tobby72:@Lvivske:Mondolkiri1 (talk) 05:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

A discussion about the quality of any given piece of evidence would be time-consuming and a bit forumy, but what I can say is that we have no incontrovertible proof or iron-clad confirmation of official Russian involvement. Plenty of "proof" put forward by Kiev has been discredited by reliable sources, though mysteriously some of those details remain in this article without any mention of that. The persistence and extent of the allegations does merit its inclusion in the infobox, but we cannot quantify it and thus comparing it to the confirmed U.S. aid is not really possible. Unlike with Russia, there is not the slightest bit of doubt about official U.S. support per the sources and it is even quantified for us. Your argument that we should exclude it on the basis of it not being significant enough is ORish. Also, "POV-pushing"? Really? You are going to throw that at me? Remove the plank from your own eye.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Plenty of "proof" put forward by Kiev has been discredited by reliable sources - Once again you are just making shit up and not even bothering to pretend to back it up. Russian soldiers have been captured. Russian vehicles have been observed by independent sources. Russian equipment has obviously been used. Mercenaries from Russia have given interviews. All of this can and has been sourced to "non-Kiev" (wtf that means) reliable sources. Hell, even Russia now admits some of it, quite gleefully I might add. There's overwhelming evidence of Russian involvement or even outright Russian military participation. On the other hand you got this measly 7 million that the US was gonna give to Ukraine anyway (it might actually be *less* than it has given them in previous years) and some talk about how that "may lead to" actual US support. That's about as POV as you can get.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Also please note that, apart from this one-sided capitalist USA Today propaganda, there's absolutely no proof that any US armoured vehicles crossed the Russian border :) Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 09:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

VM:Please hold off allegations on who shot down the plane, we need to wait for results of investigation. As to "measly aid"-it was openly and directly used to assist in overthrowing a democratic government in Ukraine that never shelled cities with artillery or conducted air strikes on protesters--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Those aren't my allegations, it's what reliable sources say. I'm so sorry that reality doesn't fit with your POV. And this measly aid, and it was less than measly, came only in July so it didn't have crap with "overthrowing a democratic government in Ukraine" (sic).Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

MyMoloboaccount seems to forget that the this "democratic government" was responsible for the killing of its citizens... Also it was rapidly becoming very undemocratic right before it was toppled and even before its democratic value was questioned by Human Right groups. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 13:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

If killing your own citizens is grounds for illegitimacy, then the current government must be at least 20 times less legitimate than the preceding one. And I don't believe it has been established yet who were the Maidan snipers who were shooting from an opposition-controlled building and killed both protestors and police. What happened to the investigation of that tragedy, anyway? Esn (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

You're deviating from the question that I posed.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Finally! I think that the sources I mentioned previously should've been enough to make this change, but I'm glad that this new support finally allows the change to be made. I agree with The Devil's Advocate's comment above: To me it seems rather lopsided that people are tentative about explicitly confirmed military support for one side, while emphasizing the vigorously denied and generally unproven military support for another side. Esn (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Because, again, there is essentially no support by the US. 7 million $ + some cheap talk of what might happen is nothing. The sources certainly do not support including "Supported by United States" in the infobox. And Devil's Advocate is just living up to his username by playing daft. That kind of thing is cute when some 16 year old does it to his teachers, but among grown ups it's just considered annoying and immature behavior.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I made the count, taking into account the GDP nominal of Ukraine in 2013 (IMF) and the military budget for 2014. So. GDP nominal = 176235 million USD x 1.25% (military budget) = 2203 million USD. 15 / 2203 = 0.7%. It's a quite small percentage. But is it small enough to remove it? Well... The discussion is open!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course, Ukraine at this point, is not only spending 1.25% of its GDP on its Armed Forces. So, those 0.7% come down to 0.3%, 0.2% or even less, I ignore...Mondolkiri1 (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The heavy support given by the US to the present Kiev government (supporting Maidan, choosing Yatseniuk as PM, sending dozens of military advisors, sanctioning Russia to support Kiev, sharing military intelligence - all listed in the topic before this one) more than support the inclusion of the US in the infobox even without this latest tidbit. The overall cost has been much greater than $7 million; if we include the sanctions in the calculations, substantially so (although mostly for the Europeans). Esn (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

"Choosing Yatsenyuk as PM"? Please don't expand the coatrack any further. RGloucester — ☎ 21:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Any support prior to the start of the War in Donbass is not relevant here, in my opinion, since this article is exclusively about the War in Donbass. Sending military advisors and sharing military intelligence can legitimately be included as support. Concerning to sanctions, then you'd have to include Japan, Australia, Switzerland, Norway, Ireland, so on, so I don't think it's appropriate. Soffredo changed from "Supported by" to "Armament support". I think that's very exclusive, taking into account that the source itself also mentions training and if sharing military intelligence and sending military advisors are to be included, it's an even more inaccurate description of the nature of the support. I will change that, myself, if it hasn't been changed yet. I've asked the help of other users in this discussion, but only Esn has shown up. I'll ask the oppinion of @Soffredo:.@RGloucester: You intervened now in the discussion, but you didn't address the actual question.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 21:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

US sends "military advisers" to pretty much any country it has diplomatic relations with. It's part of normal diplomatic relations between countries. There's US military advisers in Japan, Australia, Switzerland, Norway, Ireland, and so on. There's probably some US "military advisers" in Russia. It's just in this case the Kremlin propaganda machine has made a big deal out of it and some "useful idiots" fell for it.

And there are numerous sources for the fact that the US has refused to share intelligence with Ukraine, except for very basic stuff (I'm guessing they let them know what the weather in Kiev is like), partly because they don't want the Russians to catch on to what they really know (I hope).

You're of course right on the sanctions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. Russia used to be under "Supported by" and I didn't want to make it seem like Russian involvement was the same as American involvement. [Soffredo] 21:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• I'm neutral, at the moment, and would prefer not to get involved in this discussion. RGloucester — ☎ 21:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I understand, @Soffredo:. Could it be replaced by "Backed by" ?Mondolkiri1 (talk) 22:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Why not simply keep it as it is now ("Support:")? Soffredo's concern is no longer current in any case, since it's no longer being used for Russia. Esn (talk) 00:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, right, for now, until further developments in this discussion, I think it shall stay like it is, but I think my suggestion may be worthy to be discussed, nevertheless.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 00:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Nope. This is completely insufficient for inclusion in the infobox. Like I said, you can put it somewhere in the text where the details can actually be explained. Otherwise it's just straight up POV pushing of that whole far-right Russian nationalist myth that this is a war between Russia and the evil "West" which is just trying to keep it down. Far-right crap has no place in an encyclopedia, especially not in the first thing readers will see when they click the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I've checked 2 sources [14] [15] and Volunteer Marek is right about USA not having shared any intelligence with Ukraine, at least as of 26 July, though there were plans by the Pentagon and American intelligence agencies (CIA, I guess) to provide some informations to the Ukrainian government. So, as far as I know, sharing of intelligence (as of 26 July) doesn't count. I ignore if there were further developments.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 01:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, I replaced now "Support" with "Military aid", since there is some aid, though it's not very substantial.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 01:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You're actually giving a pretty good reason yourself for why this shouldn't be in the infobox (and this is why I hate infoboxes in any kind of controversial articles) - you can't put "it's not very substantial" in the infobox. But omitting it creates an obvious POV problem.

Here's another, simpler way to put it. If it's not in text, it shouldn't be in the infobox. It's not in the text. Therefore it shouldn't be in the infobox.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I asked for opinions about this issue and I obtained almost diametrically opposite answers. As it's described in the article Military aid "Military aid is aid which is used to assist a country or it's people in its defense efforts, or to assist a poor country in maintaining control over its own territory. Many countries receive military aid to help with counter-insurgency efforts. (...)". According to the article United States military aid, "The United States is the largest contributor of military aid to foreign countries in the world, providing some form of assistance to over 150 countries each year.". So, that description is neither an ommission nor an assertion that the United States are giving a substantial support to Ukraine. I'll add the link in "Military aid" for the readers to be able to know what it really means. But the discussion is open!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 03:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, for some reason, until 30 August only administrators can edit it, so I couldn't add the link.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 03:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

To say that the US is officially "supporting" since April I think is original research or syn or something along those lines. Non-lethal or financial aid is not support, if it was, then every country that has trade deals with Ukraine, including the IMF and its funds, would count as "support". Do APCs and other non lethal aid count? No, I'd say not. Unless they sent a significant amount of military hardware to count as a party to the conflict, I think this is just a false equivalency to even out the infobox (not necessarily intentional, but sometimes its fun to fill in blanks). --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 04:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I too am worried about false balance in this instance. RGloucester — ☎ 05:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Lvivske:@RGloucester:Thank you very much for your opinions, but now, due to the reason I mentioned above, the text can only be changed on 30 August (apart from administrators)!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 06:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The article was protected to prevent edit warring, which had already been occurring. This gives us time to reach a consensus on this matter without having a battle all across the article. RGloucester — ☎ 06:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it should be removed from the infobox and be included in the section of Reactions by USA. Do you agree?Mondolkiri1 (talk) 07:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

That's what I'd ultimately prefer, at this stage. However, this is something I doubt others would agree to. RGloucester — ☎ 00:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester: Thank you very much for your opinion.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Very informative August 24 press conference by top rebel leaders

This video (with subtitles in English, French and German, translated by The Vineyard of the Saker) can be used in the article for sourcing the official positions of the rebel leaders on a number of issues, including future plans, conditions for peace, claims of Ukrainian casualties. The man on the right is Aleksandr Zakharchenko, and the man on the left is Vladimir Kononov.

I particularly recommend PM Zakharchenko's speech from 14:22 until 23:22, in which the whole "worldview" of the insurgents is summed up. Esn (talk) 22:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

All the neo-nazis in the comments section cheering him on... quite telling.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

In reading the Youtube comments, I found one neo-Nazi-like comment (from Fred Fender) and one anti-Nazi comment written in German (from Naso). On the Saker site, I found one comment (out of 58) which mentions Jews. In short, your comment is false, unless by "all" you meant to write "one". Perhaps you have some pre-existing prejudice. Esn (talk) 04:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

also xjlmt, who ranted about the jewmedia. Several others against the junta junta and western decadence, in typical Russian jihad fashion. I dunno, he may have prejudice but it's not far off when you read comments sections from those types. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 05:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

In fairness, xjlmt's comment was posted after I wrote that. Okay then, two. As for "junta" and "Western decadence", those terms are not limited to usage by neo-Nazis. The first is also used by, for example communists (on the other hand, some neo-Nazis volunteer to fight for the so-called junta. It would be fair to say that there are ultra-nationalists on both sides). The second seems to be used by heavily religious people of all denominations. Esn (talk) 06:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

In any case, it is the video itself which is notable, not the nature of the Youtube comments below it. No neo-Nazi statements were made in the video, so I'm not even sure why this is being discussed. Esn (talk) 05:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Just as a reminder, Esn, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Selecting videos we believe to be informative is WP:OR (i.e., journalistic in its intent). If the video were being cited by a WP:RS, then it may be something to contemplate. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Come on now. If, for example, Barack Obama says something in a press conference about an important event, wouldn't it be better to link to a direct transcript of the statement rather than to an article which may only give a partial account? If a notable individual makes a statement about a notable event that he/she is closely involved with, isn't the "notability" criterion already fulfilled? Esn (talk) 05:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Should we remove the 80% number as source doesn't support it?

Right now there is a source used to claim that Russians form 80% of resistance, but the actual source is just an interview with an Armenian fighter, so not an expert analysis. Furthermore the source DOESN'T say that 80% of fighters in Donbass are Russians, just in Donetsk, while in Horlivka they are 50%[16]. As this is just an opinion on low-level volunteer and not in regards to the whole area, and from July 15 I suggest to remove it.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I suggest we remove the 15% which is clearly cited to a non-reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

How about we remove all percentages as unreliable and mostly propaganda or gossip?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

How about we stick to reliable sources? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

What is so reliable about a random alleged fighter from the conflict giving some percentage estimate to a U.S. government-funded media outlet?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Take it up at WP:RSN.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I support including both low and high estimates, even from biased and fragmented sources, as this is an extremely sensitive political issue and neutral sources on this simply do not seem to exist right now. Perhaps this can be expanded to something like "Kievan authorities insist that most of the fighters are Russian paramilitaries, while the leaders of the insurgency strongly deny this, claiming that their forces consist of just 15-20% foreign fighters. Independent estimates have put the number at anywhere from 20%-80%." But I suspect that that would be far too long. As an aside, I notice that somebody has removed the source for the 15% number, which I think was unwarranted... Esn (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, it was Volunteer Marek who removed it. I'm putting it back, because that source (with its 15-20% estimate) stated the official position of the Novorossiya leadership. If anyone can find any newer source with an official position about this, I'd be glad to replace it. It is a little old. Esn (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

In the article those figures are mentioned as "reported", not as actual figures. And they're indeed reported.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

While I am not particularly opposed to including both figures, I do think that hard percentages are sketchy and do not really belong in the lede. The 80% figure is especially questionable, though some figures greater than 20% have been given out elsewhere. Including the claim further down in the article with a clear description of who is doing the reporting and what is being reported seems more reasonable.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

"Some figures greater than 20%" is a funny way of putting it. Pretty much all reliable sources discussing the matter start at 50% and then go up. I wouldn't be opposed to changing it to "between 50% and 80%" but that non-RS figure of 15% has to go.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The same source that gives the 80% figure also gives the 20% figure. If you want to remove it for being unreliable, then the 80% figure has to go. Esn (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the removal of any official positions on this matter, either from the Kievan or from the insurgent side. Official positions, from both sides preferably, must be mentioned in the article. Esn (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

If we can quote one rebel fighters like Girkin and Bes, why not footsoldiers? Seems like an all or none scenario, and one where we should use WP:RS --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 05:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I added a request below to add that source with the 50-80% figure to the lead. I do think that as many stories like this as possible should be listed, from all sides, to allow readers to see the available evidence and make their own judgments. Esn (talk) 05:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it's good to have different estimates. This article has a paid Russian mercenary in Luhansk doing an interview and says 80% are 'locals' which I guess would make the inverse Russian volunteers.--LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 15:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the recommendation, I've added it to the request below. Esn (talk) 07:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I would like to add to this discussion, as this number is far more serious: "more than half of the combat-ready troops on the ground in Ukraine, based on multiple credible accounts, are regular Russian soldiers." --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 18:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

"Groundhog Day and Putin the Predator" by former Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili? My, that seems like a completely objective and reliable source! We should totally use that!--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 August 2014

In "Units Involved" section we need to add Russia: 98th Guards Airborne Division. Russia admitted to this unit being in Ukraine. My sources the the following, use any of those

Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/putin-will-meet-with-ukrainian-counterpart-in-high-stakes-summit-amid-tense-situation/2014/08/26/875db403-5b7b-4d89-8443-5aee1bde6345_story.html

BBC http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28934213 This source is specifically referring to 98th Airborne Division

New York Post http://nypost.com/2014/08/26/russia-says-paratroopers-entered-ukraine-by-mistake/

24.183.30.74 (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Are 10 soldiers really important enough to list separately in that section when the rest of the groups listed there number in the thousands? Might this be a case of WP:RECENTISM? That said, it is good to make mention of it in the article body. I think the BBC article is the best source to use, as it seems the most professional. Esn (talk) 07:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

National Guard of Ukraine

"a light infantry force. This stands in contrast to the old National Guard, which was a mechanised infantry force." Not true. NGU has BTR-4, BTR-3, BTR-80 and even some T-64. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.123.161.253 (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

They seem to have a very limited amount of these items, most light infantry units have some comparable equipment, for example US light infantry Division often have towed 155mm guns , HMMWV's and various helicopters. I think the low amount of heavier equipment the national guard seem to posses would classify it as a light infantry force. Daithicarr (talk) 21:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

National Guard is supposed to replace regular army units once the latter runs out of men and / or military hardware such as armored fighting vehicles and artillery. National Guard can be thought as Ukraine's counterpart to Syria's National Defense Force.--User talk:192.252.168.135 01:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

National Guard is formerly the Internal Troops of Ukraine. Because there is no war declared, Ukraine is conducting an Anti-Terrorist Operation (ATO) which is a type of law enforcement operations (i.e. fighting the organized crime). Internal Troops of Ukraine along with volunteer territorial command battalions (Donbas, Azov, Shakhtarsk, Dnipro-1, and many more) are under the command of Ministry of Internal Affairs that oversees most of law enforcement in the country. In the real war situation, Internal Troops of Ukraine or the National Guard, indeed would be used as reserves for the armed forces along with any other law enforcement units. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 09:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Russian military leadership confirmed participation of their soldiers in the conflict

According to the Echo of Moscow, the command of Kostroma paratroopers announced about its losses in Ukraine. Information about the perished, injured, and detained soldiers was announced during the meeting with their relatives. (Command of Kostroma paratroopers reported about losses in Ukraine. Echo of Moscow. August 27, 2014) Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 11:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The Russian television channel Dozhd reported that the Committee of Soldiers' Mothers conducts investigation of perished soldiers. (What happened with paratroppers? All materials of Dozhd. Dozhd. August 27, 2014) A regional representative of the Committee from Stavropol Krai Liudmila Bogatenkova is composing a list of the perished and has recorded already 400 individuals. (Soldiers' mothers composed a list out of 400 killed and wounded Russian soldiers. Dozhd. August 27, 2014) On August 27, 2014 the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine published a video petition of the detained soldiers of the 98th Svirzh Division where they ask the Russian authorities and public to help them return home.(Statement by Russian detained paratroopers of the 98th Svirzh Division on August 26, 2014. National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine (youtube)) Russian journalists have requested an official and explicit explanation from authorities whether Russian is involved in the conflict.Are we really at war? Vedomosti. August 27, 2014)

Official video statement of the Committee of Soldiers' Mothers (Kostroma) to the President of Russia Vladimir Putin to return their sons home (Appeal of the Kostroma paratroopers parents at youtube, Mothers of the detained in Ukraine paratroopers asked for help Putin. RBK. August 27, 2014). Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The BBC writes "The Committee of Soldiers' Mothers in Russia's northern Caucasus said it had a list of 400 soldiers who had been killed or wounded - but it did not know where the injuries and deaths had happened". Esn (talk) 09:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Donetsk People's Republic Prime-Minister Zakharchenko today on Russian TV admitted that Russian soldiers are fighting with them, but only Russian soldiers "on vacation". Zakharchenko also claims some of them were killed. These could be the same 400 soldiers killed or wounded of the "Committee of Soldiers' Mothers". It is time to face the facts (Esn), there are Russian soldiers now fighting in Ukraine, the only question is: are they volunteers or were they ordered to fight by the Russian government. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 10:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Please see my reply in the section below. That very question is the point; it was never denied by anyone that there are many Russian volunteers fighting in Ukraine, many with military experience (only the percentages varied - give or take 50% depending on who you ask). Zakharchenko himself just admitted that there have been 3-4 thousand of them. It is also known that many were volunteers who came there through non-governmental groups. The question is whether any were there on official orders from the Russian army, and how many they were. If you were to ask me, I'd say that Russia may have been watching what Qatar, Turkey and Saudi Arabia did in Syria (fueling a civil war through volunteers while remaining officially blameless) and taking careful notes. Yes, it could be the same 400. Has anybody proven that yet? This story is certainly worth keeping an eye on. Esn (talk) 10:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Territorial reorganization in the East Ukraine

Administration of the Dnipropetrovsk Oblast took under its control situation in Zaporizhia Oblast and region around the city of Mariupol, due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. (Kolomoysky takes under own responsibility Zaporizhia Oblast and Mariupol. Left-Bank (LB). August 28, 2014) Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 13:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

2nd protected edit request on 27 August 2014

• I read the reactions section and one sentence says 'some see it as a war between Russia and NATO' - I checked the sources and none of them explicitly state this, and some of them don't even mention NATO at all, as if they were just padded there for no reason. The statement should be entirely removed since it is not backed up at all. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 15:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

"Proxy war", not "war". This source, from the Council on Foreign Relations, seems to say that at least - even though it never directly uses the term "proxy war", it says that the war was instigated by NATO policies. The dictionary definition of "proxy war" is "a war instigated by a major power that does not itself become involved". Some of the other articles I can't read because they're behind a paywall. Do you have access to them? Esn (talk) 06:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

What did I say about opinion pieces before? 14:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Stealth invasion?

Should this be added to the lede? "Ukrainian and Western military officials described on Wednesday as a stealth invasion" - seems the language has elevated to the point where it's described as a Russian invasion, albeit a "stealth" one. Thoughts? --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 17:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

also, "The American ambassador to Kiev, Geoffrey Pyatt, said a “Russian-directed counteroffensive may be underway.” --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 18:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support It will be a single and concise sentence, supported by a reliable source. I'd also add this source about not only NATO, but also the Polish intelligence, concerning to the direct intervention, from Al Jazeera [17]Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• AP:

"These incursions indicate a Russian-directed counteroffensive is likely underway in Donetsk and Luhansk," State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters

Russian forces, she said, are being sent 30 miles inside Ukraine

--LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 00:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Lithuania today called it a Russian military invasion

"The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Lithuania strongly condemns the obvious invasion of the territory of Ukraine by the armed forces of the Russian Federation.[...] Lithuania urges the UN Security Council to discuss this matter immediately."

--Oscar-HaP (talk) 11:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Support: Clearly a noteworthy development and should be added. In addition to government statements, reporters from The New York Times, Reuters, and the Associated Press, among others, report seeing Russian columns in Ukraine firsthand. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

DigitalGlobe satellite images

NATO has just published DigitalGlobe satellite images showing Russian units in Ukrainian territory. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Related deletion discussion

A new fork of this article, titled Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014), was created. I've nominated it for deletion. Please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014). RGloucester — ☎ 16:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request - 28 August 2014 C.E.

Russia has launched a full-scale invasion of the Ukraine, and their armoured units are currently occupying Novoazovsk, Krasnodor, Starobeshiv, and Amvrosiiv: [18] Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 17:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Whoop whoop whoop up the lies you mean? Wikipedia is not depository for low grade 24-hour rolling news station feeds. If it is real it can wait. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

According to Ukrainian sources at least 3 combat units have simply deserted in last 24 hours

These are two reposts from Ukrainian media: [19] [20] While the portal kresy.pl is not reliable these articles are simply translations from Ukrainian sources, unian.net. It shouldn't be difficult to find originals. I might add that the information about desertion of whole battalion in second link is supported by numerous youtube videos that are copy of report by Ukrainian television showing them fleeing combat area in buses.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Here is a report from the Kyiv Post that seems to concern one of the incidents and details other apparent incidents.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Cossack paramilitary info off target

I've removed the link to a spurious recent article entitled "Registered Cossacks of the Russian Federation" from the Pro-Russian insurgents section subtitled "Cossacks". In the first instance, the use of "cossack" in the reports is predominantly about extremist neo-cons who self-identify as being "cossacks". This makes them about as much cossacks as someone donning a 10 gallon hat and calling themselves a "cowboy". Very few of the population in the ethnic groups known as cossacks have anything to do with the modern-day registered troops. Again, saying that "Don Cossacks" (the traditional ethnic group) and other "cossacks" is the equivalent of stating that the Cherokee and other tribes are on the warpath again. This isn't WWI, and Putin isn't the Emperor and Autocrat of All the Russias. Presenting individual participants who've been identified as being Don Cossacks and neo-Cossacks as being "Cossacks" is ethnically offensive, misleading WP:SYNTH. The sources don't present their presence in this manner, or merely observe that in interviewing someone he's identified as being a "cossack"... therefore, I suggest that Wikipedia does the same. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I confess, I don't know much about the present state of the Cossacks in Russia, only about their history. What exactly makes a "Cossack" a "Cossack" in modern Russia? Is historical usage different from present usage? If an article says that "Don Cossacks" flying the "Don Cossack flag" are doing x, does it not mean "ethnic Don Cossacks", but merely "volunteer members of a troop commissioned by the government"? RGloucester — ☎ 01:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Essentially, Cossacks ceased to be a genuine military power during the early formation of the Soviet Union (see Decossackization just as a brief outline). The ethnic groups live in reserves and their economy is based on tourism and entertainment (choirs, dancing groups, old-time martial arts displays such as 'trick' horseback riding, etc.). Essentially, they are remnants of the existence their old hosts. Even the fact that Don Cossacks claim allegiance to Russia, while many Kuban Cossacks see their allegiance to lie with Ukraine and wouldn't settle on a truce between themselves is purely tokenism. Certainly, many are still trained in old-school guerilla warfare and go on military parade in their traditional military uniforms, but they are not the modern registered "cossacks" seen at Sochi, for example. The modern troops are namesakes. Of course there are die-hard militants amongst them who are making a show of flying the Don Cossack flag and collecting like-minded fanatics (i.e., wannabe cossacks) under the banner and fighting for "Mother Russia". So far, only a few have actually been identified as being from the Don Cossack ethnic group. Sorry, but any moron can fly a flag and self-identify as representatives of a glorified hark back to the past. Having checked sources in Russian, Ukrainian, the BBC report and others, only a handful of individuals have been identified. The rest of these ordinary extremists have called themselves 'Terek Wolves Sotnia' (another hark back which certainly does not identify them as being ethnic cossacks in anyone's minds but their own). Hope this helps to clarify a little. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the background. To be frank, though, I don't know how to resolve this situation. Do you have any suggestions? Regardless, I'll wait for others to comment. RGloucester — ☎ 05:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Per the German version of the Registered Cossacks of the Russian Federation, "The Cossack organizations see themselves as successors of the former Russian Cossacks of Tsarist Russia with the President of the Russian Federation as their new commander in the rank of a Cossack-General." I haven't read the Russian article properly as yet, but it also has links to the wrong Cossack organisations (that is, the genuine ethnic groups with news about their latest concert tours, ad infinitum). As far as I'm aware, they don't have the right to use the flags of the hosts they're named after (i.e., the flags belong to the genuine descendants). It's a tricky one as, by referencing the current registered units (such as with the flight 17 audio) and the Don Cossack flag in the infobox, we're conflating completely different realities. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

We could say "Registered Don Cossacks", but I'm not sure that would alleviate your concern. RGloucester — ☎ 14:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Quite the antithesis: Registered Don Cossacks are the modern namesakes. There is no direct evidence of the Registered Don Cossack presence, just suspicions of their presence. They could quite easily be wandering around in their cool camouflage civies looking like all of the other neo-cons who like dressing up as serious paramilitaries and taking 'selfies' brandishing all of their equally cool weaponry while pulling "I'm a hard man" faces which have been lifted from their facebook page. That's speculative as it is denied by the RF. The use of the historical Don Cossack flag is, however, extremely confusing for anyone who doesn't know the difference (which appears to be most of the world). As already noted, the use of the flag along with a few identified individuals is unjustifiable. The majority of the Don Cossack ethnic group are staying at home and have no interest in involving themselves, much less dying for, some "Russian" cause. I can find a few quotes from high ranking members of the community expressing exactly this. The members of the ethnic group there are essentially mavericks and, as such, are not representative of the peoples they belong to. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

In other words, the "Don Cossacks" should be removed from the infobox. I believe that the section of "Cossacks" below can be expanded to explain what you mean, but I think it is best that you handle that, if you can. RGloucester — ☎ 01:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

As no one else seems to be engaged on this matter, I'll start by removing the Don Cossacks and flag from the infobox referring interested parties to the talk page. The Cossack section doesn't need much tweaking, but I'll leave that for now as I'm off on a vigil again. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Final note on the subject of Cossacks: after carefully checking over numerous articles regarding any legitimate information as to a Cossack presence, I discovered that the two identified 'leaders' who have joined as independents are Kuban Cossacks, not Don Cossacks. Further to that, they're simply using the Terek Wolves allusion in a WP:FRINGE manner: i.e., claiming that the renegade group continued to exist after their leader (a Kuban Cossack) was executed for war crimes based on high level Nazi collaboration. These 2 identified Cossacks are known for their involvement in the Terek Cossack community. What we have here is a mish-mash of presentation as 'Cossacks'; boasts about being able to just cross the border easily with Cossack passports; non-Slavic journalists trying to explain what is going on while they, themselves, report that they don't actually understand what Cossacks are, and are probably more confused than they were; etc. The majority of 'reports' contradict each other, are mirrors of other blogs, and are confusing issues by essentially mythologising the heroic image of the "Russian" Cossack-warrior. Honestly, it all reads like a Ripping Yarn plot for a video game. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

A single shoulder mark registered Cossacks of the Russian Federation

Iryna Harpy, well, it is consistent with the creation of the so-called Federal State of Novorossiya. You see, the Kremlin bandits want to rewrite to whole history all over again. Russia wants to eradicate mentioning of Ukraine in the history and the national movement. Russian historians believe that cossacks are an ethnic group of Russians. What weird is the formulation of Russian registered cossacks which is never mentioned before in the history. Registered Cossacks were in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and later were incorporated to the Cossack Hetmanate. The whole Khmelnytskyi Uprising started because the Polish government refuse to expand the registry of the Zaporizhian Cossacks. Now Russia claims that it also used to have its own registered cossacks. Remember I asked to review the article on Kyrylo Rozumovsky? In the article someone also claims that Rozumovsky was a registered cossack. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 14:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

According to the chevron, it is in reality says "State registry of Cossack societies". So, I am not certain why some reinterpret it as the Registered Cossacks. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 14:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@Aleksandr Grigoryev: Yes, I'm well aware of Cossack history. In fact my great-grandfather was Mykola Lazorsky (Korkishko) who spent over 10 years just in researching Kyrylo Rozumovsky (using the archives in Kharkiv and Poltava) in order to write his novel on the same. The RF is reinventing history, evidenced in multiple articles on the Cossacks who have gone from being persecuted and Russified under the Soviet Regime to a neo-monarchist revival with Putin placing himself as their new tsar. No wonder the Western world can't make head or tale of what a Cossack actually means. The association has become Cossack = Russian. Look at the being "горох з капустою" touted on the Terek Cossacks article! I'll get back to the Kyrylo Rozumovsky article as soon as I can. At the moment, I have some serious IRL issues to deal with. The amount of WP:TE on all of these articles has to be addressed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)