Talk:War in Donbas/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Is this already a war?

Hello, sorry for my bad english. Can this conflict really be titled as a war? I mean, there was no official war declaration or something similar. In the Ukraine is still the discussion, if the martial law should be imposed, which would be a clear sign for a war. On the other hand, Poroshenko tries to prevent the term war, because in this case, his country wouldn't get money from the International Monetary Fund anymore ([1]).--Sinuhe20 (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

"War" is not a technical term. It just means groups of people fighting with weapons (OED link). Declarations of war are almost nonexistent from 1945. RGloucester — ☎ 01:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine can't claim its a war without there being issues with the IMF. Essentially, they have to call it an ATO otherwise they'd be violating some treaty or rule which would hurt them economically I believe. Its just like how the Obama Administration couldn't call the Egyptian Coup a Coup without that violating some treaty or something. Countries are allowed to get away with operating in the grey areas of the law if their cause is supported by most everyone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.168.190 (talk) 03:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

What you're proposing, 71.222.168.190, is your own original research. Please don't use talk pages to promote your own personal (and particularly bizarre, or something) opinions. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

It's considered as a war by reliable sources and beyond!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

... and it's getting tiresome reiterating why 'war' was approved via an RM. Sources have already been listed extensively for any newcomers who are uncertain as to the why and wherefore behind the use of the term. Please read through the talk page (including the archives) before bringing up the same queries already addressed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I find it uncivil that an IP editor gets told he should just STFU because he wrote what he thinks (blatantly OR and WPNOTFORUM, oh gosh, somebody turn these into links) is the case in mere 3(!) lines of talk page text. Way to get productive over huge international issues. --Rev L. Snowfox (talk) 09:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

What makes me sceptical is that most serious newspapers don't use the term "war in donbass", they call it "ukraine crisis" or Conflict in eastern Ukraine (it's in fact an armed conflict, actually not synonymous with war).--Sinuhe20 (talk) 08:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, reliable sources are starting to call it "The Russian invasion of Ukraine" or "The Russian-Ukrainian War". "War in Donbass" is meant to be a "neutral", descriptive, title. And it's already giving away too much. Volunteer Marek  09:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not exclusively a Russian-Ukrainian War, and, for now it can't be described as that! The insurgents in Donbass are mostly (or at least a large proportion of them are) Ukrainians! Now there is the Russian military intervention (which I, personally, added in the infobox, because virtually all sources in the world, even from Brazil (Folha de São Paulo, etc), one of the BRICS, report that without disputing it). There is an Ukrainian component (the anti-Western Eastern Ukrainian component) and, of course, a Russian component. So, the best name for the article continues to be "War in Donbass". It's in the article... According to Der Spiegel, 70% of the population in Donbass supports the insurgents... 30% don't, but those 70% are also Ukrainians! It's not a recipe for peace, in my opinion, to allienate 70% of the population (if Der Spiegel is right) of a large area of a country (and this is not any excuse for the Russian invasion of Donbass!).Mondolkiri1 (talk) 09:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@Sinuhe20: The war has been from 7 April 2014. See the timeline article!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 09:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Mondolkiri1 Ok, but this is only, because the article Timeline of the 2014 insurgency in Donbass was moved to Timeline of the war in Donbass, and the beginning of the insurgency is now misleadingly interpreted as the beginning of the war, which is not correct.--Sinuhe20 (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• This is a WP:NDESC title decided by consensus at a long requested move discussion in lieu of a commonly used precise and concise one. "Armed conflict" is a euphemism for war. As I said above, "war" is not a technical term. It is simply a word in the English language. "Russian-Ukrainian War" defies all conventions of English-language war naming. The proper title would "Russo-Ukrainian War", following English language war-naming conventions. Regardless, this is not a discussion we need to be having right now, as most participants in the previous discussion made clear that there should be no more hasty renaming. RGloucester — ☎ 14:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more precisely to call it a civil war, an independent war or a secession war (because we are talking about separatists)?--Sinuhe20 (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

No, it would not, because all of those are disputed based on one's POV. Please read the prior discussion. Different people consider this a different type of war, whether civil war, Russo-Nato proxy war, Russo-Ukrainian direct war. All of these are matters of POV, and hence none are appropriate. The only undisputed and neutral statement is that there is a war in the Donbass region. Who exactly is fighting who is not entirely clear at this point. We've got Russians, we've got proxies, we've got Ukrainians, we've got plenty of other people. RGloucester — ☎ 15:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I think conflict would be more neutral than war, because in the article (section Labelling of the conflict) is also the statement The International Committee of the Red Cross, the arbiter of international humanitarian law for the United Nations, described the events in the Donbass region as a "non-international armed conflict" and most serious newspapers try to prevent the term war.--Sinuhe20 (talk) 15:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

That's called a euphemism. Euphemisms are not neutral, as our Manual of Style makes clear. We do not use euphemisms here. RGloucester — ☎ 15:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

But there is also Wikipedia:No original research. If I have understood correctly, only the NATO and some ukrainian and polish politicians have declared the conflict as war until now, but as involved members in the conflict they are not really objective sources (in contrast to the red cross or UN). And there are some differences between armed conflict and war, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute for instance qualifies an armed conflict as war, if more than thousand people are killed in a month as a consequence (the ukrainian conflict has more than 2000 victims until now, i don't know if this would fit, because the conflict lasts several months). So if you say conflict is an euphemism you have to give some clear criterias (maybe they are mentioned somewhere in the archives, but i can't find them now).--Sinuhe20 (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Look, this discussion was had weeks ago. There is no point in rehashing it now, and most participants in that discussion particularly voiced their view that there should be no rehashing. There is no "original research" involved. It is a WP:NDESC title. This conflict meets the dictionary definition of war, it also is termed war by a great many reliable sources. They were shown weeks ago at the move discussion that established this title, and there are many more now following the events of 25 August. RGloucester — ☎ 19:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you please give me a hint, where this discussion took place?--Sinuhe20 (talk) 21:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It is in the talk page archives. RGloucester — ☎ 21:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've found it.--Sinuhe20 (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Chechen & Ingush are internationally recognized as Russians, so remove them from infobox

I still cant understand why some Russians (Chechens & Ingush) are listed apart from the rest of Russian volunteers. Whether we like it or not, Chechens & Ingush are as Russians as Tatars or Bashkirs, so it has no sense to distinguish them from the rest. Of course, the South Ossetian case is different, as South Ossetia is not recognized as part of Russia (but not North Ossetia, wich is worldwide recognized as part of Russia). So unless anyone has weight arguments for opposing this move, I will remove Chechen & Ingush from the infobox, while using their sources for Russian volunteers, what they are.--HCPUNXKID 16:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Chechens and Ingush are not ethnic Russians. They only have Russian citizenship. However, I would not be opposed to merging them for the sake of simplification. RGloucester — ☎ 16:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah but that's like saying volunteers from America are whatever ethnicities they are. Don't make sense to me. Chechens and Ingush are Russians, period. Over the centuries, they are all of mixed ancestry anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.126.83.185 (talk) 01:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

206.126.83.185, I agree it might not matter *in this specific case* but your general point is not well taken. What about, for example, the Chechens fighting in Syria and Iraq? What if you referred to them as 'Russians'? This would be extremely misleading because those Chechens are fighting for an opposite position as what the Russian Federation supports. They are largely the same fighters who took up arms against the RF 15 years ago. Likewise, what if we find there are Abkhaz or Ossetian fighters with the rebels but an editor insists on calling them 'Georgians'. It's absurd. 193.90.242.182 (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

206.126.83.185, you appear to be confused about the significance of ethnicity vs. monoculturalism in this context. RGloucester, the elimination of Chechens & Ingush is a good move for another more significant reason: the reports may point out a few individuals who are ethnically Chechen or Ingush, but do not address the ethnicity of others purportedly representing those ethnic groups. In fact, they appear to be confused as to how many of any particular ethnic group are fighting. For all we know, the dominant ethnicity amongst the recruits from those parts may be of Russian ethnicity, although they may call themselves Chechens (in the same way that a percentage of residents of Eastern Ukraine are of Russian ethnicity, not simply russophones). If the reports are vague/sketchy, then drawing our own conclusions is WP:OR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Artillery from Russian territory

OSCE reports artillery fire from Russian territory: throughout the week for the first time OTs reported light and heavy calibre shootings from the east and south-east areas which are also bordering Ukraine[2] Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what that proves exactly since areas east and southeast of the Donetsk border crossing would actually still include some parts of Ukrainian territory. Not even sure why they would be hearing that since there has not been any fighting reported in that area in the past week as far as I know and those areas are far removed from the frontlines. The OSCE report does not seem to confirm that this is artillery being fired from Russian territory.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no other country to the east than Russia, that would "also border Ukraine" in that area. Artillery is long distance weapon that is not used on frontline, so this OSCE observation is consistent with repots and satellite photos published before. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 07:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are interpreting the source when it is not clear what precisely they are saying. As I said, the areas to the east and southeast of Donetsk border crossing include parts of Ukrainian territory. There is no real reason why they would be hearing such things either as there are no indications that there was fighting going on in that area. We cannot use this statement to make the claim you are suggesting.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Starting date of the war could be revised

April 6 is listed as the first day of the war. That's when some folks took over the admin buildings in Donetsk, Lugansk, Kharkov. The ATO didn't start until April 13 and the first shot wasn't fired until then. The starting date, IMO, should be revised from April 6 to April 13. This source gives the starting date of the ATO http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/at-least-24-servicemen-killed-during-ukraines-anti-terrorist-operation-348075.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.126.83.185 (talk) 05:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Dating the start from when the terrorists first took over buildings makes sense.-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Armed men capturing government buildings, in the larger context of the events that followed, clearly marked the start of the conflict. RGloucester — ☎ 05:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Clearly the first move in this conflict, which provoked the government response. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The sixth is imperative for context. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

This whole conflict really started in November 2013 with Euro Maidan. The War in Donbas could be considered either as a consequence of the Euro Maidan revolution or as part of the ongoing Euro Maidan. The war wasn't called a war until Red Cross said so recently. In my opinion, the date of the first shot should mark the first day of the war, as is the case of the American Civil War, where April 12 is considered the first day of the war when the first shots were fired at Fort Sumter. During Euro Maidan, many people died prior to the takeover of the admin buildings on April 6. As a matter of fact, the admin building at Kharkov had been taken over earlier in March. In my opinion, to be consistent with the starting date of the American Civil War, the starting date of the War in Donbas should be given as April 13 when the first shots were fired, rather than as April 6. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.126.83.185 (talk) 07:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Everybody knows that the rebellion in southeastern Ukraine was a response to the violent coup in Kiev, which involved "protesters" seizing government buildings by the use of force. So either the war should be dated as beginning with the violent coup, or it should be dated as beginning with the start of the so-called ATO. Far less violence was involved in the seizure of government buildings by rebels than was involved in the Kiev coup. – Herzen (talk) 07:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

See WP:COATRACK. The fighting in the east clearly began in April 2014 -- whatever caused it is properly "background". -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Correct. Real hostilities began April 13 (or so). All acts up until then were an act of civic disobedience. Actualy until several rebel checkpoints were routed in force, there was no real fighting. When we want the source of violent events, the "visits" by west Maidan radicals were the first blood shed. Otherwise there was no "turning point". The situation *continously* transformed from protests after Yanukovich outster into a full scale warfare. We can debate about why that was but that were the real events. When we want the start of hostilities, the ATO start is as good as any - or the first incursion of paratroopers into Slavyansk (no fighting then). Up until then it was all a more of a matter for police/criminal courts. Event the SBU armories were looted only afterwards, providing initial RPGs.

I say mark the first military unit deployment (effectively the first clear war-style hostility) or use the start of the open conflict which was Feb 22. Otherwise this turns into POV by nature - as both sides want to claim the other side "started it". If first miliraty unit use is marked, it is clear that there was some disturbance also beforehand, hence we avoid the "who started the war" part. In reality both sides escalated, amost as if in agrement. But neither will admit doig so on purpose ...46.39.169.168 (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Armed men capturing buildings is not an act of "civil disobedience". RGloucester — ☎ 20:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Armed men capturing Maidan square and government buildings in Kiev, ejecting the president and government elected in 2010/2012 - THAT MIGHT HAVE STARTED ARMED CONFLICT IN THE UKRAINE, that might have provoked unrest among people who voted 90% for Yanukovych. The conflict started in February. 193.90.242.182 (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The 'conflict' then started in February, but outright war you cannot trace to the occupation of some buildings but to real battles - May. Before May, Ukrainian forces hardly wanted to fight. 193.90.242.182 (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

You are not going to convince me that the armed takeover -- bloodless or not -- of government and police buildings subsequently used as C&C centers in an armed insurgency is "civil disobedience". It was the start of an armed uprising, and it was clearly stated to be the trigger for the ATO, thus making it precisely the "turning point" that started this conflict. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Am not trying to convince anyone just stating my view on this. If we take your approach, then how do we class all the violence prior to the Donbass buildings takeover? Mind you, one can argue that the war started by Maindan taking over government buildings in Western Ukraine in early 2014 (prior to Feb22). Thus creating the reason for both the crackdown in Kiev and Eastern hostility when "their"(as in voted in by Eastern votes predominantly) government was overthrown. Saying conflict started April 6 is the current Kiev government narrarive. Simple as that. We can accept that as 'truth'. But that is POV-pushing as far as *I* can tell. Same for marking April 13 as conflict start. Making neither a good option. If someone can research the first hostility with a casualty related to the nascent conflict in Donbass, that would probably fit an NPOV the best. My 2 cents.46.39.169.168 (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Ultimately, 46.39.169.168, we don't have scholarly research to draw on as yet. Any attempts by editors to 'join the dots' themselves at this juncture would be original research. We don't create our own "narrative", but follow that of reliable sources. What you are proposing is creating a "narrative" (i.e., original research). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

It should be considered, that most media speaking of war, didn't that before July. F.e. the Red Cross speaks officially of a civil war since July 22. However, the very first statement of Vladimir Putin that the country had collapsed into civil war was in May (see Reuters article).--Sinuhe20 (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems logical that the russian leader spoke of war, when it became evident that his "civil uprising" would meet armed opposition. But the current russian leader is not the authority to define when a conflict is described as a "war" in the english version of the Wikipedia. Alexpl (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• Seizure of government buildings by armed men is a violent act against the state, and clearly marked the start of the events described by this article. Prior to 6 April, there were protests, covered by 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, but armed men were not involved, nor were they seizing buildings in this manner. RGloucester — ☎ 19:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Sinuhe20, you are nominating sources to fit your personal opinion. This is known as cherry picking and WP:COATRACK. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy, if you have hammers, everything is looking like a nail, isn't it? ;-) So what I'm doing wrong? If I give sources, you are saying I'm cherry picking (in german we call it Totschlagargument (Thought-terminating cliché)). But that's not right, I have examined all sources listed in the section Labelling of the conflict. If you have a source disproving my statement, please show it. And please don't ignore my arguments, only because they are not fitting to your personal opinion. Seizuring a government building is not necessarily the starting of a (civil) war, it's maybe the beginning of a revolt (good example: during Euromaidan the Kiev's town hall was also seizured by protesters). The wikipedia article to war says (hopefully you will not mark this as cherry picking again): War should be understood as an actual, intentional and widespread armed conflict. So at the beginning we had only revolts in some east ukrainian town (and later when the ukrainian army responsed, battles). The French Revolution started in a similar way, but no one is really saying, that Storming of the Bastille started a war. --Sinuhe20 (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

So you finally agree (at least on the english wikipedia) that it is a war. Nice. Now you want to debate when it started. Civil war quotes James Fearon with "a violent conflict within a country fought by organized groups that aim to take power at the center or in a region, or to change government policies". So some "local people", who were, without a doubt, organized, wanted to remove the control of the Kiew government. They did announce a referendum, but had already seized official buildings by force. So thats seems to me like the start of this war. I really see no point in changing the startdate, based on a statement of Vladimir Vladimirovich. Alexpl (talk) 11:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Kurakhove under rebel control

According to this 1 September 2014 Ukrainian pro-Kiev junta source, Ukrainian Army retreated from Kurakhove, leaving the town on DPR control. So please someone edit the map to put that town on red.--HCPUNXKID 15:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

User:ZomBear is the one who has been updating the Russian version of the file. And he/she also updates the English version. I ignore why he/she gives priority to the Russian version.Mondolkiri1talk 16:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Spin-off

In an attempt to solve length issues, I've spun-off the humanitarian section as Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbass, and left a small summary section here. RGloucester — ☎ 17:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks great -- thanks. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced belligerents

Any idea why an IP keeps on adding two unsourced belligerents? [3] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Somebody's just messing around. It's vandalism. Volunteer Marek  16:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

With respect to WP:3R, I'm going to take your statement at face value and treat it as someone deliberately adding incorrect info. If anyone disagrees, please let me know. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you'd be alright. It's unsourced and pretty obviously not serious. If someone were to report you for it, that'd be obvious bad faith. However, it might be a good idea to ask for semi-protection. Volunteer Marek  17:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Ceasefire already broken 1 day (or less) after it was signed

According to several sources, unfortunatelly, the ceasefire has already been broken just the day after having been signed, with both parties accusing each other of violations, reports of the insurgents breaking the ceasefire, and a tweet by the Red Cross saying that it was not able to allocate humanitarian aid in Lugansk, due to shelling at Staniza Luganska (not saying which side was being responsible for the shelling). These are the sources: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8], available in the Timeline of the war in Donbass page.Mondolkiri1(talk) 18:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mondolkiri1: If you want to change the contents of this article please don't use another to justify the change. This article has an entire paragraph on the ceasefire. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I won't change anything now. But I provided plenty of sources here. Could you please, read them (and translate, the ones you need)? Mondolkiri1(talk) 00:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mondolkiri1: If the ceasefire has been broken then there should be ample English language sources reporting Ukraine/Russia considers the ceasefire broken. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

One of the sources I mentioned was the BBC (though it doesn't say that the ceasefire is over, it only reports the violations). Well, where is the line between a ceasefire break and successive violations of it? And the Red Cross, which is an global organization, also reported it on their tweet!Mondolkiri1(talk) 01:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Simple, when there are multiple sources reporting the ceasefire is over. This would probably be triggered by one or more sides making that declaration. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, let's take them simply as violations of the ceasefire, for now.Mondolkiri1(talk) 01:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, NPR's reporter was just on the radio (5:45 a.m. EST Sunday) saying there was shelling going on right now (you could hear it in the background) so this agreement is definitely broken. RS's should be widely available.HammerFilmFan (talk) 10:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thats your personal evaluation. It may be obvious that on one side the federation has not met its strategic goals yet, and that on the other side smaller volunteergroups may not stick to the agreement, but in the WP we need more than somebody hearing explosions to declare the end of the ceasefire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexpl (talk • contribs) 11:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Um, no. READ what I said carefully. NPR, a very reliable source, said shelling (that means "war") is going on. The reporter witnessed it. He didn't just hear "explosions." There are now many news reports of this on tv this morning.HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@HammerFilmFan:Yes, I think for the most part is a reliable source. Add that one, if you wish, next to the Guardian and WN.Mondolkiri1(talk) 16:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

There are now reliable sources from outside Ukraine and Russia saying that the ceasefire was broken: [9] [10] [11] Mondolkiri1(talk) 15:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Quote from your Guardian link:"Shelling and shots fired in Mariupol, with Kiev and rebel forces denying responsibility after truce was agreed at talks in Minsk" - so your claim is premature. Alexpl (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

As I wrote in the article, both sides are accusing each other. I didn't write there which side was the 1st to violate the ceasefire.Mondolkiri1(talk) 16:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah right. Violated? You wrote "broken" [12] - with the only source really backing that important statement is a "WN" article . AGF forces me to assume you did put that info in the article premature, same for your two Edit summaries (twice claiming "Ceasefire broken"). Alexpl (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Guardian and the other sources I mentioned wrote broken!Mondolkiri1(talk) 17:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The map is getting seriously outdated

Here is a map from Ukranian sources that shows a very different picture of the situation. I know not like to edit the map, but I leave you the link. http://burkonews.info/terrorist-war-russian-federation-ukraine-eastern-front-summary-august-22-2014/

I don't think a source that labels this conflict as the "Terrorist War of the Russian Federation against Ukraine" holds any credibility. Wikipedia is no place for war propaganda - of either side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivsanval (talk • contribs) 22:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The most credible map for the conflict is probably the website militarymaps.info. It is based no google earth and facebook and moderated by the 20-year-old website yandex. The current map is greatly misleading because many areas in the war zone are under encirclement. The best example is the city of Mariupol, the second largest city in the region and the current home of about 15% of the total forces of Ukraine, are under complete encirclement. The map now on the website shows it as controlled by Ukraine and almost 50 kilometers from the nearest separatist settlement. In my opinion we at Wikipedia should implement the solution of Iraq and Syria and create an interactive detailed map that updates from a "cities and towns in the Ukrainian civil war" article on a daily basis. Frankly i do not understand why this has yet to be implemented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.64.12.164 (talk) 20:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

National Guard of Ukraine

National Guard of Ukraine and Internal Troops of Ukraine are one and the same service. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 06:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly. While internal troops are officially taking orders from Ukrainian high command their main source of financial and material support is not the state of Ukraine but certain powerful private organizations and individuals. As such their loyalty is not 100% behind the Ukrainian government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.64.12.164 (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

What??? "Certain powerful private organizations"? According to the Law of Ukraine that was passed on March 13, 2014 all powers of the Internal Troops of Ukraine were transferred to the National Guard of Ukraine (Official document). 23:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Mr Grigoryev, thank you for this information. It would help if you updated the Internal Troops article, as I had no idea that they were effectively disbanded. RGloucester — ☎ 23:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Sept.11 Igor Strelkov/Girkin press conference

Link, with English subtitles: [13] (this is the former Defense Minister of the rebels, removed a month ago, supposedly as a pre-condition for increased Russian aid)

The entire introductory speech is about his opinion that the ceasefire was a betrayal of Novorossiya and of Russia itself by traitors within the Moscow power structure who work for foreign interests. Perhaps predictably, this press conference was not shown or reported on by major Russian networks and newspapers. This suggests that there's an ideological power struggle going on on the "pro-Russian" side, which would be an important thing to mention in the article, particularly if an article can be found saying so (at this point, I'm afraid it's only original research).

A few possibly interesting statements from the questions afterward:

At 14:26: "In the middle of August, when I left Novorossiya, there weren't any Russian troops on the territory. I won't deny that there are volunteers who are soldiers of the Russian army. I had several officers in my brigade, who arrived completely voluntarily during their vacation. Not sent by their command. To defend Novorossiya, to fight in our units. That's all I can tell you. Naturally I, more or less, know what's happening there now, but I don't have any info about direct intervention of Russian troops." - in other words, the same thing that Zakharchenko said (in his press conference where he mentioned the 3-4 thousand Russian volunteers, including some soldiers on vacation).

15:51: Concerning the ceasefire: "[The Ukrainians] are digging in at Debaltsevo. According to my info, they're preparing 3 (most likely 4) strike groups which are intended to be used for offensive. So the ceasefire is considered by the Ukrainian side solely as opportunity for replenishing forces, changing vehicles, using the reserves and preparations for an attack."

16:59: About the downed Boeing aircraft - doesn't know who shot it down but his personal opinion is that it was the Ukrainian side.

17:57: "militias are still outnumbered"

21:30: Says that the Ukrainian side, as well as preparing for offensive operations, is also preparing defense, and that defense is being organized with the expectation of a coming war with Russia.

Perhaps some of this would be useful to add to the article, perhaps not. I'm very busy right now, so I can't do it myself. Esn (talk) 04:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

It's interesting, but like you say, at this point this is primary source based original research. Thanks though for bringing it up. Volunteer Marek  04:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Russia is not a party to the conflict

"Earlier, Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told CNN there was "no confirmation of a ceasefire because Putin cannot agree (to) a ceasefire because he is not party to the conflict." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/03/world/europe/ukraine-crisis/index.html

Russia is not a belligerent, at least not yet. Please kindly remove Russia and Russian leaders from the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Susie is seen shoving her brother Timmy, "Susie did you shove Timmy?" "No I didn't mom" Of course Putin in this case is going to say we are not involved, the yhave been saying it in every shape and form for weeks now. To balance out the WP:POV the Russians are included but a note of denial is added. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes there are Russian volunteers, but the Russian government is not involved. Russian volunteers are already included in the volunteers section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, but reliable sources say that Russian regular troops entered Donbass. These sources are cited in the article, as is Russia's denial. Furthermore, the entrance of the Russian humanitarian convoy into Ukrainian terrtiory was considered an act of war by the Ukrainian government. RGloucester — ☎ 20:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Except no one has actually seen a Russian invasion, at least, not anyone that can be considered reliable has "seen" it. What we have from independent sources is basically that one side of the conflict and the people supporting that side are saying one thing and the people on the other side are saying another thing.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. An SA-22 Greyhound was claimed to be in Donbas, but as usual, no one has seen it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I saw the Russian humanitarian convoy roll into Ukrainian territory without permission, effectively invading that country. This was viewed as an act of war. Regardless of this, many people have "seen" all sorts of Russian accoutrements and fellows. If you can't read the various reports provided, that's not my fault. RGloucester — ☎ 21:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I have read countless Western media reports and it is still very common for them to speak only of claims and accusations of a Russian invasion. None of the one-the-ground reporting confirms the claims being made by Kiev and its supporters. That is just a reliably-sourced fact. A humanitarian convoy entering territory without permission is not an "invasion" by any stretch of the imagination.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It isn't our job to decide what is confirmed, firstly. Do note that I was not referring to an "invasion", in the sense that you are. That is a bombastic term that I don't think is appropriate in this instance, given the nuance of the situation However, reliable sources say Russia supply weapons to the insurgents, that they have intervened and assisted them in Novoazovsk and Ilovaisk. Once again, that "convoy" was an invasion because the Ukrainian government perceived it as such, and warned Russia not to take any such action. We don't decide what one country perceives as an invasion, that's up for the country to decide. Entering a country's sovereign territory without permission, in military vehicles, no less, was perceived as an act of war by the Ukrainian government. RGloucester — ☎ 22:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

No one said it was our job to confirm anything, but reliable sources do not widely treat it as confirmed with many still presenting it as claims being made by one side of the conflict and that side's supporters. It is also not our place to treat the perceptions of one party to the conflict as the reality.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Try this on for size: http://online.wsj.com/articles/ukraine-suffers-harsh-defeat-in-eastern-town-1409616541. RGloucester — ☎ 00:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I literally just read an article that used the term "allegedly" to refer to the claims of a Russian invasion: [14].--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 14:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Even if, in some fantasy world, there is no Russian troops in Ukraine, Russia would still be a party to this conflict. Volunteer Marek  15:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is a nice article from The New York Times about the "labelling" of this matter. RGloucester — ☎ 15:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

And here is a nice article deconstructing that NY Times article: Sidestepping Ukraine’s ‘N-Word’ for Nazi. – Herzen (talk) 07:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Russia got permission from Kiev to send in the humanitarian convoy. After it gave permission, Kiev started stalling procedurally, with Ukrainian customs officers not showing up to inspect the cargo. So Russia finally lost patience and sent the convoy in, to keep people from dying of hunger and thirst. I am sorry that this Russian concern for human life injures your sense of right and wrong. – Herzen (talk) 07:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

A state has sovereignty. Its territorial integrity is its own concern. Entering another country's territory without permission is unacceptable. Perhaps they should've thought about "hunger" and "thirst" when they started supplying weapons to lunatic fringes in Donetsk? RGloucester — ☎ 13:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

What part of "Russia got permission from Kiev" don't you understand? Kiev gave Russia written permission. Also, the head of the DNR has not called Ukrainians subhumarn, but the P.M. of Ukraine has called Russians subhuman in an official statement. So which side is made up of lunatic fringes?

You have lost any credibility you may once have had as to being an impartial editor when it comes to Ukrainian and Russian topics. – Herzen (talk) 01:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, yes. That's means a lot, coming from you. They had permission if they followed certain rules, which they did not follow. They did not have an ICRC escort, they did not wait for all the lorries to be inspected. They had no permission to enter because they didn't follow the proper procedure. I don't know anything about subhumans, and I don't particularly care. RGloucester — ☎ 12:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Just as further examples: [15] [16] [17]. Many Western media continue to cover claims of a Russian invasion as claims, rather than verified fact.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not what's up for discussion here. Russia is a party to the conflict regardless of the "invasion" business. RGloucester — ☎ 00:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course, it is what is up for discussion as it is the difference between listing them as a co-belligerent with various living people listed as "commanders" and listing them as only alleged backers of the belligerents, thus not warranting the inclusion of certain living people as "commanders" in the conflict. No other basis but confirmation of direct intervention by Russian military forces warrants listing them as a co-belligerent.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The many incursions and interventions by Russian forces do warrant such a status. Sorry, but we don't go based on what comes out of Putin's mouth any more than what comes out of Cameron's. We go by what's found in reliable sources. We must also note that Ukraine considers Russia a belligerent. Hence, we've provided the "denied by Russia". RGloucester — ☎ 04:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

LOL, so The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and Associated Press = Putin's mouth, but Kiev = reliable source? I think you need to re-examine your argument.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

It's very hard to discern what exactly it is you're talking about. This is getting tiresome. Volunteer Marek  00:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

We are talking about whether the infobox should include Russia as a co-belligerent and various Russian leaders as commanders in the conflict, or not. Pretty basic. There appears to be this odd argument that because Kiev said Russia is a belligerent we should include them as a belligerent, only noting a Russian denial, which does not accurately reflect what is found in reliable sources. Our basis should be reliable sources, which I noted above still generally treat claims of direct Russian intervention as claims rather than facts.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

As long as NATO sais Russia is a belligerent, I have no problem in listing the Federation and its current leader. Alexpl (talk) 07:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You may check sources in a wide variety of other languages and from a wide variety of other countries as well, not only USA, Ukraine and Russia. Actually there are also, at least, sources from Britain, Spain, Qatar (Al Jazeera), Portugal, Brazil and France there in the article, concerning to that issue.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Didn't Russia occupied Crimea with troops that it did not recognized at the beginning?? Are we to believe that the so called separatists have means of production its own military power such as tanks, heavy artillery and airplanes?? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Crimea is and was russian military base, and Russia had every means of dispatching it's forces there and it shouldn't be treated as something exceptional. Nobody fought for Crimea, and even ukrainian navy representatives changed side without fighting. But when we're talking about Donbas, then it's unclear about who is providing military equipment to whom. What we do know is the absolute majority of vehicles is outdated (certain tanks pop like condoms from modern RPG hits, there're videos of tank turrets flying away tens of meters after explosion) thus not russian. It is unclear whether or not Grad systems were stolen or taken over by separatists from the beginning or came from Russia, as there's no evidence; It is absolutely certain that handguns were bought in Russia and keep coming from there. A lot of volunteers buy their non-lethal equipment in Russia using their own funds, and it is speculated some people even provide funding for purchasing weaponry. However none of these confirms that Russia as a state is involved in conflict or is funding separatists. There're quite a few people in Russia, and some of them have wide military experience, who would go to war just for the fun of it, even if there's no looting/marauding/salary involved. There are a lot of people in Russia with distinctive anti-Poland and anti US/NATO position (with some extent to anti-Bosnia, but that is similar to the latter), and they would gladly go fight Galician regions of UA or Poland even without special reasons. We're not talking about significant figures, but easily several thousand. Multiply all that by historic reasons and relatives in the eastern UA, and here you have all the reasons and matters for what's going on at separatists side, even if Russia doesn't support them as it claims.89.233.128.158 (talk) 13:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Remember, this is not WP:NOTAFORUM. RGloucester — ☎ 15:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Siege of Luhansk

It is time that we make a siege of luhansk article. It is anotable event. I'll start a draft, and any that wants to help is welcome to do so.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 00:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@Arbutus the tree: It is not a notable event on its own. There is no siege of Luhansk ongoing, and the existing stuff is already covered as appropriate. Please do not create this article. Please. Please. Please. RGloucester — ☎ 01:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester: Okay, but what about this?

@Arbutus the tree: It really depends on what happens in the future, Arbutus, as I said there. If government forces literally "siege" Luhansk, then an article will most likely be warranted. This hasn't really happened, though, and now there is a ceasefire. As we are not in the business of looking into a WP:CRYSTAL ball here, it simply isn't appropriate to write such an article now. RGloucester — ☎ 17:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester: Then what if we change the name to battle of luhansk. Sorry if i sound frustrated, but how come other other article with events a long time ago are made? The Battke if Ilovaisk was created 2 days after the battle ended, and it started out as a draft? And also, why are we keeping articles such as the Volnovakha attack? It needs to be merged--Arbutus the tree (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

It is a mess right now. I did merge the Volnovakha article recently, so that's done. The Ilovaisk article is different, because it was a battle widely documented with a clear start and end date. There has been no battle in Luhansk, no "direct battle" anyway. Just a few little skirmishes around the edges. Until there is a proper battle there (i.e. government forces and LPR forces duking it out in the streets), it would be WP:CRYSTAL to write an article. RGloucester — ☎ 17:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester: true, there was some fighting and ukrainian forces did enter parts of the city. Also some "street fighting"--Arbutus the tree (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, minor skirmishes. But nothing that could be called a "siege" or a "battle". RGloucester — ☎ 18:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester: Okay. I'll look at some article to see if there if anything is notable, if not, ill abandon the draft.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 19:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Donbas or Donbass

Isn't "Donbass" the Russian spelling? Shouldn't the article title be based on the Ukrainian spelling, which is "Donbas"? 60.229.212.205 (talk) 11:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• Well, the reply probably depends on how "established" the Russian spelling is in English language. I'd suggest that the Ukrainan spelling Donbas is used, as is now the case with what many regarded as the the reasonably established spelling of the city of Kharkov -> Kharkiv. --Bruzaholm (talk) 12:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

"Donbass" is used because it is the more common[18][19][20] transliteration for the region's name at the moment, which one will find if one looks around at Google News, among other places. Also, given the context of the conflict itself, and organisations like the "Donbass People's Militia", it makes more sense. RGloucester — ☎ 15:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Both Ukrainians and Russians write in Cyrillic alphabet, so it's the transliteration, not the Ukrainian or the Russian spelling.Mondolkiri1 — talk 16:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

If it comes down to personal preference, I'd prefer to have "Donbas" (the simpler spelling is usually the better one). If Donbass is the more common one, though, I suppose that's what must be used. Does anyone know why that extra "s" got added on in Russian spelling, anyway? Esn (talk) 18:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

It is a matter of transliteration, not spelling (UK:Донбас; RU:Донба́сс). Regardless, the "double s" transliteration more accurately reflects its pronunciation in English, so I imagine that is why that transliteration is more common. RGloucester — ☎ 18:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Right, but why is it even spelled Донбасс in Russian? Russian spelling is usually pretty good about being phonetic. The extra "с" does nothing to change the pronunciation. Esn (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Донбасс is a short for Донецкий каменноугольный бассейн, note double "с" at бассейн. Finalyzer (talk) 04:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, okay, thanks. Esn (talk) 04:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

That's in Russian, in Ukrainian it is "басейн" - one s. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 14:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I vote for Donbas as it's the local and actual name. "Donbass" is not an established spelling like "Kiev" where we have to go with precedent. Also, "Don-ets Bas-in", the second 's' is superfluous in English IMO if it's a portmanteau --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 14:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, in British English, "Donbas" could be pronounced "Don-BAH", which is how I'd pronounce it myself. Regardless, it does seem like "Donbass" is the established spelling, like Kiev. Sources use "Donbass", even those that usually use Ukrainian transliterations, like the BBC and Reuters. RGloucester — ☎ 14:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, RGloucester, I disagree that English speaking readers might assume this to be an established archaic naming convention for a region in this part of Eastern Europe (we're not exactly in the realms of France or any Latin script parts of the world with long-standing English language conventions... in fact, we're a long, long way from Warwickshire or even Massachusetts). I might agree that current reportage uses the double s form and, until we have some form of historical research/perspective using a particular nomenclature, it might be prudent to stick to the sources. Deliberations over which form is more appropriate are possibly something to be discussed at a later date. Simultaneously, all other Wikipedia articles about Donbas use that form: being the Ukrainian transliteration 'Donbas'. It's also notable that many Polish regions have a distinct historical and current use in English language sources, yet the nomenclature for Wikipedia does not conform to dominant English language form (Gdańsk, where Danczig and variations of such, have been completely eradicated from the lead).--Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't really want to get into that Danzig business, but I don't think the situation is comparable. Whilst I agree with using Ukrainian-language names for places that are unknown in western media, in this case, it seems like the "double-s" transliteration, for whatever reason, is more common. Ultimately I think we should use the more common transliteration, as with "Kiev". By "established", I merely meant "use more commonly". The difference with "Danzig, Leghorn, Pressburg" is that these exonyms are by-and-large not used to refer to the modern cities anymore. "Donbass", however, is not an exonym (there are plenty of Russian-speakers in Donbass, as we know), and is also in common use. RGloucester — ☎ 14:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• This article should be renamed to War in Donbas. Ukrainian name of Donets Basin is Donbas. --Антон патріот (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Sadly, common usage doesn't support that transliteration at this time. RGloucester — ☎ 18:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Антон патріот: Please stop changing the transliteration without consensus to do so. RGloucester — ☎ 19:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

What kind of consensus you say? Country is Ukraine. Language is Ukrainian. Ukrainian name of Donets Basin is Donbas. --Антон патріот (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Yet this Wikipedia is English, so the spelling most commonly used in the English-language sources is the one we are sticking to. Which language this spelling originated from is quite irrelevant.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 3, 2014; 19:35 (UTC)

Realy? I think it looks more like a Russian Wikipedia. --Антон патріот (talk) 19:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

We don't have time for WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour here. We use English languages conventions on the English language Wikipedia. My apologies if this offends you. RGloucester — ☎ 19:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Антон патріот--one more such remark and I will block you. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Donbas/donbass is short for "Don (river) basin". The double s comes from English where "bass" is usually used instead of "bas". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.64.12.164 (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• So nice to see a bunch of ignorant Westerners, promoting Russian names for Ukrainian places, capitalizing on their numerical superiority to push through their standpoint, and humbling the only reasonable voice in this discussion. Such a shame. Homme (talk) 03:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2014

Please remove "Vladimir Putin", "Sergey Shoygu" and "Valery Gerasimov" from the section "Commanders and leaders" as well as "Russia" from the "Belligerents".

There is no evidence that these three persons have any military power over any unit participating in this war and no reference is given in this wikipedia article. They may be political supporters of the "Novorossyia" commanders and leaders, but so are many western politians of the ukrainian leaders and commanders. Yet they are not mentioned here, although they announced they will send military equipment to the ukrainian gouvernment as you can read here and here

Concerning Russia as a "Belligerent", all the refernces provided for the claim that Russia is an official participant of this war already hint in their titles that they have no evidence, but only assumptions. We yet have to see pictures of official russian soldiers under command of Moscow fighting against the western ukranian forces. The burden of proof lays on the one, who claims.

As long as this is not provided, remove Russia from the "Belligerent" or change the note from "denied by Russia" to "claimed by Ukraine"

Sincerly

93.194.95.251 (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The NATO has made the same claims based on its own data. And even if not: It is generally difficult for the reader to understand how large numbers of separatist tanks and SPG´s could materialize out of nowhere in Torez, far away from the besieged separatist positions, without massive, gamechangeing support of the russian federation. 14:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexpl (talk • contribs)

It's not just NATO that says there has been a Russian military intervention in Donbass. Other countries and Amnesty International have also affirmed that Russia is intervening militarily in Donbass! And Vladimir Putin, Sergey Shoygu and Valery Gerasimov are the 3 top figures of the Russian Armed Forces.Mondolkiri1 (talk 21:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose This time, I oppose this request, since the events of vandalism or edit-warring were absent, or nearly absent during the past week. And this request is merely fundamented by WP:POV and WP:OR arguments.Mondolkiri1 (talk 21:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

UserGogo212121 Hello all what is this war in donbass what is this in eastern Ukraine has no Russian troops is it true that the eastern Ukraine beat French the ranks of separatist

hi what is this

   Donbas Battalion
   Kharkiv Battalion
   Kyiv-1 Battalion
   Azov Battalion
   Dnipro Battalion
   Aidar Battalion
   Right Sector

Russia helps separatists --Gogo212121 (talk) 15:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

User Gogo - please don't post nonsense like you did above. The TP's are for discussion of Reliable Sources to improve the article. Your post is disruptive. HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

NATO supply

Ukrainian Minister of Defence approves that 5 countries-members of NATO supply weapons for Ukrainian Army - 5 channel UA (http://www.5.ua/component/k2/item/393712-interv-iu-ministra-oborony-valeriia-heleteia-5-kanalu) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.120.73.4 (talk) 10:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Sources given only indicate that this is a claim by the Ukrainian defense minister Heletey. Last time he made such claims these were publicly denied by multiple NATO members. Is there any indication that his claims are more reliable this time?--Staberinde (talk) 11:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

If supplying material and instalations is considered belligerence, I had not realized that Portugal had fought in the WW2, on both sides!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

This is not confirmed, in fact the BBC article says "Nato officials say they have no plans to send lethal assistance to non-Nato member Ukraine, but that members states may do so". Certainly "Nato" is not supporting Ukraine. Individual members states "may do so", but we have no confirmed reports of any of them giving any lethal assistance. According to that same article, "defence officials in Italy, Poland and Norway have all denied plans to provide any weapons". RGloucester — ☎ 17:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Russia is NOT a belligerent!

Contrary to what's written in the infobox, Russia is not a belligerent in the war, else the war be over in at most a few weeks. Russian technology is vastly superior to Ukrainian technology. Yes the rebels have hundreds of tanks, IFVs, artillery, air defense systems from Russia, but those are donations. The rebels are Ukrainians and foreign volunteers. There are no Russians soldiers in Ukraine under the command of the Russian government. Wikipedia should not spread false information. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.126.83.185 (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a vehicle for Russian propaganda. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a vehicle for Western propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.120.73.4 (talk) 06:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, you could launch an initiative to make ITAR-TASS, RT, Ria Novosti, Channel One Russia and all the other russian state media reliable sources. Alexpl (talk) 07:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

First go to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/ and find there that they are not reliable. For example General opinion as far as I see that RT is rather reliable source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_173#Russia_Today Cathry (talk) 18:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it's the other way. While there have been several discussion, consensus has leaned towards the view that RT is not reliable (and quick look at them + common sense will easily tell you that's right. Especially in the last few months they've pretty much dropped any pretense and have been outright obnoxious in their shilling). RT can be used for views of Russian government officials and for some very basic facts. Usually in those cases it's easy to find alternative sources anyway, so we don't even need to use them there. Volunteer Marek  18:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Russian media is under heavy government control (source:[21]). While Russian claims should be covered, we should refrain from taking sides and presenting Russian sources as being the only sources that are reliable (especially considering the fact that Russian sources have presented some pretty bizarre and counter-factual claims to defend the Russian government and have outright lied to defend the Kremlin). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@178.120.73.4 and 178.120.73.4: question. How come the donbass militia have tanks and other military equipment. Who gave them that? Tanks don't grow on trees.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

In Russia, when a Russian soldier goes on vacation, they let him take his tank and grad rocket launcher along. You know, pack it up along with the travel guides and sunscreen. Volunteer Marek  18:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

It is very funny jpke. but in Donetsk and Lugansk regions were regular ukrainian military units and weapons too (as in other parts of Ukraine)and soldiery were mostly adherent to insurgents. Cathry (talk) 20:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Afaik, the T-72BM variant was never in the depots of Ukraine, so its logical to assume that somebody did bring it from russia. [22] Alexpl (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not very nice to turn Wikipedia into an outlet of speculation. This is a worldwide encyclopedia, not NATO encyclopedia so please take care and provide proofs when you say something like "Russia is warring UA and denying that". The current mood of Russian people in general is to give a nice firm bitchslap to Poland and certain smaller european slavic countries "for opening their mouths when not asked", hence there's no shortage of volunteers to go fight "junta vermin" in the Eastern UA. But you can't call that Russian involvement, at worst Russia as a state is guilty of not trying to stop them.89.233.128.158 (talk) 13:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The US supplies arms to rebels in Syria. Doesn't mean the US is a belligerent. Sure, Russia supplies arms to Novorossiya. Doesn't make Russia a belligerent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.126.83.185 (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Sending (elderly) tanks, troops and acting as policy-maker on behalf of the separatists, does make Russia a belligerent. Alexpl (talk) 07:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

End of war?

I made an edit that may be controversial as it says the War in Donbass is over since the ceasefire is now put into place. Can we all agree on this or is there someone against it? I've already had one editor revert my edits, but it seems that they didn't read my provided source. [Soffredo] 15:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

A ceasefire is not an end of a war. This one or any other. Volunteer Marek  15:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm seeing this as being similar to the end of the War of Transnistria where the rebels keep their territory but the true issue is not resolved. The rebels and government are no longer fighting, so why say there's a war? My sources provided even said "The Ukrainian government and pro-Russian rebels have signed a truce deal to end almost five months of fighting." [Soffredo] 15:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

There I have to go to the Oxford Dictionary again: "Ceasefire - 1. A TEMPORARY SUSPENSION of fighting; a truce: the latest ceasefire seems to be holding [as modifier]: a ceasefire agreement; 1.1 An order or signal to stop fighting." It doesn't mean "end of a war".Mondolkiri1 (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

This is not the "end" of the war. It is an "attempt" to stop the fighting. It is a ceasefire. There have been previous ceasefires, and they did not result in the "end" of the war. RGloucester — ☎ 18:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Volunteer Marek and RGloucester. Although this ceasefire should be mentioned, we should be cautious per WP:CRYSTAL. The Transnistria War is just a good example of a ceasefire that lasted for decades, but in no way a common pattern for all wars. On the other hand you have the Yugoslav wars, with 20 or more ceasefires before a permanent truce was reached in 1995, four years after the beginning of hostilities.--Darius 22:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

As the ceasefire is widely covered, it should be mentioned in the lede. I've tweaked the first sentence. [23] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

End of war is capitulation of one side. Ceasefire is a suspension of armed fighting. The war in Transnistria is what is known as a "frozen conflict" such as the Nagorno-Karabakh War and number of other conflicts where the Russian forces were involved. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 06:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/16/ukraine-votes-more-power-separatist-east worth a mention? --82.198.102.128 (talk) 16:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Luhansk refugee convoy attack

I started a draft on this, it is a notable subject because as a result DPR rebels have introduced a death penalty and it was condemed by the US, but it needs some work.--Arbutus the tree (talk)

Draft:Luhansk refugee convoy attack

Proposing new section: Role of NATO

As per three editors User:Volunteer Marek, USer:Kudzu1 and User:RGloucester role of NATO in this present conflict is not yet confirmed and do not think it should be highlighted. I propose that NATO's role as an actor involved in supplying advisers, & weapons be highlighted and should be identified on the opposite side of rebels. Regarding denials by NATO, it may be noted Russia too has not confirmed its role in the conflict. Sarvagyana guru (talk) 10:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC).

Oppose. Did you find something in RS publications which points to NATO beeing an active belligerent - like Russia, by sending weapons and soldiers to the battle? Alexpl (talk) 11:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

This is what is called WP:UNDUE weight, and an attempt at false balance. Oppose. The very limited action of Nato has been included in the reactions section. RGloucester — ☎ 13:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for starting a thread on Talk rather than simply continue to edit-war. Second, I oppose your proposal because there is no WP:RS basis for NATO being a combatant in this conflict, or even supplying Ukraine with arms directly. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree with RGloucester and Kudzu1 above (btw, anyone know how much military aid US is still giving to Russia? I've only been able to find numbers which are two or three years old). Volunteer Marek  15:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose per all of above. Your intentions may be good, Sarvagyana guru, but this is all a misplaced attempt at WP:GEVAL, not neutrality. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

NATO does not participate in the conflict, regardless of how firm they stand against RNR. It is not their war, they are not interested in spending funds on supporting lardeaters and escalating conflict with Russia. Rasmussen acts like DOS puppet because he's leaving office and doesn't care any more, but NATO didn't do anything really except promising to sell to UA some outdated machinery "if needed". NATO role in this is minutable and does not deserve mentioning.95.220.86.113 (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Strong Pro-NATO opinion expressed here amongst expected lines and also use of jargon such as WP:GEVAL, RS, false balance, WP:UNDUE and blah blah .... to make it all sound very official. Sarvagyana guru (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

'Russian' insdead of 'pro-Russian'

Why do people always call these belligerents 'pro-Russian', but not simply 'Russian'? The second in my opinion would be more precise. We all know that Donbass' population is in a big part (almost 40%) Russian by ethnicity. This is a border region, where for centuries bonds with the two countries were strong and since ethnicity they were also bonds of blood. It was not a well protected border. And now even more people from both sides cooperate and mingle, migrate since the old border crossings were destroyed. Many also claim Russia is operating its very own units of military on this territory. Sometimes separatists say they want to join Russian Federation, but sometimes they say they want to create a close ally of Russia. It is quite strange to say they are Russophiles when they are actually in fact Russian by ethnicity. 83.20.157.126 (talk) 06:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

You said it yourself - we dont know what every activist or fighter wants. Some may have a racist, or somewhat Duginist point of view, others may only want to be closer to the Russian Federation or get more rights. So "Pro-Russian" covers everything. Alexpl (talk) 07:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion 'Russian' covers more. Because 'pro-Russian' suggests they want to join Russian Federation, or at least suggests some direction, like they want to support Russia, but it is not strict. In reality it is maybe more that Russia is supporting them. I said that not because terms 'pro-Russian' and 'Russian' bind exactly to any of directions. 83.20.157.126 (talk) 07:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I guess you wont find much support here for turning this article into an advertisment for a very limited "Ethnic-Russian-Unite!" scope. Alexpl (talk) 07:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

This is so nationalistic it's hard to say what is more wrong about it. First of all, the entire Ukraine, except most western parts of it, is of the same ethnos as Russia. There are Russians living in the Ukraine, and there are Ukrainians living in Russia, and you won't be able to tell one from another, except for maybe for their specific accent. Moreover, in Russia there are a lot of other ethnic groups that aren't even slavic, and they participate in insurgency nevertheless. Are they Russians? No. They're tatar, ingush, khanty, etc., and they talk and even look like completely different from Russians and Ukrainians, but they nevertheless are called Russians. The fact of the matter is that major part of the Ukraine is the kind of Russia that is not Russia, and the western part of Ukraine is the kind of Poland that is not Poland. And there are Ukrainians that are acting pro-UA, and there are Ukrainians that are acting pro-Russia, and there are Russians who are acting pro-UA as well. Russia has nothing to do with conflict in the UA (and there is no proof whatsoever of contrary) except maybe that it is welcoming it, hence there's no place for calling any parties involved "Russian".89.233.128.158 (talk) 09:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

My guess is that "pro-Russian" is a short and clear term that encompasses the the fighters without too much ambiguity. Saying "Russian" would lead to confusion between "Russian" (by nationality) and "Russian" (by ethnicity), and both would be incorrect.D2306 (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

83.20.157.126, calling these belligerents simply 'Russian' instead of 'pro-Russian' would be like calling Stormcloaks simply 'Nords' instead of 'pro-Nord'. 109.60.125.195 (talk) 05:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

This argument has been brought up over and over in all related articles for months. Per reliable sources and WP:COMMONNAME, the media has used, and is still using, pro-Russian is the most prolifically used naming convention. It describes the political allegiances and all surrounding issues accurately. The proposal of 'Russian' is not only misleading, it is nonsensical, full stop. It is not an issue to be sorted out. There is no discussion of changing pro-Russian to anything else, so there's no point in persisting with this thread. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

To call them Russians, would mean that all or almost all of them were Russians, which is not true. Even about ethnic Russians I have a lot of doubts. For instance, if I'm not wrong, Aleksandr Zakharchenko has a Ukrainian surname, so there is probably a high likelihood that he's an ethnic Ukrainian. Ihor Plotnytskiy has a surname that sounds Polish to me. Is he an ethnic Polish? Possibly he's mixed, as Zakharchenko may well also be mixed. If someone has more information about these issues, I'd thank if they could be provided.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

September 20th Truce

According to several news sources, a truce was reached in Minsk last night. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29290246 --MarcusPearl95 (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Already covered at Minsk Protocol. RGloucester — ☎ 19:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Status of shchastya

Does anyone know who controls schastia? some sources i read say it is under the control of the aidar battalion.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

According to a Ukrainian source, a Belarusian source, and a Bangladeshi source, it's the Aidar Battalion. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no Russian military in Donbas!

Yes there may be some Russian volunteers from the Russian military who went to Donbas to train locals on how to use artillery and so on, but definitely not the whole shebang! Or else why Ukrainian army only dares to fight in Donbas but don't dare to invade Crimea? Russia, the armed forces of Russia, Putin, everything that has to do with Russia need to be removed from the infobox! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 16:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Ukrainian army casualty update

At least 955 soldiers killed and 3,322 wounded.

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/ukraines-heroes-injured-soldier-believes-traitors-behind-enemy-attack-on-his-unit-366000.html

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/at-least-955-ukrainian-soldiers-killed-in-russias-war-against-ukraine-365976.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 21:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Casualties

- Apparently the president of Ukraine himself recently admitted in an interview that the Ukrainian Army had lost 60-65% of its military equipment in this war. With that said can we trust the Ukrainian sources regarding their human soldier losses. Which seem rather low in proportion to 60-65% of their military equipment, because there is no doubt that equipment losses also result in human losses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.152.252.186 (talk) 03:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly. What was happening was motorised infantry and artillery brigades leaving equipment and running away. Heavy losses are also due to Grad bombings of the vicinity of parked vehicles and the fact that the machinery itself is grossly outdated, in bad condition, and terribly operated. Also, not all machinery is manned at all times, for example, at one point ambushed convoy of Ural heavy trucks lost 8 vehicles and about 20 personnel. Although i can't help but mention that "pro-russian untrusted" sourses several times told the world that to this day about 8000 Ukrainian military and paramilitary perished and about 20000 wounded, which is about 3-4 times more than official Kyiv claims.89.233.128.158 (talk) 10:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The actual number of Ukrainian soldiers killed is surely in the thousands. Latest Ukrainian estimate puts it at 2,000. The actual number is likely about 5,000, about halfway between Ukrainian estimate and Novorossiyan estimate. http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/ukrainian-army-claims-2000-casualties-in-its-ranks-365664.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 15:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a Wikipedia talk page, and not a forum. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Poroshenko says there are 1,500 unidentified Ukrainian soldiers killed. This means well over 2,000 Ukrainian soldiers were killed. http://korrespondent.net/ukraine/3423891-tela-1500-sylovykov-do-sykh-por-ne-opoznany-bohomolets — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

KievPost reports at least 955 Ukrainian soldiers killed. The actual number is likely a lot more than 955. http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/at-least-955-ukrainian-soldiers-killed-in-russias-war-against-ukraine-365976.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

A pro-Poroshenko(ukrainian, western...you name it) source claims that the death toll is at least 955....i fail to see the reason why the infobox still claims a lower one... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.128.189.198 (talk) 12:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is pro-Kiev/US/EU POV

This article is blatant POV. US and EU are not even listed on pro-Kiev side as belligerents. Picture mocking Putin under "2013–14 unrest in Ukraine" and "occupied territories of Georgia" as a link to abkhazian/ossetian conflicts. Why are "Russian Armed Forces" listed under units involved without links at all? You clearly don't understand what NPOV means do you? 176.46.125.190 (talk) 00:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey buddy, it's OK to use the word "Ukraine", "Ukrainian", or (if you rather) "Ukrainian government" instead of "Kiev". -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, 176.46.125.190, had you bothered to read the article, you might have found the section Russian involvement with a hatnote to the main article on the subject, being 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. How many sources do you think ought to be cited in the infobox: 30, 40, 50? Oh and, as noted by Kudzu1, what is a "pro-Kiev/US/EU" POV when it's at home? Would that be what you regard as "NPOV"? Sounds a tad POV-ish to me. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

My point exactly. The infobox refers to Novorossiyans as separatists. They are not separatists. They are Novorossiyans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.36.117.10 (talk) 11:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Just to try to be neutral, Novoroissya is technically a separtist entity because it is trying to break away from Kiev (or Ukraine).--Arbutus the tree (talk) 22:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, Ukraine is a separatist entity trying to break away from Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

According to that logic, Crimea is a separatist entity that broke away from Turkey (Ottoman Empire)!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 16:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, Mondolkiri, Crimea was "conquered". It didn't exactly want to break away from the Ottoman Empire. RGloucester — ☎ 16:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for that correction.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Citation needed?

It is true that those may well be non-RS. However, the correct approach is not to remove the citations and leave a CN tag. That makes the information unverifiable. People need to know where the stuff came from, especially if it is from an unreliable source. In other words, the best approach is actually to leave the source there but add a Template:Better source. The other option is to remove it in its entirety. One way or the other, though, one should not remove the source of the information but retain the information. RGloucester — ☎ 12:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The second option of removing a non reliable source brings some urgency. I have nominated interpretermag.org to be blacklisted. As a part of the nomination process, it needs to be removed from all articles (not talk pages and user pages). --Drajay1976 (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

it was reverted here by User:Hergilei again. Please discuss to reach a consensus.--Drajay1976 (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

As per WP:NEWSBLOG, the full quote is: "Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.". So only those blogs which are hosted by newspapers, magazines and other news organizations (referred to as "these" here) may be accepted if the writers are professionals. Interpretermag does not qualify as any of these. So the argument put forward by User:Hergilei in the edit summary here is not acceptable. Interpretermag is not a newspaper, magazine or a news organization. It even translates the blogosphere as per their own account. --Drajay1976 (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Interpretermag is an online journal, a form of magazine, and employs professional writers. I see nothing to suggest we can't use segments from IM written by professionals. Blacklisting the site as "spam" is not justifiable. Note that this site has been quoted by media in different countries, including The Guardian, Prague Post, Voice of America, and 15 min. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/mh17-anger-mounts-towards-russia-as-inspectors-still-denied-access-live http://www.praguepost.com/world-news/33792-lawyer-pussy-riot-should-be-free-by-new-year-s-day http://www.voanews.com/content/russia-wags-the-dog-with-ukraine-disinformation-campaign/1865064.html http://www.15min.lt/naujiena/aktualu/karo-zona/filmuotoje-medziagoje-ukrainos-pasienyje-isakymo-isiverzti-laukiantys-cecenu-kovotojai-784-449234 Hergilei (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Interpretermag "is a daily-updated online journal dedicated primarily to translating media from the Russian press and blogosphere into English and reporting on events inside Russia and in countries directly impacted by Russia’s foreign policy." It can contain translation of private blogs. The news analysis the website may contain is "in addition to" the translations and is heavily dependent on the translations. They may call themselves a journal, but it is not a magazine at all since its primary intent is translation. news organisations may quote anything including a private blog. The fact that some news organizations have quoted interpretermag proves nothing. News organizations have method of rigorous fact checking. Interpretermag translates from the blogosphere!!! What sort of fact checking will go into that is anyone's guess. But all that is beyond the scope of this discussion. The point is that it is primarily a translation service which is a project of institute of modern russia. The blogs in the site often go unnamed!!! This is not a news magazine by any stretch of imagination. --Drajay1976 (talk) 15:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not the point, Drajay. Information needs to be attributed. Taking out the citation completely and leaving the information creates a mess whereby the information is not attributed to the source it came from. If the source is determined to be unreliable, either the information should be removed completely, or a the "better source" tag should be used, to allow people to find another reference for that information. In the interim, whilst that tag is there, the citation needs to remain to provide attribution. RGloucester — ☎ 15:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I dispute Drajay1976's demand that interpretermag.org needs to be removed from all articles as a part of the nomination process. That makes no sense. Removal from articles should only be considered AFTER it has been blacklisted.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Ukrainian army casualty update

The latest lower end estimate puts the number of Ukrainian soldiers killed to 974 as of October 1.

https://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/at-least-974-soldiers-killed-in-russias-war-against-ukraine-366756.html

The actual number is much higher due to unidentified bodies.

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/bodies-of-ukrainian-soldiers-rot-away-remain-unclaimed-at-luhansk-morgue-366762.html

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/over-50-unidentified-ukrainian-servicemen-to-be-buried-in-zaporizhia-oblast-on-sept-26-365554.html— Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 21:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)