Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine

Give THIS the Russo-Ukrainian War title, change the other one to skirmishes or something

2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:48F7:77BC:3B5:6E9B (talk) 03:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

AFAIK, there's been no Ukrainian military resistance. GoodDay (talk) 04:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:B49C:49F7:E426:DECC (talk) 04:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC) https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/t010lw/gunfire_between_russian_and_ukrainian_forces_in/ gunfighting. They are fighting back

Russo-Ukrainian War is the overview article, which remains valid. This article is on the 2022 phase, which is an invasion of Ukraine by Russia according to almost all reliable sources. There are no serious sources claiming that Ukrainian forces have attacked any internationally recognised Russian territory (apart from Disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis). Boud (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Except there hasn't been a war until now. This isn't a "phase" of some war that's been ongoing, this is the beginning of the war. --eduardog3000 (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

There was plenty of Russo-Ukrainian War back in 2014-2015 and low-level violence since. Jsnider3 (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

No, the Russo ukranian war is a protracted conflict since 2014. The past few months have been an escalation of tensions, culminating in a large scale Russian offensive. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 06:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Russo-Ukrainian War article should be renamed to Ukrainian Crisis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 675930s (talk • contribs) 10:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Seeing as Ukraine is putting up a good amount of resistance and taking some territory back, I think it should be called a war. Blackout8771 (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Map of territorial disputes

The relevance needs to be explained in the text, but if we do keep it Moldovia and Transnistria should be added to it. BilledMammal (talk) 04:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, perhaps all the 14 former Soviet republics, besides Russia itself :( GoodDay (talk) 04:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Moldovia and Transnistria because they are the only frozen conflict involving Russia that is not currently included on the map. I'm not sure we need the other former Soviet republics, as most of them don't add useful information to the map. BilledMammal (talk) 04:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I've removed it from the article while its relevance is not explained; while the frozen conflicts are likely to be relevant, and the expansion of NATO is relevant, it needs to be explained in the text - and I'm not sure that the chosen map is ideal to demonstrate the latter, as it doesn't demonstrate the change over time. Further, I don't believe the members of the CSTO are relevant; only Russia and Belarus are. BilledMammal (talk) 04:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Re-organize sanctions section?

Should we move the sanctions from before the invasion into the "Prelude" section and then turn the remainder of the "Sanctions" section into a "Reactions" section? This seems like the more standard organization for such a page. Thanks, Gazelle55 (talk) 06:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that would be apt Abheygpt1 (talk) 06:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Time zone for 24 Feb

Do we want Moscow Time = UTC+3 or Time in Ukraine = UTC+2 or a mix depending on whether we're talking about statements by Putin or actions in Ukraine? Boud (talk) 06:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC) Having a single time zone by default, throughout the section, (with optionally another one in brackets) would make things simpler. Boud (talk) 06:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

MOS:TIMEZONE Give priority to the place at which the event had its most significant effects; for example, if a [cr]acker in Monaco attacked a Pentagon computer in the US, use the time zone for the Pentagon, where the attack had its effect. Putin is like the hypothetical cracker here, so Ukrainian time (UTC+2) would make sense as the default. Boud (talk) 06:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Archived sources

Live news sources without web archives are not useful as WP:RS, because their content is volatile - after a few hours they will not show the information summarised from their content. If you think that a live source will qualify as a WP:RS, then at least archive it and include that in the reference. Boud (talk) 06:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Reactions in Poland

The Polish president Andrzej Duda twitted (in Polish, below my own rather direct/word-for-word translation): "Despite the efforts of the international community, Ukraine has fallen victim of a brutal, unprovoced and unjustified Russian assault. We act together with our allies in NATO and the EU, together we will respond to the Russian brutal aggression and we will not leave Ukraine without support." Source: https://twitter.com/AndrzejDuda/status/1496713699515584512

Follow-up tweet from Duda (in Polish, below my own rather direct/word-for-word translation): "Today at 5.48 [Polish time (?)] I spoke with the President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy @ZelenskyyUa. It has come to a Russian invasion of Ukraine. Its scale is most probably wide. This is an unprecedented act of rape on the norms of international law. Russia excludes itself from the international community." Source: https://twitter.com/AndrzejDuda/status/1495910765177577484

The Polish prime minister Mateusz Morawiecki twitted (in English): "We must immediately respond to Russia's criminal aggression on Ukraine. Europe and the free world has to stop Putin. Today's European Council should approve fiercest possible sanctions. Our support for Ukraine must be real." Source: https://twitter.com/MorawieckiM/status/1496721904551579649 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngfio (talk • contribs) 08:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ngfio Twitter isn't an official source. SwanX1 (talk) 08:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@SwanX1The tweet is from the official account of Mateusz Morawiecki. So I'd say it's a pretty good source. Mlliarm (talk) 08:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't know the official Wikipedia policies concerning twitter, but both tweets has been cited by the Polish Press Agency, [1] and [2] Ngfio (talk) 09:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Great find sl (talk) 08:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Broken edit?

An edit [3] by User:Orbitz_stop_st_ro increased the size of the article by about 50% while cutting out a large amount of existing content (e.g. almost all of the details in the invasion section are gone - it looks like it may have rolled back edits to the previous day.) Can you try to fix what you were apparently trying to do, User:Orbitz_stop_st_ro, or otherwise, can someone fix the article or restore the removed changes? Reyne2 (talk) 09:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I thought this too, but there was very little content cut, it's just after the massive reference section in the middle of the article you have to scroll past. The article is really broken at the moment. 〈 Forbes₇₂ | Talk 〉 09:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I manually reverted to right before the giant change. Reyne2 (talk) 09:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The second reference section was causing reFill to malfunction. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 09:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks I was trying to make this change as well due to the duplicated article from two different revisions. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 09:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

It looks like it was reverted manually by someone else for some reason... I guess this was technically an edit war, but hopefully it's not an issue due to the pressing need of the situation, and I'll recuse myself from editing the article now. Reyne2 (talk) 09:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

You guys keep reverting other ppl's edit in the process as well, including mine-AINH (talk) 09:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM

Why is this called Russian invasion Why is this called Russian invasion, when Saudi invasion of Yemen is called intervention? 72.255.58.60 (talk) 11:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC) Because the lawful Yemen president asked the Saudis and others to assist his government. Ukraine did not "ask" Russia to invade it. WWGB (talk) 11:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC) If you think the Wikipedia coverage of the Saudi action in Yemen should be changed, go make that suggestion there. That has nothing to do with what we say here. Bondegezou (talk) 11:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The German chancellor did not shelved Nord Stream 2 because of an ongoing Russian advance into Ukraine

HeyRauisuchian,

today the Russian military made advancements into Ukrainian territory. If the decision from Scholz was on the day before yesterday, how was his decision based on today's Russian advancement?

https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-to-stop-nord-stream-2/

The source doesn't support your conclusion, please revert your edit.

Regards, --Da Vinci Nanjing (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted, as I agree with your reasoning. Germany's shelving of Nord Stream 2 was not a response to the campaign started 24 February (the current article does not seem to classify the Donbas intervention as being part of the invasion, rather being part of the prelude to the invasion, and I think that's correct from a presentational standpoint). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

To be clear though, I think the rest of the paragraph should also go. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense, however background about the existing sanctions after 21 February is relevant, as a background to the international response from 24 February, if stated as such. Could be moved rather than removed, but future news articles will likely contextualize and repeat the same info when additional sanctions are reported. Rauisuchian (talk) 12:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing

Just a reminder that the bulk of this article should be sourced to independent reliable sources that have independently verified the information; any disputed/unconfirmed/unverified/etc. claims, of course, can use partial sources attributed inline (e.g. "Ukraine says, Russia says"). In fact, in-line attribution may be safe for anything that could be challenged. Kingsif (talk) 12:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Change losses

Oryx blog is making a comprehensive list of all Russian and Ukrainian losses in the war. I believe this should be added because it's hundreds times more reliable than unproven and unverifiable Ukrainian claims because it includes visual proof. Rob Lee also has a good ongoing thread as always if anyone is interested. Links:

https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html

https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1496752076335947778?t=jFTpRnS3LvcXi2clboRRNg&s=19 IdkIdc12345 (talk) 12:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Are either reliable sources, per our criteria? Independent, verified, expert? Unless Rob Lee recently quit an important media outlet on moral grounds, if he is any kind of reliable source for this, why is no news agency carrying his information? As I mentioned above, where we cannot have verified sources (e.g. for losses), then the next best is to use the partial-but-official sources and attribute the information to let our readers decide how to take it. Kingsif (talk) 12:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes they are. Everything posted by Oryx in confirmed. At least don't be lazy and click the link

Casualties list..

Dont just show Ukrainian claims on casualties and kills show russian claims too all of the claims of russian side 2601:589:80:5ED0:B05F:55B9:392:B38E (talk) 12:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Russian claims would have to be reported via a Reliable Source. Gov't controlled outlets would be completely unreliable. 50.111.36.47 (talk) 12:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

So far it looks like the Russian claims regarding their losses are simply that Ukraine's claims are wrong. What would be put besides a giant question mark? Kingsif (talk) 13:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I think we should use neither and use only visually confirmed stuff https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html IdkIdc12345 (talk) 12:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

That is a form of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I.e. if the information is not significant enough to be carried by mainstream secondary sources, it is not significant enough for Wikipedia; if it cannot be verified by such sources, it is not reliable enough for Wikipedia. It is also using unverified primary reports, so basically the same as the official reports, but with less accountability: who is to say that images and videos, not independently verified by reliable experts, are showing a full or correct picture - and it is not like we can say "according to X" for attribution when X is an unknown quantity, leaving readers in the dark. We might as well just ask Wikipedians in Ukraine what is happening and take their word for it instead of using sources. Kingsif (talk) 12:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

We should put that number as "Unknown Number of combatants". Toast (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Let's leave it out until we know for sure.Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC) https://www.news2sea.com/yasa-jupiter-belonging-to-yasa-denizcilik-was-hit-in-odessa/ turks ship was hit not sunk. It continued its voyage after — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.157.81.28 (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Archiving reverted

My archiving of several ended discussions, 15Kb in total, has been reverted en masse (on this page only) with an edit summary of "Please do not archive ongoing discussions". This includes the restoration of "edit semi-protected" posts which had been marked as done; and resolved requests to source specific statements. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: I can see why you did it and I'm surprised to hear it was reverted. Maybe we need a meta talk page for hashing this out. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and close some discussions for archival. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The OP did much more than "archiving of several ended discussions". He archived threads which were still under active discussion (some just minutes earlier), which was why I reverted him.. Sans souci. WWGB (talk) 01:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Detailed map

Is a detailed war map for this invasion necessary? I just made the template and module as quick as I could due to current attention, however I would have no time to populate this map as I am very busy with college and life. MarioJump83! 13:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure there's somebody on here that has the time and patience to actually update the map. Toast (talk) 13:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I appreciate you making the template. I'll do my best to update it to keep up with events. So far I've partially updated the map and its related articles to keep up with events. If you have any questions or suggestions feel free to leave a comment below here or on my talk page. Colin dm (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Neo-Nazism in Ukraine

In the section on Prelude > Russian accusations, the last paragraph is grossly biased, one-sided, and without proper citation or research. It currently reads:

• In a nationalistic speech on 21 February, Putin also alleged that "Ukrainian society" had become "neo-Nazi" without evidence.[67][68] According to Jonathan Allen, there is no evidence for such far-right nationalism in the government, military or electorate. Ukraine's President Zelenskyy is Jewish, and three of his family members died in the Holocaust.[68]

Three of these 4 citations are to the New York Times and NBC. The biggest richest most consistently pro-intervention corporate news outlets in the USA, sharing their opinions on one of their country's fiercest enemies, is not actually an unbiased survey of journalistic and academic material on the subject. If we look beyond the absurdly narrow purview -- not even far, just say, elsewhere on Wikipedia itself, we can see our own website's well-sourced article on the Azov Battalion, which is described in the very first sentence of the Wikipedia introduction as "Neo-Nazi Ukrainian National Guard unit", followed by 6 citations, including numerous major American news sources themselves, who clearly did slightly more diligence than those cited in the article at hand. This is one example of something that bas been pointed out repeatedly by news and academics in the west and east. This section has to be expanded and rewritten at once or else marked NPOV. 2001:56B:3FF7:2BDF:980F:6418:E781:D50 (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Greetings IP. This is a very heated topic, and you are probably aware of this. But we volunteers at Wikipedia aim to provide as unbiased articles as possible. So, I'm listening to your concerns.

You point to the Azov Battalion article, which is indeed about a neo-Nazi organization. There's also for example a political party in Ukraine, National Corps, that is described as neo-Nazi. However, I fail to see how this contradicts this article: It is stated here that the claims that "Ukrainian society and government" had become neo-Nazi are baseless. One battalion is not Ukrainian society, and one party that holds zero seats in the parliament is not the government. And since multiple reliable sources (yes, NYT and NBC might be American, but they are reliable) report that the claim about society and government is baseless, we have that in the article.

In order to get a more balanced view, since I can't find them: Can you please link to the sources that support your viewpoint? I promise we will take a look and include them – if they are reliable. --LordPeterII (talk) 14:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll just leave this here and back away slowly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Waffen_Grenadier_Division_of_the_SS_(1st_Galician)#Legacy ^Zera/_talk 14:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is seriously saying that the Azov Battalion is not a neo-Nazi group (their founder literally called the group "crusade[rs] against the Semite-led Untermenschen"). But using this as to say all of Ukrainian society is suddenly neo-Nazi (rather than this being an issue among a certain sect of Ukrainian nationalism), and therefore in need of a Russian invasion for "denazification" is disingenuous and alarming, to say the least. —AFreshStart (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

No, don't just leave it there and back away. If the implication is that one march organized by a fringe group of nationalists points to a 'Neo Nazi' society & government, that's ridiculous. ― TaltosKieronTalk 15:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Ditto, after all, Russia has a neo-Nazio party Russian National Unity, does that mean Russia is Neo-Nazi?Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Fascism fits. Alcibiades979 (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Fits what?Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

We should include the context of lionizing Stepan Bandera since that is a big example of this in Eastern Europe. Its a well documented problem and can be discussed at length. Alternatively there are the nazi summer camps and other things that could be brought up, although they are less of an institutional issue and more like the azov battalion, nazis being public but no indication of degree of support. Bgrus22 (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

A lot of this is overed at Neo-Nazism#Ukraine, but if there is anything relevant and due to add to this page then I agree it should be added. —AFreshStart (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Timeline needed

Separate timeline article now exists at Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Further discussion can occur there. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If there is one thing that is learned from the Covid-19 article series, it is that there is need for a timeline of events. Is anyone quickly able to whip one up? Distrait cognizance (talk) 14:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC) the I began Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in January 2020, and too the Timeline of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant (I forget exactly when), so I'll just on it. kencf0618 (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC) It's up: Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (typos are neurological). kencf0618 (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Market reaction - add Dow?

The DOW opened 800 points lower than it closed yesterday. 134.167.1.1 (talk) 14:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not just the DOW that's lower today -- it's almost every market worldwide. Maybe a section on financial impacts, but not just on the DOW index/American markets. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 14:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's important enough to include the reaction by the financial markets. Along with the large fall in stock market indices, the prices of gold & oil increased sharply. Jim Michael (talk) 15:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

US Market reaction today is pretty muted. S&P had already been correcting due to rising interest rates, and is down only 50 points, or 1.2% ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Alcibiades979 (talk) 16:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I propose we axe the Stock Market reaction aside from the RTS plunging. A. newspapers are generally less than reliable when reporting on why the stock market did x, y, or z; also I'm not really sure how relevant it is what markets did in New Zealand. What's more is that it creates a POV problem. Hang Seng Index is down so it gets written about, but NASDAQ is flat, so it doesn't get written about. The three prices that actually are important are wheat, natural gas, and oil. But even then it's quite early to draw any conclusions about the latter two. Plus this isn't an article about finance or dissecting price movements its an article on Russia invading Ukraine. Alcibiades979 (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

What is RTS? Please minimize abbreviations. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Reactions from Online

Should someone add another section to the reactions concerning reactions of people on social media and in formal media, as a catch all for the reactions of non-official entities that are still of cultural significance? Could also include the market as in the DOW etc. Brandonazz (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Cab give some examples of RS commenting on this?Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

"Cultural significance" is highly dependent on location. The opinions of a former leader of a country may be irrelevant to everyone else, what is the criteria for significance? _TheKuygerian^contribs
_userpage 17:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Putin prepared for invasion in advance

I think it should be expressed in article.

1. In 2021, the process of formation reserve military units manned by voluntary reservists has intensified. Here is the article by Alexander Golts, journalist and military columnist Analyzing numerous scattered reports of regional media, he believes that it involves the formation of several full-stregth corps in each military districts, and it is unprecedented number. The exact number of reserve troops is classified. Usually, individual training of reservists takes 6 month (2-3 days a month), and only then field maneuvers of reserve military units start (as a rule in summer). However, in autumn and winter 2021, new reservists were sent for maneuvers immediately after signing contracts. Not typical rush.

2. On 18 February 2022, Putin signed the Decree on drafting of citizens who had demobbed earlier and had not signed contracts to perform reserve military service (non-reservists). The exact number of drafted non-reservists is classified.

3. According Russian law, conscripts not completed a general four-month military training course should not be used in war zone. In fact, they are used.

All indications are that Putin is going All-In. K8M8S8 (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, but we need RS saying it, not our wp:or saying it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I can recommend the following two analyses: [4][5]. They have in-depth description of some background, Putin's political objectives, and military options. They have both predicted pretty much what's going on right now, including the offensives on Kyiv (with an explanation why Russia deems that necessary). These two sources can also be used to start the "Military analysis" section. --Mindaur (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Map of invasion is POV

There is no legend for Crimea, or is it considered Russian? 82.37.67.151 (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Is there any fighting there?Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Is this the map in the infobox? I don't think it's POV, but it could do with a legend explaining what the shading means for Crimea and the eastern Donbass, and indeed for Transnistria. It could also do with a legend explaining "NATO" and "CSTO". I would be tempted to remove the references to NATO given NATO is not involved in the fighting. Bondegezou (talk) 15:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I don’t mean the first map, I mean the one under Invasion header. Crimea seems to be labelled as Russian. Also, Ukraine is not only the green. Super POV. --82.37.67.151 (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Ahh, yes I think we need a map that makes it clear these are occupied by Russia.Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The map is as neutral as possible. It doesn't even specify if the territories are contested or occupied at present. Distrait cognizance (talk) 15:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The map literally calls the red part ‘occupied’. --Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The green should say Rest of Ukraine, or unoccupied Ukraine.--Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

That is odd I could have sworn when I posted it did not say occupied.Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The author changed it I think, but they still need to change the legend for the green. --Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Belligerent

Wikipedia article on Non-belligerent states:

A non-belligerent state differs from a neutral one in that it may support certain belligerents in a war but is not directly involved in military operations... The term is often used to describe a country that does not take part militarily in a war.

In that sense only Ukraine (and not the arms suppliers) should be in the belligerent section.

Shubjt (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Not Russia?Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I was talking about all the arms suppliers listed after Ukraine.(edited)Shubjt (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree those shouldn't be listed. It's inaccurate and complete WP:OR to call those 'parties in the conflict' and 'belligerents'. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Although, reading the Template:Infobox military conflict guidance, it seems a lot of flexibility is left to local editors (however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) ... may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding ... Combatants should be listed in order of importance to the conflict, be it in terms of military contribution, political clout, or a recognized chain of command. If differing metrics can support alternative lists, then ordering is left to the editors of the particular article. -- providing military equipment (etc) may well be sufficient to list them as 'combatants' in that sense. I think it's subjective whether it improves reader understanding, but I also see unrelated reasons for why it would be a good idea to include them all, so (on rethinking) I think I might lean towards supporting inclusion at this time. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

There's precedent for listing arms suppliers, for example at 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war. I can see both sides of the argument here, although I personally think it quickly conveys helpful information. Jr8825 • Talk 02:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Cyber warfare

I believe that Russia’s reported use of cyber attacks on Ukraine is notable enough to be included in this article, would love to hear feedback. 69.5.138.1 (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Given that reliable sources can be found, I agree that it should be mentioned in the body of the article, even if it is mentioned in the Template:Russo-Ukrainian War. For now however, the article 2022 Ukraine cyberattacks needs updating. Somers-all-the-time (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Reactions and ramifications

Was: "Reactions and ramifications" lacking large European nations and lack of UN mentions. (Possibly partially outdated - the article keeps updating) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Why are mentions of Indonesia and India in the same paragraph? They deserve separate ones.

As for the prominence, I find it strange that a statement from the Croatian Prime Minister is so high up in the list, though it does somewhat fit there thematically to round out the European responses. I'd prefer something from Spain or Italy, as more relevant, as it seems a lot of space to give to a small nation with a strong response to the crisis. Moldova makes sense, as it's on their border, but Croatia is a bit weird to find there among the rest. Maybe it's there for how clear the condemnation is? That might make sense.

What's strange is that stuff like Spain, Italy and France were missing, but Croatia was on the list?

Similarly, calling China "Other reactions" in such a charged topic carries connotations of only two sides. Especially when "Other reactions" only contains Russia and China. English is weird that way. I mean come on, I'm sure all of English wikipedia can find reactions that aren't from the West, or Russia or China.

Like here: [6]

WHO response, Turkey response that can be added to the condemnation list, Hungary, Bulgaria, Australia, Spain, Italy, Greece, Finland, Sweeden, Canada, there are plenty of reaction over there that could be added to the page. Why haven't they? I have to ask, because the page is locked, and I can't edit it myself. At least add more nations beyond NATO, Europe, and China. Like Japan and South Korea. Finding that wasn't hard, and we can take Italy and Spain from it, to put into the article.

Also, does anyone have any links for what India and Brazil are saying? Apart from "closely following the development of events in the region"?

As well, in the lead in to the article, it should be mentioned that the invasion started without UN approval, which is another violation of the UN charter, Chapter VII. That mention and reference should probably contain a link to other recent examples of such violations, since Russian media are still using that reference and justifications springing from those violations.

A link for possible addition to the article for a column by Masha Gessen: [7]

PS: The article keeps changing, and some of my initial concerns have been cleared up, on the US, UK, Spain, Italy and such. But some stuff is still missing.

Keep up the good work! Primemountain (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Link order of battle page in the infobox

Order of battle is now linked in the infobox as of closing. [8] Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Here is link Order of battle for the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. It will include all individual units participating. This is standard for many wiki articles on wars and conflicts, especially those in Syrian civil war, Libyan civil warm etc. --PanNostraticism (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

clarification of post-Soviet context needed

In 2009, Romanian analyst Iulian Chifu and his co-authors opined that in regard to Ukraine, Russia has pursued an updated version of the Brezhnev Doctrine, which dictates that the sovereignty of Ukraine cannot be larger than that of the Warsaw Pact's member states prior to the collapse of the Soviet sphere of influence during the late-1980s and early-1990s.

I have read and reread this statement, and I cannot fathom its meaning. What does "larger" mean in the context of "sovereignty?" I implore any editor with a better understanding of the context to rewrite this using clearer metaphor, if any at all.--~TPW 16:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Also what relevance does it have, as it is not going to increase in size from the late-1980s anyway, even if all the Rusian-occupied land is returned, it will be the same size.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

It appears to me that 'larger' here means that the sovereignty (or degree of sovereignty) enjoyed by Ukraine cannot be greater than what is used to enjoy when it was a member of the Warsaw pact.Lone Warrior 007 (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm hoping someone with the appropriate knowledge will update the article with better wording.~TPW 18:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Transninstria uses rocket warfare to attack Ukraine

As of closing, Transnistria was added to the infobox as a country that was alleged to have supported Russia along with a source. [9] Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Transninstria should be added to the nations supporting Russia. Bilikon (talk) 16:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC) Source?Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC) All of these are unconfirmed reports. The only new thing that happened was that Transnistrian forces made another exercise again. Super Ψ Dro 17:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC) I am sorry. I didn't no it's only claims, I've been hearing this all day on TV. I didn't know it's propaganda/unconfirmed. Bilikon (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

British English or American English?

Since I'm seeing both versions of "-ise" and "-ize" being used in this article, I'm wondering if there is a preferred spelling. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I would support American one. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 17:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah. I already switched the "ize" to "ise". But if you want to switch it back to "ize" then I wouldn't mind either. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 17:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:COFAQ#ENGLISH, we should strive for consistency of spelling. Since this is not an American or British related article, it's up to you to choose, and hope others follow suit. Deathstar3548 (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Technically speaking, -ize is British English too - see Oxford spelling. But Deathstar is right, we should seek consistency here... —AFreshStart (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. I switched "ize" to "ise" before seeing this comment. But if it switches back then no biggie. I'll just make it consistent then. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 17:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I generally prefer British English on European-related WP articles (I may be biased as I'm from the UK), unless there is good reason to use US English, but I'm aware it's not Wikipedia policy. —AFreshStart (talk) 17:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I switched it to "ise" because that was the variation used in the first paragraph and was the first variation I saw. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I also prefer using British English in Europe, MENA, and Africa-related articles. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

British English seems the correct one, as the original revision was forked from 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis which is in BE. I added a banner to the top. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Arms suppliers and non lethal military aid providers to Ukraine

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Duplicate discussion at § Belligerent. Jr8825 • Talk 02:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

---

Can these countries be removed from the infobox please? They are all dated past the invasion and are not involved with it. Viewsridge (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

My understanding is that those countries provided things in anticipation of the invasion. BeŻet (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I can still see why this is not support now the war has started.Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes and those weapons are literally, as we speak, are being used by Ukraine to defend itself. --Mindaur (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Correct. The supplied are used by Ukranian military to defend themselves. I would support keeping it as long as sources are given. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 17:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

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

"Russian invasion of Ukraine" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Russian invasion of Ukraine and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 24#Russian invasion of Ukraine until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Reactions and ramifications

This has already been done at time of closing. Section is already split up between countries and organizations. [10] Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I propose to split this section further into sanctions by countries or/and unions. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 17:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Spain sends warships to Black Sea

Source: https://www.reuters.com/world/spain-sends-warships-black-sea-considers-sending-warplanes-2022-01-20/ -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExoQuest (talk • contribs) 17:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Are they shooting? Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2022 (3)

On reactions state the following:

The IOC condemned the invasion, stating that it was a violation of the Olympic Truce, which was supposed to last until March 20. The International Olympic Truce Foundation and International Olympic Truce Center later stated that it would send humanitarian aid to Ukraine. 76.82.51.127 (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Source?Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

A quick search gives me at least three articles right off the bat: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/02/24/ioc-strongly-condemns-russia-for-violating-olympic-truce-by-invading-ukraine/?sh=80c13c87c64d, https://www.foxnews.com/sports/ioc-condemns-russia-breach-olympic-truce-invasion-ukraine-give-peace-chance and https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/sports/ioc-condemns-breach-olympic-truce-after-russia-invades-ukraine-2022-02-24/. Of these, not sure which ones are reliable and which ones aren't though. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Nah their good enough I think.Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• Primary source at IOC website: IOC STRONGLY CONDEMNS THE BREACH OF THE OLYMPIC TRUCE. Alexcalamaro (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

It actually started 7 years ago, Russia has funded the separatist terrorist groups in Ukraine

WP:SNOW closing this. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Maybe do more drepper research. You make it seem, like Russia hasn't been weakening their army for the last 7 years. Thats why so much US hardware has increased in volume the last 7 years. Personally thought it was gonna happen two years ago. 2600:100E:B03D:F435:42C3:89B7:6495:9196 (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC) This is about this invasion, not the wider conflict.Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC) 1. Like the above comment said, this is the invasion. And 2. what does US hardware have to do with this? Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2022 (4)

On sanctions, mention the following

British prime minister Boris Johnson stated that Russian flag carrier Aeroflot was banned from flying to the United Kingdom, which affected flights from Moscow to London. This also lead to Manchester United cutting their sponsorship ties with the company. 76.82.51.127 (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I do not think we need every sanction, as it happens. We can just say "as the conflict continued the UK increased its economic sanctions against Russia", and that covers us.Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Suggested addition: NATO's reaction

NATO's reaction has been added at time of archiving in the "international organizations" section. [11] Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Since the issue of Ukraine - NATO involvement is one of Russia's justification for the escalation of conflict before the invasion, I think NATO's reaction deserves its own section. Some articles of interest to begin with: - https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/nato-has-no-plans-send-troops-into-ukraine-stoltenberg-says-2022-02-24/ - https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_192401.htm FeliciaKrismanta (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC) References

"Invasion" in the title needs to be capitalized.

Titles look more sophisticated and better for readers when words are capitalized in it. "Of" is not a word in titles that should be capitalized, but "Invasion" is. Fadedmax (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

please read wp:mos, it does not look more sophisticated.Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) which discusses the issue in detail. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 17:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The time for the fall of Chernobyl doesn't make sense

Under the invasion section, it says:

"At 18:20 (UTC+2) it was confirmed by Ukrainian officials that Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant had fallen under the control of the Russians."

At time of posting this discussion, it is 18:09 UTC. I don't understand how Chernobyl could have fallen already if it's listed as having fallen 10+ minutes in the future.

I could be completely mistaken. This could have been a typo. This could've been a lot of things, but I know it's not 18:20 UTC on Feb 24 or later. 2601:18A:C080:8530:D418:2DE2:8EE6:32AA (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I think UTC+2 means its not 18:20 UTC.Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I guess the 18:20 time is in the UTC+2 timezone (so 16:20 in UTC+0). Kleinpecan (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

No actual official declaration of war by Russia?

Is that mostly just clickbait by news articles then? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

What is?Slatersteven (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Potaytoe, Potahtoh - Putin's speech about him ordering military action is the 'declaration of war' for all practical purposes. 50.111.36.47 (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

By this logic, the U.S. has never declared war since the Second World War. The wars in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan and many more all wouldn't count under this logic. —AFreshStart (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Date edit

Was it no Feb 22nd 2022 (11pm CST) that he first recognized and mobilized troops? And Feb 24th is when force started to be used. Should the date be edited to the start of mobilization? If so what time zone should we recognize the official news break so we can decide Feb 23rd or Feb 22nd to be the start? Or are we using Feb 24th as the official date due to use of force? 2600:1014:B02C:489D:D1D6:21BC:4A3A:5C7F (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Time on target?

There are multiple reports of simultaneous multiple explosions at sites across Ukraine minutes after Putin's televised speech. Keep a watch out for Time on target citations. If that is in fact the case, I don't think it's ever been done on this scale, at least not at the start of war. kencf0618 (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Biden's speech today said "moments" after Putin's speech - so that's one reported RS as far as what the U.S. President claimed. Whatever his sources are, I'm sure some dedicated editors will pursue ... 50.111.36.47 (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit conflicts...

... continue to be a big issue. The UI is a mess to figure things out, so I presume people just save, and then other people edit, and now regardless of where you revert to a lot of edits are lost. Not sure if there's any better ways to manage this problem on highly edited articles? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes its called wp:notnews we can wait, we do not need a live up dates. We can wait a day or a week.Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, there's extended confirmed protection for a year now, probably resolving at least a part of the issues. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)the irony:A reminder to users to try to edit in specific sections where possible, rather than editing the main article as a whole. That reduces edit conflicts. — Czello 18:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Media could be migrated

These appear to be made by VOA, as employees of US GOVT they are Public Domain:

• https://www.voanews.com/a/russia-launches-invasion-of-ukraine-with-multiple-cities-hit-in-initial-missile-strikes/6456841.html
• https://www.voanews.com/a/6457336.html

Victor Grigas (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 February 2022

Change “4 tanks destroyed” under Ukrainian claims section of Casualties and losses to “15+ tanks neutralized”

Source verified Ukrainian newspaper posting citing official state release: https://twitter.com/kyivpost/status/1496856597418725376?s=21 Markwardlaw (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I would rather we waitSlatersteven (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Needs to have a reliable source. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Should pages for individual battles be created?

While the invasion itself is rather new, there have bene various battles in Kharkiv, Chernobyl, Hostomel Airport, etc which I would consider worthy of their own pages even though there is scarce and developing info on them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jebiguess (talk • contribs) 19:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I would rather we wait, and not have 15 live news feeds running at once.Slatersteven (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

We are already having a substantial duplication of content problem. Pruning and splitting can be done later, after the events come to some kind of conclusion or denouement. There is no WP:HASTE. Focus on content here. I hoped I'd never have to revive this, but please see WP:FORK FORK. RGloucester — ☎ 19:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd agree, but not yet. Many current sources are inaccurate or contradicting each other. Lots of info aren't confirmed yet as well. Super Ψ Dro 19:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

There Needs to be an article made for the Airborne landing in Hostomel at least — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noaboatx (talk • contribs) 19:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 February 2022 (2)

I'd like to edit the Invasion section where CNN called Putin's claims baseless. I'd like to point out that this ins't only CNN, it's a consensus that Putin's claims are completely false and unfounded. Please change it to point that out. skelter (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Lucidum Hydra: If you wish someone to make this change, you'll need to provide the exact wording you wish them to use, with suitable citation(s). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

US deployments

yeah someone add something about this

https://time.com/6150266/troop-movements-ukraine-russia/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perfofficial (talk • contribs) 19:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian casualties

According to CNN (link), Ukraine's Minister of Healthcare Viktor Lyashko has confirmed at least 57 killed and 169 injured (combatants and non-combatants). Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 20:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft started

Moot discussion, draft is now the article List of military engagements during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and a talk page notification of that has been posted here. [12] Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I started a draft for the Draft:List of military engagements during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, similarly to the WW1/WW2 ones. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC) Request for editing? Trying to add information about the Turkish ship hit by Russian bomb a few hours ago WikiEditorPublicGood999 (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC) WikiEditorPublicGood999, you are free to add it. The list has no page protection. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 February 2022 (4)

Describe Dotnesk and Luhansk as breakaway regions of Ukraine in the introduction (basically change "Russia recognised the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic" to "Russia recognised the self-proclaimed *breakaway regions* or *breakaway states* of Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic") David Jiang (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppose - 'Self-proclaimed' has a similar meaning, and there's something to be said for brevity. Melmann 20:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Needs discussion so request template disabled. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Update on losses?1

Please update, thiz s is a n extremely terrible situation. Are there any sources that have an updated loss statistic? god save ukraine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegoodguyas (talk • contribs) 20:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The number of destroyed vehicles

There has been MUCH more armored vehicles destroyed on both sides, i know that its hard to find info on that but please do something about it, according to the ukrainians they destroyed 15 t72 tanks 2001:14BB:692:47E9:DD19:3E9D:311E:6E94 (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source. Melmann 21:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Conflicting times in various paragraphs

In the intro paragraph: "At about 03:00 UTC (06:00 Moscow time, UTC+3) ... Putin announced a military operation"

Later, in the Invasion section: "Shortly before 04:00 Moscow Time (UTC+3) on 24 February, Putin announced ... a military operation"

So, when did it happen? At 03:00 UTC or 01:00 UTC? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2610:148:610:2B0C:0:0:0:57 (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks like around 06:00. Thanks for bringing this up Benica11 (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Casualties

https://twitter.com/olex_scherba/status/1496947501626454017?s=21 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasakianox (talk • contribs) 21:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

A tweet by Ukraine's Ambassador to Austria (2014-2021). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Not a government source (anymore) and not a journalist. IMO, not a WP:RS. Melmann 21:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Polish Border

I heard (from an unreliable source) that Poland has opened its border with Ukraine completely, to everyone with a passport or not. Can someone look into this and add information to the page if needed? SwanX1 (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

On the official government website of Poland it says Ukrainian nationals can enter on the basis of visa-free movement: https://www.gov.pl/web/udsc/ukraina-en. The Polish version specifically mentions that the visa-free movement is allowed for owners of biometric passports (paszport biometryczny): https://www.gov.pl/web/udsc/ukraina2. Those without a passport need a permit or a visa, or a consent from the Commander in Chief of the Polish Border Guard, but this seems to be limited to short stays (15 days) based on this law https://lexlege.pl/ustawa-o-cudzoziemcach/art-32/. Swetroniusz (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Should be worth pointing out that the Slovak border is also open to those fleeing from Ukraine, including those without documentation, as seen on this official government website: https://www.minv.sk/?tlacove-spravy-2&sprava=aktualizacia-situacia-na-hranicnych-priechodoch-s-ukrajinou-hp-velke-slemence-v-prevadzke-od-piatka-od-8-hodiny. Rough translation from Slovak (via Google Translate) is "We allow entry to all people fleeing the war. After individual assessment, we will also allow entry to the territory of the Slovak Republic to persons who do not have a valid travel document" Junferno (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Government websites are primary sources - seems like the media rooms are already on fire trying to figure out what is happening. Are there any information for the borders with Hungary, Romania and Moldova? Juxlos (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Transnistria .

Discussion would be better suited to Template talk:Transnistria note. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
transnistria is recognized by south ossetia, abkhazia and artsakh (non recognized states), change the transnistria note thing to reflect that. EpicWikiLad (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC) That text is actually transcluded from Template:Transnistria note. You should probably take this up on that template's talk page. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Turkish ship attacked

Any clarification on who attacked the Turkish ship and whether it was an accident or intentional? Brookline Fire buff (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 February 2022 (5)

There is Bosnia in Non-lethal military supporters X THE HERO x (talk) 22:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@X THE HERO x Exactly what do you want to be changed? SwanX1 (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. BSMRD (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Map different

There is an annoying difference between the map that is displayed before clicking on it, and the one that is displayed after. Sarcasticeinstein (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

SWIFT

In Economic ramifications#24 February 2022, it is implied that the only few EU countries support the measure to exclude Russia from SWIFT are the Baltic countries and some others, when in fact, there are only four countries that are against it (Germany, Italy, Cyprus and Hungary), according to CNN. I think it is very important to clarify this in the paragraph. --KajenCAT (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The foreign ministers of the Baltic states, Poland and Ukraine called for Russia to be cut off from SWIFT, the global intermediary for banks' financial transactions. However, Germany, Hungary, Italy and Cyprus were reluctant, both because European lenders held most of the nearly $30 billion in foreign bank's exposure to Russia and because China has developed an alternative to SWIFT called CIPS; a weaponisation of SWIFT would provide greater impetus to the development of CIPS which in turn would weaken SWIFT as well as the West's control over international finance. Other leaders calling for Russia to be stopped from accessing SWIFT include Czech President Miloš Zeman and UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson. US President Joe Biden ruled out blocking Russia from SWIFT after the invasion began, claiming that some European countries remained opposed to the proposal. He argued that sanctions being put in place would exceed the impact of cutting Russia from SWIFT.

Bold would be what would have changed. --KajenCAT (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, please clarify. At least the Guardian recently didn't even include Hungary (but small Cyprus), I don't know what's newer, perhaps they changed their mind? Canada is in favor also, why is that even suggested to be a EU question? It's a global system, of nation states, EU or not EU doesn't matter much. When Biden said EU he probably meant Europe anyway, unfortunate but common. -82.83.169.119 (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't mean that the rest are in support. It means only six have expressed a position on the issue, that CNN was aware of at the time of writing and wanted to include in the article. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

“Russian aggression” in infobox

"Aggression" changed to "advancement" at time of closing.[13] This is more or less an edit request without a template so closing to declutter talk page. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
That seems quite biased, change it to “invasion” instead of aggression — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanished User 2157280005 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC) @Vanished User 2157280005 If it quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, and walks like a duck, it's probably a duck. Sarcasticeinstein (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC) Not sure what you mean given that the word "aggression" isn't in the infobox. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC) It was just changed a few minutes ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=1073835256&oldid=1073835240 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanished User 2157280005 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC) @Vanished User 2157280005: Makes sense, I'm going to close this thread as the issue seems to be resolved. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Image description currently in this article and the front page of Wikipedia possibly incorrect?

This image has been described as showing a missile strike site however the damage is incredibly minimal for what I would expect from a missile with no crater and I came across a video showing this exact scene but earlier in the morning closer to when the invasion began as it was still dark outside and before the wreckage of the missle was supposedly removed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I98Pt5sAh7s

Apparently it is the impact site of a discarded booster from a cruise missile, or is a "Kh-31, anti-radiation missile launched by planes with goal to destroy radars"? TheBestEditorInEngland (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

List of military engagements during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

Just so people are aware, the list article has been started and articles for three battles exist: Battle of Chernobyl, Battle of Snake Island & Battle of Antonov Airport. All three are stubs currently. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Elijahandskip Wikipedia has moved faster than the Russian army. Sarcasticeinstein (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Bloated "See also" section

The "see also" section is very bloated. I recommend removing "Invasion of Kuwait" and the articles regarding the equipment of the armies. Nordostsüdwest (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Article title

Before I start a big RM about this, is there a reason why the word Russian is needed in the title? That seems like an unnecessary disambiguation, as there has been no other invasion of Ukraine in 2022. (Note: 2022 invasion of Ukraine currently redirects here.) InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd imagine it's for consistency with the other entries at List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 02:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 February 2022 (7) Changing Belarus to a belligerent

The State Border Guard Service of Ukraine alleges that Belarusian soldiers are involved as belligerents in the invasion. I suggest Belarus is changed from a supporter of the invasion to an (alleged) or (disputed) belligerent in the infobox.

The English language source is here: https://www.ft.com/content/5b423554-6ce9-49fe-b74c-da41298b565f#post-a3716370-c77a-4e93-9973-f17a0114c8b5 (Title "Ukraine’s border guard says Belarus troops with Russians in attacks") Lluq (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Let's await third party confirmation for clarity, as an "alleged" or "disputed" structure would be more confusing than the current, potentially inaccurate, phrasing. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

ISS

Just please include USA President threated the Billionaires of Russia, and Russia Cosmonaut said the ISS could felt see https://www.abendblatt.de/ratgeber/wissen/article234665831/Russland-warnt-USA-Wer-wird-ISS-vor-Absturz-bewahren.html --90.186.219.179 (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Outdated

Someone fucking update this page, it is many hours out of date, nothing matches current reports. 98.167.54.3 (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Is there anything particular that should be updated? Editors here try to keep it up to date but this type of comment is less-than-helpful. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Current reports on social media or a ticker website are not entirely reliable. It’s better to be 24 hours late than to be wrong. A lot of social media reports were confidently talking about an amphibious landing in Odessa or a mass paratrooper drop near Kiev (well there’s that helicopter assault I guess). Juxlos (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about what those reports are? Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 02:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 February 2022

Per the Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs, all men aged 18-60 are prohibited from leaving Ukraine for the duration of the martial law period. Source: https://mvs.gov.ua/uk/news/shhodo-obmezen-v-peretini-kordonu-na-viyizd-z-ukrayini-okremoyu-kategorijeyu-gromadyan (in Ukrainian)

Please add this information following "died on the first day of the invasion." at the end of the February 24 subsection of the "Invasion" heading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SrikTLG (talk • contribs) 00:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done Benica11 (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 February 2022 (2)

Changing the number of tanks, armoured vehicles and helicopters destroyed as reported by the ukrainian military TheHaloVeteran2 (talk) 00:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Got a source? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 02:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Anonymous Involvement

Anonymous has declared cyberwar on Russia, therefore should be added as a billegerent 86.19.183.42 (talk) 01:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@86.19.183.42 Anonymous is the pinnacle of chaotic good. Sarcasticeinstein (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

A couple guys hacking Russian frontend websites and listening into radio broadcasts anyone with basic equipment can get isn’t a material addition. Check again if anonymous manages to crash a few russian jets. Juxlos (talk) 01:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I also declared war on Russia why aren't I listed as a belligerent?Majortarkin(talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

You're not listed as a belligerent because you're an individual, not a country, and you also don't meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. A diehard editor Editing Wikipedia too much rn, talk to me here, bruh. 04:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The map is still wrong

The legend for the green says ‘Ukraine’ as if that was the whole of it. --Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 02:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

List of cities occupied by Russia

Hi

Do you have the full list? We could show the list here or create a category.--Panam2014 (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Add to Italian Wikipedia

Please add https://it.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasione_russa_dell%27Ucraina_del_2022 this element to this Wikipedia. 5.91.57.224 (talk) 02:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

What? It's unclear what you want to be done to this article on this Wikipedia. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 02:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Date invasion started not the 24th

Article starts by noting that invasion began in the 24th but it began days earlier when Russia entered eastern Ukraine and simply kept going. This is not two offensives separated by time but rather all one move. Russia identifying parts of Ukraine independent does *not* make them no longer Ukraine. Invasion began the moment troops crossed the Russian boarder, not when it was announced that the troops would continue west. 69.36.65.254 (talk) 02:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The invasion began on the 24th per Ukraine, Russia, and every other source. Lightspecs (talk) 02:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Most WP:reliable sources describe it as beginning on the 24th. We can't substitute our own judgement for theirs. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 02:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

4:24 explosions seen and heard in Kiev

25th February, 4:24 local time (UTC+2): for several minutes explosions could be seen and heard via fourth camera on live stream on YT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIPNVm6lNfM

In the meantime Pakistan PM Imran Khan met Russian President Vladimir Putin

Some details here: What the Russia-Ukraine Crisis Means for South Asia

Ignisāra (talk) 03:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Grammar edit request on first sentence of first paragraph.

In the first sentence of the first paragraph, "On 24 February 2022" should be corrected to "On the 24th of February, 2022" Bucket of Lard (talk) 03:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done this article uses dmy format so it is correct. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 03:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Add this Wikisource page

This Wikisource page should be added to the page, either in External Links or in the part about Zelensky's speech to the Russian people against war.

97.107.179.62 (talk) 03:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done Benica11 (talk) 03:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 February 2022 (3)

Can we get an update on the casualties? Per the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine: https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1497037374571917344

🔊 Deputy Minister of Defense of Ukraine Hanna Malyar informs:

Estimated losses of the enemy as of 03:00 25.02.2022
Aircraft 7 units
Helicopters 6 units
Tanks - more than 30 units.
BBM - 130 units.

The loss of enemy personnel is approximately (to be specified) 800 people. 2601:881:8401:27D0:B5F9:A62D:9400:AB6F (talk) 03:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Can you provide a more reliable source for the casualties? A tweet isn't considered very reliable. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 03:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

This tweet is from an account that is pointed to by the official page of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine. See the upper right corner of the page. https://www.mil.gov.ua/en/ Scatophaga (talk) 04:20, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done userdude 04:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Tanks and armored vehicles lost?

Can you say anything about the vehicles lost? 2601:18A:1:7580:3DBA:7B26:C914:664D (talk) 03:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 February 2022 (3)

At protests section :

Pro-Ukrainian protests have occurred at several of Russia's embassies abroad, including those in Armenia,[291] Bulgaria,[292] Belgium,[293] Hungary,[294] Iceland,[295] Ireland,[296] Moldova,[297] the Netherlands,[298] Romania,[299] the United Kingdom,[300] and the United States.[301]

There's no Germany, whilst the picture depicting a protest in Berlin. Also, available source to cite: https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-russia-conflict-protests-in-berlin/g-60885890 FeliciaKrismanta (talk) 03:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 03:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Separate casualties

Separate casualties of russian armed forces and the two rebel nations instead of putting all casualties as one 73.46.175.75 (talk) 03:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 February 2022 (4)

Around 4AM local time on February 25, Kyiv was rocked with two explosions. https://www.twitter.com/AFP/status/1497039378778320896

Ukrainian Interior Ministry official Anton Herashchenko relayed via Telegram that those explosions were cruise and ballistic missiles being targeted at Kyiv once more. https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1497044255864688640

Requesting these additions to the February 25th subsection of "Invasion." SrikTLG (talk) 03:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@SrikTLG can you provide a more reliable source than Twitter? If you can find a news source then I'll add it. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 03:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Yep, here: https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/24/europe/ukraine-russia-invasion-friday-intl-hnk/index.html This CNN report also provides information that Russian forces entering from Belarus are less than 20 miles from Kyiv. SrikTLG (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 04:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Rocket strike casualty update

Don't have time personally but the current death/casualty count is no longer accurate what w/ the new battle outcomes and attacks. If anyone can find local news sources that'd be great- otherwise, it should be more clearly noted that the statistics change rapidly and may be outdated (this is already in the active war banner but it should be reiterated in the data section). 2601:801:202:49E0:A911:85A2:ADD8:FC27 (talk) 04:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Why should it be reiterated? It's at the top of the page and applies to everything including the infobox. Wikipedia is not a news outlet and lags behind everyone else with intent. It'll be updated eventually, but thanks for the note. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)