Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine

Link to closed and archived RfC: Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox?

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

---

(The heading above is a link to the archived RFC as it is significant and I'm assuming this will be discussed more while not cluttering the talk page with a 29 page discussion Phiarc (talk) 08:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC))

Same link: Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox? --N8_wilson 12:19, 20 March 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.

RfC on "Supported by" in the infobox for Ukraine

Should we add "Supported by" for Ukraine in the infobox to list the countries providing military aid? --Mindaur (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC

• Comment WP:RFCNEUTRAL is a requirement, and it is not met here. Please reformat your opening statement to actually ask a question (and only that), not justify your position. BSMRD (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment WP:RFCNEUTRAL. The RFC needs to specify if the support is military aid, financial aid, humanitarian aid, etc, by type of aid. The most basic type of relation between friendly nations is the military alliance, followed by prior treaties and agreements, followed by favored nation status for trade. The RFC needs to specify if it is only interested in "Western military aid" or the other types of aid as well. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support' Why not, it shows just how isolated Russia is. It shows that even previously neutral nations now condemn them. Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
• Question Mzajac, in a thread above, you stated: No. Allowing a state to use your territory for a war of aggression is an illegal act of international aggression, according to the UN’s definition. Allowing weapons transfers by commercial sale or donation is not, whether a party is at war or not. Could you please provide your sourcing for this statement as it would seem very pertinent to this RfC. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Cinderella157: Allowing the aggressor state to use your territory (i.e. be a "proxy") is illegal per United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314; it also defined as aggression by the Rome Statute. Meanwhile, Article 51 of the UN Charter enshrines the right to self-defense, explicitly including the collective self-defence.

  However, I do not think these legal aspects are relevant to the RfC question. Mindaur (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  UNGA Res. 29/3314, Definition of Aggression, Article 3:[1] “Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of article 2, qualify as an act of aggression: . . . (f) The action of a State in allowing its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State.” —Michael Z. 14:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  This illegal act of aggression goes beyond “supporting” aggression. Belarus ought to be listed as a belligerent. —Michael Z. 14:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  Agree. Mindaur (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  • Follow-up Question: And what (if anything) is said as to countries supplying lethal military hardware specifically and more generally various other types of "support" (non lethal equipment, humanitarian aid or sanctions etc)? Cinderella157 (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

    What is said where? In the UN’s Definition of Aggression? Maybe you should read it over, but I don’t think it defines what belongs in “supported by” for the purpose of Wikipedia conflict infoboxes. It doesn’t even define who is a belligerent, only who is an aggressor, which I believe is self-evidently also a belligerent. —Michael Z. 01:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support adding "Supported by" for Ukraine in the infobox to list those providing military aid as per template established in other Wikipedia infoboxes on conflicts throughout history where arms were provided to a belligerent even though the providing country did not engage in the conflict directly, but was for the benefit of defeating the other belligerent. But do not list all 30 countries listed at List of foreign aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War, because that list includes those who have "pledged" to provide aid, but haven't actually yet provided it. Only those who have already been confirmed to have provided should be listed under "Supported by". EkoGraf (talk) 12:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support, but don't add NATO and the EU, add the individual countries confirmed to have delivered weapons instead. Super Ψ Dro 13:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose for three reasons. (a) They only provide hardware. Of course they could provide more, like modern aircraft staffed by contractors or volunteers, but they did not do even that. (b) That would be 40+ countries, they would clog the infobox. (c) That would be an implicit misinformation along the line of Russian propaganda, i.e. the false claim about "proxy conflict". My very best wishes (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  @My very best wishes: A few counter-points:

  • Regarding (a) and "only hardware": Ukrainian Armed Forces demonstrated incredible will to fight, resilience and professionalism. However, it is evident that the initial supply of weapons (and intelligence) by the West played a significant role in enabling the resistance. It is now entering another phase, where the West have begun supplying heavy weapons (US organized conference at the Ramstein Air Base with 40 countries participating signifies that) and that will have a major implications in Ukraine's ability to not only resist but potentially launch counter-offensives.
  • Re (b): We don't need to list all countries; I propose to include only the main contributors, including the EU and NATO and then add an interlink for other states.
  • Re (c): It doesn't matter; we make decisions based on WP:RS, WP:DUE, WP:N, etc. Russian disinformation is already beyond delusional anyway.

  -- Mindaur (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  (a) yes, sure, the delivery of weapons makes a lot of difference in all wars, but it does not warrant including the suppliers as "supporting countries" of field "belligerents". (b) OK, this is a good solution, but that should not appear in the field of "belligerents"; (c) I am saying that our infobox would be POV and as such would misled the reader in context of the currently happening misinformation. My very best wishes (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  It's not POV, it's just stating the obvious reality. Some people lock themselves on the fact that Ukraine doesn't have formal allies (a binding treaty) or that NATO doesn't send troops to defend it. However, in that case these countries would unequivocally be belligerent. We are talking about support here (specifically, the porposal is about military aid): over 100 pieces of heavy artillery, tanks, missiles, etc -- it's exactly that, it's material, it's substantial, it's major. Why ignore that? -- Mindaur (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  We are not ignoring it; there is a section about it on the page. However, such assistance is difficult to properly summarize in the lead, see comments just below. Do we include Turkey? This is a slippery slope. Should we include France and Germany as suppliers for Russia [2]? My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  Is My very best wishes stating that it would be better to include the explanation just provided about 'only provide hardware' as a separate section in the article. That Ukraine has no formal allies since Ukraine is not a part of NATO or the EU? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  It's false to say only hardware is provided. The US military itself has begun training Ukrainian troops. Its intelligence service has also provided location information that has helped kill a dozen or so Russian senior officers. CurryCity (talk) 05:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment There is a wide range of things that could be considered support, the distinctions carry significant political weight, and have determined whether they cross certain parties’ red lines. For example:
  1. Belarus has committed aggression against Ukraine, according to the UN definition, by allowing aggression against Ukraine from its territory, including missile attacks and military incursion. (It should be listed as a belligerent, not a supporter.)
  2. Before the open invasion on February 22/24, there was a distinction between defensive and other lethal aid. This seems to be no longer discussed since.
  3. There is a distinction between lethal and non-lethal military aid, e.g., weapons versus body armour, military hospitals, training, intelligence.
  4. There is a distinction between military aid, that is gifts or grants, and commercial sales. Even in peacetime commercial sales of arms normally require political approval.
  5. Relevant to that, there is the question of permission by originating states in weapons transfers. E.g., Germany prevented the transfer by Czechia and the Netherlands of armoured vehicles to Ukraine because they had historically come from Germany, citing the principal of not providing weapons to a conflict. Germany has dropped this restriction, and now looks to be ready to start sending its own armoured vehicles and weapons.
  6. There is a distinction between military aid and humanitarian aid.
  7. There are states participating in sanctions against one side or the other.
  8. There are states, organizations, and individuals respecting sanctions out of fear of getting hit by secondary sanctions, e.g., some Chinese banks and businesses refusing to do business in the Russian Federation for fear of getting sanctioned for supporting sanctioned entities, because they value their business in the West.

  We need to set a threshold as to what constitutes “support.” I am not sure if, for example, Turkey is a military supporter because it sells Ukraine the dramatically useful Bayraktar TB2 drones, because politically has tried to play the role of mediator. Similarly, France, Germany, and other EU states seem to have provided more military technology to the Russian Federation than to Ukraine up to this point (at least to 2020).[3] —Michael Z. 15:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  I'd stick with what we did for the "Prelude to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" article, primarily focusing on lethal military aid; the label can be "Arms suppliers". Mindaur (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  Do you mean giving Ukraine lethal weapons as aid, including only defensive lethal weapons, but not selling Ukraine lethal weapons commercially? So, not giving Ukraine unarmed armoured vehicles, not giving it spare parts to bring jet fighters back into service, not giving it counterbattery radar, night-vision devices, reconnaissance drones, training, or military intelligence (which may include enemy plans and locations of enemy units, enabling their destruction).

  Seems reasonable. But then the article should make clear how “supported by” is defined. Then that is “arms donators” or equivalent? —Michael Z. 01:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose For all the reasons offered by My very best wishes. It is also not clear what is proposed, but regardless, various kinds of aid, including sanctions, financial, humanitarian and commercial and 'gifted/lend-lease' harware, so it would be difficult to regulate this in a coherent fashion. I believe a considerable amount of Ukr hardware is actually inherited from Soviet Union days, so we would thus have the absurdity of Ukr being aided by Russia (and vice versa?). The whole subject is better handled in text or in a related article. Pincrete (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment In response to arguments by editors that arms suppliers do not qualify as support for Ukraine, but Belarus should be listed as in support of Russia by aiding the "aggression" against Ukraine... I would quote the president of the United States who himself said just today that they are aiding Ukraine in its defense or the UK ministers from the past few days that the intent is to even push out Russia out of Crimea and diminish its military. So, I think the intent is quite clear. Belarus in support of Russia by providing the staging ground, most NATO/EU countries in support of Ukraine by providing arms and heavy equipment since the start of the invasion. Further, even though I don't object to listing Belarus in support of Russia in the infobox, there is more of an argument to list Western support of Ukraine, which is quite notable. And I would once again remind that we have added "Supported by" countries who provided arms only in various conflicts throughout the last century in our articles. Finally, any previous arms provided by France, Germany etc to Russia or Ukraine before the invasion is unrelated to why they are providing it NOW (intent). EkoGraf (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The weapons provided to Ukraine during the invasion still play a negligible role in the conflict. For example, the recent supply of 155mm artillery only adds 1% more to Ukraine's current artillery inventory. Furthermore adding countries such as the U.S. U.K. and other European nations to the infobox would play into the Kremlin rhetoric that Russia is fighting with the west, instead of with Ukraine. Viewsridge (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
  • "The weapons provided to Ukraine during the invasion still play a negligible role in the conflict." In the expressed opinion of the US President their arms support was what made the Russian military withdraw from Kyiv. EkoGraf (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  "Negligible role in the conflict" - that is simply not true. I could write an essay on this (incl. why 155 mm is significant in several ways and "1% more" is nonsense), but we would be delving deep into off-topic and discussions on military capabilities. Let's stick with WP:RS on WP:DUE/WP:N judgement; I already provided multiple sources: [4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. Mindaur (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  I don’t think the magnitude of the effect is key at all. Whether the USA supports with $33B in aid or a tiny postage-stamp country supports with the $6.99 and a box of first aid kits that it can scrounge up, it is still a concrete commitment to support (however we define it).

  But you are right that the wording must give the right impression about and define exactly what “supported by” really means (regardless of the number of states listed). —Michael Z. 18:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose for same reasons as last time, which include content problems, MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE issues, and mobile accessibility issues. I'm amenable to a German Wikipedia-like solution, where we add "(supported with foreign aid from other states)". ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Would accept the German-like solution. EkoGraf (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment US Congress passed the Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act of 2022: [11] [12]. It again illustrates the increasing scale of support for Ukraine. The revival of Lend-Lease is historic. --Mindaur (talk) 10:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Support

I rely on past Wikipedia articles as historical precedent on how things are normally done on Wikipedia without political motives changing.

Wikipedia articles that show weapon and other forms of suppliers under "supported by" Iran–Iraq War, Yom Kippur War, Nigerian Civil War, Vietnam War, Soviet–Afghan War

NATO is not only providing weapons but also electronic, recon and intelligence support.

ELINT is electronic intelligence and the US claimed they were doing it when the Moskva was sunk: https://www.nsa.gov/portals/75/documents/about/cryptologic-heritage/historical-figures-publications/publications/misc/elint.pdf

I think that we shouldn't make an exception to this article because it might not align with our political agendas or point of view. Ahm1453 (talk) 11:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Mainly per U|My very best wishes. There is clearly a big distinction between the support offered by Belarus which crosses a clear line and the assistance provided by countries to assist Ukraine or oppose Russia. There is also nuance to the type of assistance that cannot be simply captured in an infobox. An abbreviated listing would be misleading and a detailed listing would be contrary to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, which is to be a summary of key points - detail ≠ summary. The infobox is an adjunct to the lead, not a replacement and the article should not be written in the infobox. In consequence, WP:NOTEVERYTHING therefore particularly applies to an infobox. A bloated infobox also causes WP:ACCESSIBILITY issues - particularly for mobile users. The necessary detail is summarised in the lead and presented in the body of the article. That is sufficient and best meets our obligations under WP:P&G (IMO). There are some arguments here, that we need to show the support for Ukraine. While well intended, these are not NEAUTRAL. WP needs to be dispassionate and apartisan - writing at arm's length from the subject. There are also arguments the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a mandate. The argument does not consider the individual cases and why it may or why it may not be appropriate in one case but not another - it is a broad-brush assertion. More particularly, it does not consider whether this "otherstuff is "best practice". Few parent articles for modern-era conflicts since World War II have reached GA status or better (to my knowledge) - certainly neither the Korean War nor the Vietnam War. But ultimately, "best practice" goes back to conformity with WP:P&G (such as WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE). Unless one can show that this "otherstuff" is "best practice" (and in my observation it isn't) and the circumstances are similar, then an argument that appeals to "otherstuff" is unsound. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
• Current Events. There is an emerging consensus in news sources currently in motion that the correct reference might be to the USA with its 40 Allied nations forming a coalition to provide economic support along with military supplies and refitting to Ukraine for its battle with Russia here in "US and allies gather at Ramstein to discuss how to help Ukraine defeat Russia’s ‘unjust invasion’". The link to one of the latest articles is in "Stars and Stripes" under the title I have just quoted, BY JOHN VANDIVER AND JENNIFER H. SVAN • STARS AND STRIPES • APRIL 26, 2022. Link here: [13]. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with using the German Wikipedia solution of adding "(supported with foreign aid from other states)".

- I get that adding NATO etc. as belligerents is the Russian narrative, and I'm as pro-Ukraine as anyone, but realistically, the West is supporting Ukraine, and IMO it's WP:ADVOCACY not to have something about the West's support in the infobox. A link to List of foreign aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War is the solution IMO. Shimbo (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support' but only to list those states that provide direct lethal military aid. No political support and such things. Also avoid using supranational bodies like EU or NATO since support for Ukraine differ in scope and type from state and state.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

  The EU as an organization has also provided military support directly.[14] I don’t think NATO has to date. —Michael Z. 18:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Per My very best wishes. Belligerents should only list belligerents; there's far too many fine gradations of what 'support' can mean that will be flattened by a list of countries. --RaiderAspect (talk) 07:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support Agree with Ahm1453 and Mindaur in general, also specifically because "the United States military" is now training "Ukrainian troops" and there's been "a stark shift from Western support for Ukraine [...] focused now on delivering heavy weaponry and not only defensive system." If on the off-chance listing becomes too long, we can partially shorten or link. CurryCity (talk) 04:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC) NYT reports that direct assistance from US and Western intelligence services helped Ukraine successfully attack senior Russian officers, whose heavy losses astonished analysts. US goal has shifted to weakening and deterring Russia for the long term per statement by Def Sec Lloyd Austin. Even though I voted against in a previous RfC, events have since escalated. updated 07:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support List the individual countries who have provided lethal military support to Ukraine. That would maintain a neutral point of view--Waters.Justin (talk) 02:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - per My very best wishes. While there is a somewhat dubious tendency to add increasingly long "supported by" lists to infoboxes, there is no rule requiring to do so, and managing such list with huge number of supporters this conflict has would create whole a lot of issues for minimal benefit.--Staberinde (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose - Per My very best wishes. Only list belligerents who have made a formal declaration of war. Also as Cinderella157 noted, there is clearly a big distinction between the support offered by Belarus which crosses a clear line and the assistance provided by countries to assist Ukraine or oppose Russia. FobTown (talk) 02:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

  Nobody has made a formal declaration of war. EkoGraf (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. For those unaware, Belligerent, Co-belligerent and Non-belligerent each have brief WP articles. In my reading of them, many of the countries supporting Ukr fit most appropriately in the "Non-belligerent" categorization because the nature of their support most closely matches the examples provided in that article. If that reading is correct, naming these countries under the "Belligerent" section of the IB would be misleading and inaccurate and should be avoided. The "German-like" solution creatively finds a way to detach named nations from the belligerent label however and it might be acceptable. --N8_wilson 18:00, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Basically, vague, POV and inappropriate for infobox. Volunteer Marek 18:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

References

• Oppose The list is quite large, and it would clog the infobox. CheeseInTea (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)CheeseInTea
• Support If providing intelligence, training, money, military equipment and sanctions against Russia is not support, I don't know what is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:1A3F:C906:438F:6037:998B:43DF (talk) 12:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Comment the above comment by an Ip geolocated in Germany sounds a bit dubious to me, said IP never edited Wiki before, and their first ever edit is here ...---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose The West is only providing money and some light weapons.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Mearsheimer

Not a word about Mearsheimer's take on the conflict? 2001:B07:646B:4D36:FDE4:1A7B:6912:9FA0 (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

We do not mention all kinds of peoples take on it, why should we include his? Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Because it's opposite to most ad it has had quite a wide resonance.

That probably belongs to page Disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis, not to this page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, good idea. Put it there. 93.45.56.11 (talk) 16:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

View that PDF and scroll down to the chart that shows most experts disagree with Mearsheimer. Maybe that’s why. Although he is an important scholar, his views on Ukraine do not represent the academic consensus. Russian propaganda has really been pushing Mearsheimer videos and interviews on social media because they serve its purposes when sound bites are presented without context. (But it counts on you not reading very much of that PDF, because Mearsheimer keeps repeating that the Russian Federation is a declining power that will keep getting weaker.)

Here’s a couple of critiques of Mearsheimer: [15][16]  —Michael Z. 16:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, just as they say, the article by Mearsheimer is full of contradictions, and he just repeats some "arguments" by Putin. Of course one could criticize Western countries (and especially Germany), but that would be not for expanding NATO, but for supporting in many ways the regime in Russia before the invasion. Putin is exactly same man as he was in 2000, and he was preparing this invasion since 2014 or possibly earlier. My very best wishes (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

There are a lot of contradictions around the topic, if something was said by Putin it doesn't make it the exact opposite of truth. What about "assurances that NATO would not expand eastward, although any such alleged pledges, if real, were made informally, and their nature is disputed"? US National Security Archive begs to differ: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early 128.106.218.149 (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Slovakia does not operate any SU-25s

In the "Foreign military sales and aid" section, there is a mention of Slovakia having SU-25s with which it could supply Ukraine. However, that source is incorrect, Slovakia does not operate any SU-25s since ~2002 and sold most of them to Armenia in ~2004. Here's a wiki page detailing every Slovak SU-25s and what happened to them (though it is only in Slovak). There's also a List of Sukhoi Su-25 operators Standa-SK (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

er. I don't suppose you have handy a reference for the sale? I did notice this mention earlier, and didn't question it to go look at the reference, but if you're right this should be fixed. Elinruby (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Source for the mention of SU-25s is "Weber, Peter (28 February 2022). "EU nations intend to supply Ukraine with fighter jets, foreign policy chief says". The Week. Archived from the original on 1 March 2022. Retrieved 28 February 2022."; The Week is a decent source but I am waaay outside my scope of knowledge. Is there somebody who speaks Slovak that could look at this? Standa-SK, is the statement on the Slovak Wikipedia referenced? And if so by whom? 11:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Best I could find is this article from the Slovak Ministry of Defense or this article from SME. At least one of the SU-25s sold to Armenia was shot down during the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war. As for the statements in the Slovak Wikipedia article, they are all sourced to valka.cz. Standa-SK (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

mmm well that valka forum won’t fly as a reliable source, I don’t think. I do see that the list of Sukoi operators does not include Slovakia, but again, that’s not an RS. On the other hand, while your MOD and SME articles both go to the same news agency article, it does look reliable, although, again, we are way outside any area where I can claim expertise. So I might be willing to believe that Slovakia sold 10 of these jets to Albania but do we know how many they had to begin with? Still, Slovakia’s participation, or not, is fairly peripheral in this article. It might be best to just remove that part of the sentence, on the principle of first do no harm. Anyone else have an opinion? Elinruby (talk) 01:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Elinruby, the section reads: EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell stated that the EU intended to supply Ukraine with fighter jets. Bulgaria, Poland, and Slovakia had MiG-29s, and Slovakia also had Su-25s, aircraft which Ukraine already flew and which could be transferred without pilot training. However, the planes' owners were reluctant to donate weapons critical for their own territorial defences, and feared that Russia could view it as an act of war if jets fly from their air bases to fight over Ukraine. This section is describing an "intention". It fails WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:NOTNEWS. As to the more specific question (questionable clam re Slovakia), the is WP:ONUS. Strike the lot IMHO. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)  Done Cinderella157 (talk) 02:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

ok thanksElinruby (talk) 07:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Leaders in infobox

I recall that in the early days of the war, the 'leaders' portion of the infobox included more than just Putin and Zelenskyy. Somewhere in March other figures like Mishustin, Shoigu etc were removed. Obviously not every general of politician should be included, but why the change? I haven't seen any infobox show just the heads of state before Rousillon (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is a summary of key points of the article - ie it is supported by text in the body of the article. Any commanders with no mention or only a passing mention in the body of the article are not prominent in the context of the article and are not included for that reason. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Whether or not they're discussed at length in the articles, they're still prominent in the context of the invasion. I am not saying this infobox should include the unimportant low-ranking politicians or commanders, but it should include the figures who do have important roles in this war (like Shoigu, Gerasimov, Dvornikov, Kadyrov, Zaluzhniy, Reznikov). As is standard in most other infoboxes such as this. It just seems odd to only list Putin and Zelenskyy (and even if it's only supposed to be heads of state, it ignores Pushilin and Pasechnik)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rousillon (talk • contribs) 12:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

See infoboxes at Kyiv offensive (2022), Northeastern Ukraine offensive, etc. I was able to locate Gerasimov and Zaluzhniy displayed under "leaders" there and I expect the other leaders are similarly covered where relevant. Per Cinderella157, this is just organization and appropriate summary technique to parallel the article prose. --N8_wilson 20:16, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Resistance in the lead

Hi! It seems to me that the article lacks a mention to the role of the Ukrainian resistance in the lead and focuses almost exclusively on the Russian action. If I well remember it once said something like "Russian troops met stiff resistance and logistical problems that hampered their progress," is there a reason behind its removal? FilBenLeafBoy (Let's talk!) 00:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

International press has been covering this as a Russian invasion with Ukraine applying a strategy of bunker defenses, siege defenses, and trench warfare defensive tactics to impede Russian advances. The Russian actions are usually documented first since they are the ones determining where the invasion is expanding the military front of Russia's attacks. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

US assessment of nuclear weapons

The US stated last week that it does not believe Russia will use nuclear weapons or attack NATO territory, in spite of Russian statements. https://www.reuters.com/world/us-sees-no-threat-russia-using-nuclear-weapons-despite-rhetoric-official-2022-04-29/ Possibly applicable to the nuclear weapons use section. Overlasting Peace (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Article section seems to have moved forward to May references rather than the April reference which you link. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine all alone

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

---

The fact that this page still does not show that Ukraine is supported by other countries is so fricking ridiculous. It serves no purpose other than to push an agenda. I mean it is not even a matter of denial of support, Ukraine is openly supported by western allies with weapons, training, and intelligence. Why is it even up for debate whether they should be shown as supporting or not? It is plainly misleading and dishonest to show it as it is. 142.184.180.208 (talk) 06:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Please see A2 in the FAQ at the top of the page; a discussion already took place regarding this. — Czello 08:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia has long become a monument for editor biases and double standards. HangaMiJyang (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Single purpose account. See Czello above. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:54, 7 May 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.

NATO RESPONSE/INVOLVEMENT

I believe that NATO involvement in the war has helped Ukraine get an upper hand, and I think it should be mentioned. Here are some sources to back up my point:

https://www.msn.com/en-xl/europe/europe-top-stories/russia-plays-down-nuclear-war-talk-after-us-ambassador-chides-nato/ar-AAWZk6M?ocid=BingNewsSearch

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/after-nato-weapons-u-s-intelligence-shines-for-ukraine/ar-AAWZKc3?ocid=BingNewsSearch

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-ambassador-to-u-s-says-nato-not-taking-nuclear-war-threat-seriously/ar-AAWXLkL?ocid=BingNewsSearch

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/sweden-and-finland-nato-membership-could-be-approved-in-just-2-weeks-e2-80-94report/ar-AAWUFoQ?ocid=BingNewsSearch

Please excuse my bad citing, I am still working on it. BadKarma22 (talk) 03:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, what section would this be added under? BadKarma22 (talk) 04:55, 7 May 2022 (UTC) BadKarma22 (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

NATO has taken the position of 'no boots on the ground' and 'no planes in the air' to support Ukraine. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

There is already a section for this. See 2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Foreign_military_support NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

NATO, as an organisation, has provided very little in the way of direct support to Ukraine and is mainly focused preventing an escalation by bolstering the defence in neighboring countries. It is NATO countries, not NATO as an organization, that are supplying arms and other support to Ukraine. Obscurasky (talk) 10:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I originally intended to add this to the Russo-Ukraine War page and didn't check this article. I apologize. However, I think we could still mention the US intelligence contribution. BadKarma22 (talk) 01:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I was also using NATO as an umbrella term. BadKarma22 (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I would add to the page the ramification of the conflict in terms of the change in the geopolitical situation in the scandinavian peninsula, today the uk and finland signed a mutual security agreement to protect eachother, quite a strong sign that finland is almost certainly going to join nato.

Russia launching nukes?

Can someone, anyone, explain the point of 2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Potential_Russian_use_of_tactical_nuclear_weapons? It's a long section devoid of any substance at all. A bunch of speculation about whether Russia will use nuclear weapons, most recently a denial from Russia, mixed in with extended (yet predictable) quotes from Zelensky about the suitability of Russia as a responsible nuclear weapons state due to apparent contamination concerns (which–if actual–should come from scientists if anything, not from politicians). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

There are too many comments from multiple world leaders fully cited in that section. Its not just Zelenskyy, and it looks like William Burns of the CIA has commented, Sergei Lavrov has commented for Russia, Antony Blinken for the State Department, John Kirby for the Pentagon, and others. Each of these names has a Wikipedia article for their biographies, and it seems to be a non-trivial discussion involving Russia as a nuclear power. That seems to be more than "predictable quotes from Zelenskyy". ErnestKrause (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

But it still is all just speculation, maybe one paragraph, but that is it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

World leaders have made a million comments on a million issues since Feb. If Russia doesn't use nukes, this stuff will be a footnote in 10 years time. If nukes are used, then it will be significant. So far, no nukes are used, and there's no realistic prospect of them being used. We write articles for the long term, we aren't a news ticker. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

They have used nukes though. Nuclear weapons have two uses, one is destruction, and the other use is the threat of destruction. Every time Russia threatens to go nuclear it is using the weapons, this is one of their main uses. It also has fundamentally re-calibrated the conflict, western nations are obsessed with the threat and go to pain staking lengths to avoid escalation; such caution was in short supply when NATO helped end the Serbian genocide in Bosnia. I also disagree with the idea that this will be a footnote, Russia's using of nuclear weapons to create an umbrella around the Ukrainian conflict is noticed world wide and has smashed nuclear non-proliferation.[17][18] 2804:14C:8781:8673:DF9D:44EE:7D88:C1A8 (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Intel

Please add: "The CIA provided intelligence that helped Ukrainian forces locate and strike the flagship of Russia’s Black Sea fleet. The targeting help, which contributed to the eventual sinking of the Moskva, is part of a continuing classified effort by the Biden administration to provide real-time battlefield intelligence to Ukraine."

reference: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/05/05/us-intelligence-ukraine-moskva-sinking --91.54.19.14 (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Equipment Losses should be listed as clearly as possible

Why are there no wikipedia articles detailing equipment losses?

Numbers can never be 100% accurate, but for instance there's been 7 provable downings of a TB-2 Bayraktar Drone used by the UA Air Force occuring as late as early May - However, Russia claimed that they've successfuly downed all operational drones since early on in the war. These two discrepencies could be easily rectified with a list detailing confirmed equipment losses to give a more complete picture of the war — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:967F:DA30:3582:571C:5343:76D (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Typos

Section "Russian accusations and demands": "repressng" should be "repressing" Andyofmelbourne (talk) 05:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done Cinderella157 (talk) 06:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Spelling error

In the section "Alleged clashes (17–21 February 2022)" there is a spelling mistake: "the another" instead of just "another" or "the other". Please change this to one of the two suggestions. Thanks.

In the same section there is a dot in the middle of the sentence about russian videos after the word "amateurish".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ribidag (talk • contribs) 6:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done both. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 May 2022

In the "Second phase — Siege of Mariupol" section, please change "Reports of dissent within the Ukrainian troops at Azovstal were reported by Ukraienskaya Pravda on 8 May indicating that the commander of the Ukrainian Marines assigned to defend the Azovstal bunkers made an unauthorized acquisition of tanks, munitions and personnel to make a breakout from the entrenched position there in order to flea from the city" to "in order to flee the city. These are two different words. Plus, please fix the typo in the same sentence: Ukraienskaya to Ukrainskaya. Thank you. 2A02:AB04:2AB:700:14C4:5AD3:A60C:2C7C (talk) 06:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done both. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

"Invasion" word is misused

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

---

This is not a invasion. President Putin's statement says that it's a "special operations in Ukraine". There was no formal declaration of war on former state of Soviet Union "Ukraine". Please change the title of the page to "2022 Russia's Special Operation in Ukraine" as Russia haven't declared war on Ukraine. I believe Wikipedia should see sources from both sides instead of relying entirely on Western Sources. 106.197.2.17 (talk) 08:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

We don't repeat Kremlin propaganda. — Czello 09:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

invasion

/ɪnˈveɪʒ(ə)n/

noun

an instance of invading a country or region with an armed force.

Nope seems to me what Russia is doing fits this definition precisely. Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Multiple independent reliable sources refer to this as an "invasion" (per here). Cinderella157 (talk) 10:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Cinderella157 (talk) 10:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Dignifying this obvious troll with a response is counterproductive. If they want to indulge in a dystopian alternate reality, there are plenty of other sites offering that. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 10:51, 10 May 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.

Very long sentence

In the section "Impact on agriculture and food suppies" there is a very long sentence relying on a single source:

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), further to causing the loss of lives and increasing humanitarian needs, the likely disruptions caused by the Russian invasion to Ukraine's grain and oilseed sectors, combined with potential food and fertiliser export difficulties encountered by the Russian Federation as a result of economic sanctions, could jeopardise the food security of many countries, especially those that are highly dependent on Ukraine and the Russian Federation for their food and fertiliser imports.

I suggest breaking this sentence up, perhaps like so:

Due to the Russian invasion, disruptions to the grain and oilseed sectors of Ukraine are likely. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), this would cause further loss of life and increase humanitarian needs. In addition, potential food and fertiliser export difficulties encountered by the Russian Federation as a result of economic sanctions could jeopardise the food security of many countries. Particularily vulnerable are those that are highly dependent on Ukraine and the Russian Federation for their food and fertiliser imports.

(However, feel free to change it as you like.)

This would mean repeating the source after each full stop, but would make it much easier to read.--Ribidag (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

The edit looks good; feel free to make it, keeping in mind spelling errors and the English style guide (I believe this article uses American English, though feel free to correct me). Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 18:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Ribidag I see now that the page is EC-protected; I'll make the changes then. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 18:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. (This article is written in British English). Ribidag (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done by Iseult Cinderella157 (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Strange grammar

In the section "Prisoners of War", it says that over a thousand prisoners were captured. Seeing as though the conflict is still ongoing and more are likely to be captured, I suggest changing this to have been captured.--Ribidag (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

It's strange that a prisoner would be captured, no? Makes more sense that a soldier would be captured and then become a prisoner. 2804:14C:8781:8673:7FA:C827:BED8:CE71 (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Good point. Then perhaps it ought to be "Over a thousand combatants have been captured". Then again, it might be best to just remove that sentence since it is bound to be outdated. Any thoughts? Ribidag (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Rewrite lead sentence of Prisoners section to deal with reliability/unreliability issues of statistics generated during the invasion by different sources. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)