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)
• Oppose I'm concerned about the vagueness of the word "supported" - this could imply they are sending in troops, which they aren't. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose because "support" is a vague term that could mean a lot of different things, and has a POV problem too. Iraniangal777 (talk) 04:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Support - we should be consistent with how we treat other wars. Vietnam War lists many supporters of both sides that did not send troops directly. Similar lists of supporters exist for Iran-Iraq War, Korean War, and the majority of other major conflicts I can find except for WW2, presumably because the number of total belligerents is just too large. World War I, a featured article, individually lists 9 different British colonies/dominions in the infobox that aided the war effort, so an argument that we will 'clog' the infobox by including countries that supply lethal aid seems hard to sustain. It seems pretty clear that if military aid is being supplied to either party in the conflict, that should be included. Are we really going to act like the intelligence provided by the US being used to sink Russian ships doesn't count as support? TocMan (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

  A lot of these articles don't have a lot of editor attention. The infobox here was subject to 2 RfCs, which is probably more than the number of RfCs on supporters in the infoboxes of these 20th/21st century war infoboxes, combined. I raised the issue of IBs of 20th/21st century wars on WP:MILHIST and I think editors did agree there are some problems. Many of those articles are a mess of indiscriminate information anyway.

  Consider a more visible, GA-level article of a 20th century war, World War II. Commanders and leaders is significantly trimmed, the value of participants params is a single word "Allies" or "Axis" with a hyperlink. There is a high-level list of casualties, with a hyperlink for more info, but nothing insane. No equipment figures or other silliness like on the IB here or on these other 20th century wars. It's a tight infobox in line with MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. (nb: WW1 has not been a featured article since 2006, when it was delisted. The infobox, at the time it was an FA, looked like this).

  Your argument is that most infoboxes of recent wars are bad. I agree. That doesn't mean we proliferate more bad infoboxes across the encyclopaedia, but instead we should put effort into cleaning more of these articles up (their infoboxes, and their content too tbh). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for the correction on WWI, not sure why I had thought it was featured. Would you be able to link to the discussion you had on WP:MILHIST? My argument is not that existing infoboxes are bad, and I'm still not sure how including direct financial/material/intelligence support in the infobox is out of line with MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. It seems like it's both true and salient information that the Soviets and USA were both helping arm Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war, and that the US is arming Ukraine in the current war, etc. These things can have a massive impact on the source, ultimate outcome, and historical significance of each conflict. --TocMan (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Another data point I just found - we include Russian support for the Taliban in War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) even though it was only financial 'bounties' and Russia claims that it wasn't involved at all. Meanwhile US is providing weapons, funds, and intelligence to Ukraine and admitting as much. TocMan (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

TocMan, my reasons to oppose are much like those of ProcrastinatingReader. That WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not of itself a justification. It is only a valid argument if it represents "best practice" - and it doesn't. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE tells us not to write the article in the infobox - we have prose in both the lead section and the body of the article on this. The article is not omitting this detail. It is following WP:NPOV and WP:P&G more broadly in this respect. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Cinderella157 Thanks for your perspective. As you point out, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is fine if it represents best practice, and I remain unconvinced that this is not best practice. There are myriad military articles that include arms suppliers as supporters in the infobox, including featured articles about post-Soviet conflicts. This is a very different state of affairs than if only a few low quality articles existed that use the practice, which might have just never received good editorial attention. In any conflict but especially one with global implications, knowing at a glance the nature of support for each side is both useful and important. I am not sure what NPOV issue you think is resolved by keeping a slim list of supporters; but I think including more supporters quickly resolves any NPOV issue. If we include Belarus as a Russian supporter for letting Russia use its territory but not the United States for providing intelligence that was used to destroy a Russian ship, that may be a defensible line to draw, but it is inherently trickier than just showing all supporters - as we already do in other high quality articles. --TocMan (talk) 02:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

TocMan, You cite First Nagorno-Karabakh War as a FA and representative of "best practice". That article was promoted 25 February 2007 per this version. Since then, the article has undergone over 3,000 edits and doubled in size. Furthermore, the infobox now bares little resemblance to that in the promoted version. FA status only specifically attaches to the version promoted. Substantial variation in the article is reason to consider a review and whether it continues to FA criteria. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

That's fine, but doesn't do anything to address my overall argument. --TocMan (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Even before you identified the First Nagorno-Karabakh War, there was this discussion (Talk:First Nagorno-Karabakh War#FA criteria) about taking the article to FAR. In its present form, it does not represent "best practice". Cinderella157 (talk) 01:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support: Technical objections, such as a long infobox, are minor complaints and have been addressed already. Opposers do not seem to have read the Rfc, but are repeating obsolete arguments. Linking to a list, for example, is a very doable workaround. If "supported by" is not the most apt terminology, there are plenty of other great descriptors, such as "arms supplier", "lethal aid", "military training", etc. As a digital, web based, cooperative medium, Wikipedia should take advantage of its inherent flexibilities, and not be bound by dogmatic reasonings and self-imposed limitations. I find TocMan's argument,supported by sources, more substantive and consistent than the naysayer's. Additionally, even though the U.S. government has yet to openly target Russia, public attitude is shifting. One U.S. official, elected at the federal level, even said they're "fundamentally at war, although somewhat through a proxy, with Russia." The combination of lethal weaponry, direct training military to military, and rhetoric from its own politican, makes that country unique among supporters of Ukraine.Fantasix6 (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

This account has 9 edits to their name. Volunteer Marek 08:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support. I may be wrong on this technical note, but I believe if we included just the United States, and/or a link to the full list, it wouldn't even make the infobox bigger, since the Russian-allied forces + supporting Belarus take up more than that amount of space already. This would just be filling in blank space with text. At the very least, I think the US should be shown due to the extent of its support. With the revelations that America helped to target and sink the Moskva, and provided intelligence help in killing Russian generals, it's approaching actual engagement, per Fantasix6. I don't have a particularly strong opinion as to how the other supporting countries should be represented (as a linked list, listing each one out individually, as a collapsed list, not at all), but to not include any of the supporting countries doesn't make sense to me. --HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support. This is not a special case. There is a long-standing precedent for including at least the major supporters of each belligerent in infoboxes, as several others have listed examples of. Lightspecs (talk) 01:54, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Lead not chronological

The second paragraph of the lead (first big paragraph), begins in 2014 with the annexation of Crimea, then progresses to a build-up in 2021. Then comes Putin's "special operations" speech on the 24:th of February. After this we jump back one day to the 23:d of February to say that Russian officials denied plans to invade up to and including that day, which I suppose is fine as a look-back after the invasion has started.

In the next paragraph we are suddenly back on the 21:st of February, the invasion hasn'st started yet, and instead Russia recognizes the two self-proclaimed statelets. Then the invasion begins on the 24:th again, with Putin again announcing a "special military operation". We then hear a little about what happened shortly thereafter, with missile strikes and general mobilization.

I was a little confused reading this and the first time I did, I thought the first speech mentioned was different from the second, when they are in fact the same. This is because the first time it is mentioned no date is given. It just says "shortly before the invasion" which really means 10:s of minutes before, but with how the lead jumps in time makes you think it is a few days before, somewhere before the 23:d of February, which is the next actually given date.

More nitpicky is that the fourth paragraph begins with "As the invasion began on 24 February 2022" and then goes into fronts and such. This again gives a feel of "restarting" after just having heard what happend as the invasion began: missile strikes and general mobilization. Some way to show these happened simultaneously might tie it together better.

I think it could be an improvement to make the lead more chronological.--Ribidag (talk) 05:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying that I believe that this is the best or clearest lead that might be written. However, on the particular issues that you would raise, I am not seeing that there is a particular issue and that the chronology of events is reasonably clear even if the lead does not follow a strict chronological order. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:54, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Finnish NATO membership

A few days ago, I sounded out adding the potential Finnish/Swedish NATO applications to the article in Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_9#Potential_NATO_enlargement_as_a_reaction/impact, and there was a rough consensus for adding it once there was official movement. Today, the Finnish President and PM made a joint declaration saying that "Finland must apply for NATO membership without delay", which looks like it meets the threshold of officiality to me. I can't add this myself, but here's some proposed text for the 'Reactions' section:

On 12 May, Finnish President Sauli Niinistö and Prime Minister Sanna Marin issued a joint declaration that Finland should join NATO.

There might be room for some further elaboration on this (e.g., discussing just how badly the idea of invading a neighbour to keep NATO away from Russia has backfired on Putin here), but the article's pretty dense already. Maybe when there's some more heavy-weight analysis to cite on this point?

I haven't tried to describe the likely next steps, but they'll happen shortly, it's expected, and I don't think that the precise procedural details matter as much as the declared intention. This means that the information we put in will get stale quite quickly, but that's okay - it's a wiki and nothing's set in stone, and especially not on a highly-active article like this one. FrankSpheres (talk) 10:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

References

I think we can wait until its a done deal. Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

That'll take months, as I said last time. This is an official declaration of the intent to apply and the consequent geopolitical shift. Everything from here is formality and hoop-jumping, more or less. FrankSpheres (talk) 11:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

And? we can wait months or years, we are not a newspaper. Ohh and an "offical declaration if intent" is not doing it or succeeding. Anything can happen, including a Russian invasion top stop it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Putin has cited the enlargement of NATO as being one of the main reasons for this war; the evolution of Finland's position on NATO membership is relevant to this article no matter where this goes. I think this is definitely worth a mention. Aluxosm (talk) 12:36, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Both Finland and Sweden have been expressing similar concerns; should the article leave out Sweden? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Sweden will announce it's membership application on Sunday. 2804:14C:8781:8673:D445:ACD4:5093:7349 (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

So will Finland. Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it's sensible to wait on Sweden until we get a definite official signal like we did today from Finland - e.g., the PM declaring they'll apply, or the government laying a proposal before parliament; currently it's all still technically innuendo there. Not that I don't think it will happen (it's basically locked in), but this article's already really hefty and consequently we have to be very picky about what goes in and is worthy of mention - an official movement seems to me to be a pretty good prima facie boundary. FrankSpheres (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Just a comment: If Finland and Sweden will join NATO, then I would argue that we should also include this into the "Result" section in the infobox. It would be a direct consequence of this war (even if it's not between the belligerents). --Mindaur (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Sabotage

Hello, I am slightly surprised that I can't see any mention of alleged 'attacks' inside Russia and Belarus. Belarus has just legislated against sabotage with the death penalty because of the extent. A military facility in the far east of Russia suffered an explosion reported today: https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/05/12/1-dead-7-injured-in-russia-military-base-explosion-a77650 many others I am sure editors will know about. There are good RSS but I could understand a reason why sabotage is left out of the article. However the situation in Belarus is now cited as being partly the cause of Russia's withdrawal from the north. It's part of Ukrainian solidarity and strategically, militarily significant. I thought worth a discussion maybe. Thelisteninghand (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Attack on Belgorod and Millerovo air base attack are already included and linked in the article, as well as the destruction of communication towers in Moldavia. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Where did the "current event" box at the top of the page go?

I mean, it's still going on, and probably will be for several years, right? HighwayTyper (talk) 10:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

It is presently displayed in the Invasion section. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

US financial support

How about add this, on place of Ukrainian side Im talking about us financial supporting Ukraine with Lend lease, so M1Jyyy (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

We do in Foreign military sales and aid. Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Also in this article: List of foreign aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 May 2022

I want to add a section explaining how the invasion caused Finland (a non-NATO country), to join NATO. Source:

BadKarma22 (talk) 21:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

That should be its own article @BadKarma22 Starship SN20 (talk) 12:47, 15 May 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. SpinningCeres 03:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

cluster munitions

These aren't really prohibited; many countries have signed a treaty agreeing not to use them. Neither Russia nor Ukraine is among them. However, using cluster munitions against civilians is most likely a war crime. but that would fall under different international laws. Struggling to find a concise way to express this. I have been changing "prohibited" to "banned" on this and the applicable subpages, but that is only slightly less wrong. Anyone have any thoughts? Elinruby (talk) 04:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

currently going with "repudiated by many countries", open to other ideas. Elinruby (talk) 11:23, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Supporting this. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:44, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

"The Chinese military also allegedly conducted a massive cyberwarfare espionage effort on the eve of the invasion, including on nuclear infrastructure, pointing to advanced Chinese knowledge."

As posted before but was ignored, the Security Service of Ukraine officially denied a Chinese cyber attack took place or have any evidence of such attack.

From their official Twitter, posted on 2 April: https://twitter.com/ServiceSsu/status/1509983294334582793

"The SBU did not provide the media with any official information that cyber-attacks from China were allegedly carried out on the eve of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine on our military and other resources. The SBU has nothing to do with the findings of The Times. The Security Service of Ukraine does not currently have such data and no investigation is underway."

I would suggest adding keeping the allegation while adding this, and remove "pointing to advanced Chinese knowledge" because it is not NPOV. Chokoladesu (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Individual country responses to the Russian invasion of Ukraine are dealt with on the sibling pages. China is usually mentioned as somewhat acquescing to Russia regarding the invasion as a recurrent point coction I am vered in the international media. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:39, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

this is already in the article, though. I wondered myself about the advanced Chinese knowledge, which is a strange phrasing. Chinese military of course have advanced knowledge of cyberwarfare; does this mean of Ukrainian nuclear infrastructure? Yet no damage was done? And the SBU specifically denies either leaking the information or being able to confirm it -- which is odd coming from a country that has recruited hackers. Naturally they might deny it, but they would know about it, and it is also true that this could be Russian FUD. The thing about advanced knowledge should be cited and clarified if kept; I can't remember, was any of this cited at all? How well? [[User:Elinruby|Elinruby (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

sourcing is pretty good, and this is also mentioned in technical literature [15] however, a couple of things: the person who wrote that meant *advance* knowledge. But this is a conclusion which is cited to anonymous intelligence officials, so I would support deleting the phrase. I am also not sure whether the cyberattacks should be mentioned here or elsewhere, and in how much depth. There is also Russian information war against Ukraine. But I am tired and going away and somebody else can make the call. I find all that highly notable but I am a geek and this is a top-level article. That is what I know Elinruby (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Hearing no objection I have deleted the "advance knowledge" part and will incorporate the SBU denial into the sentence now. Elinruby (talk) 05:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

About the map

Comprehensive map key of the invasion says about 'Ukrainian advances'. Even if we do not take into account that in most northern areas Russian forces just withdrew because they could not do anything, maybe the correct term would be 'Ukrainian counter-offensive' as these moves are entirely in Ukrainian territory and Ukrainian army held those before the current war?Κλειδοκράτωρ (talk) 10:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Why? "Advances" does not mean "invasion". Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Advance implies going forward when actually Ukrainian troops return at that place. I don't know it sounds to me that counter-offensive is a better term. Κλειδοκράτωρ (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Advances in this context means that they are counteracting against Russian forces. Thepanthersfan201 (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Alright, if it is just me just ignore my comment. Κλειδοκράτωρ (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Composite images of Russian high command

Left to right: Aleksandr Dvornikov (Commander of Field Operations), Sergey Shoigu (Defense Minister) and Alexander Zhuravlyov (previous Commander of Field Operations, reassigned under Dvornikov after 8 April 2022)

The high command for the Russian invasion is now known, should the image be added somewhere in the article? ErnestKrause (talk) 01:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

See MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE: Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding. See also MOS:TEXTASIMAGES. Images support the text of the article - don't write the article with images or in image caption. It is a case of showing that the proposal meets the WP:P&G. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Information is verified and accurate of current high command for Russian invasion. Caption can be adjusted as needed. Editors can comment if the composite images are "significant and relevant" for the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Russian casualties

UK has now stated that Russia lost 1/3 of its ground invasion force from February, 24. (KIA, MIA, WIA, POWs included I suppose.) https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/1525762560888344577?s=20&t=5bifi3vtZs7vfcseRrzzPA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oca24016 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Can we clean up the line thickness of the "Casualties" table? It's confusing

The causalities table is quite confusing - it's very hard to quickly see what casualties relate to what party because of inconsistent use of line thickness. For example, the Russian and Allied forces, the line between US and UK estimates is thick, despite both being estimates for the Russian and Allied forces. However, the line between Luhansk and Russian and Allied forces is thin despite between different parties.

Thick line should be used to separate different categories, while thin lines should be used to separate the different estimates within that same category imho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.98.246.42 (talk) 08:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the thinner lines are meant to indicate that the groups are part of one force, while thicker lines imply different belligerents or neutral groups ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 11:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Электроник to Mr. Biden

NATO Casualties : The Russians have got WARD recently ... Do YOU know who was JW Clark ? Is he a hero from the USA or just one "white mercenary" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.61.3.205 (talk) 02:08, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I am not quite sure that I understand your post. Could you please be more specific? 2A02:AB04:2AB:700:1009:A242:23B5:EF2C (talk) 08:01, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

The Russian TV often shows dead americans ... Can you mention their names in the table "NATO Casualties" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.61.3.205 (talk) 09:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

No, as Kremlin propaganda isn't a reliable source. — Czello 09:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

BUT they showed PASSPORT CARDS of killed young men ... IGNORE THOSE FACTS in en-wiki ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.61.3.205 (talk) 09:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Again, we don't consider Russian state TV to be a reliable source. If there has been significant coverage in sources we deem reliable there may be justification for inclusion. — Czello 09:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Which can be faked, sorry we do not use Russian state propaganda. But even if it were true, so? Russia is using Mercenaries, why not Ukraine? Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

YOU don't trust RU-WIKI ? NO NATO casualties ? O.key. 2.61.3.205 (talk) 12:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC) NOTHING TO TRANSLATE

We do not trust En-wiki, wiki's are not wp:rs. Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

And what the hell does Domestic terrorism have to do with the possibility that some Americans might be fighting in Ukraine? Slatersteven (talk) 12:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

DOMESTIC ? it's an INTERNATIONAL CASE of State terrorism ! 2.61.3.205 (talk) 12:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC) NOW i wonder are you for or against THE PUTIN ADMINISTRATION in KIEV ?

Then why are you linking to an article about domestic terrorism? Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Because IT IS ME who translated THE THEME for Ru-Wiki ! 2.61.3.205 (talk) 12:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC) NOT the Kremlin Pool

So? What relevance does this have to this topic? All it does is confuse this issue as people will go there assuming it has some relevance, thus you are just wasting user's time with that link. Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

PLEASE ... USE your own links: State Sponsors of Terrorism (U.S. list) after new NATO summit 2.61.3.205 (talk) 12:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Grain war

The subject is covered, perhaps the sources may be used.

https://www.euronews.com/2022/05/14/ukraine-war-grain-exports-blocked-by-russia-threaten-to-bring-hunger-and-famine-g7-warns

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/germany-accuses-russia-of-waging-grain-war/2588110

https://radioopensource.org/grain-war/

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/economy/article/2022/05/12/war-in-ukraine-threatens-the-world-s-breadbasket_5983258_19.html Xx236 (talk) 10:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)