Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine

Link to most recent closed and archived RfC: Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_9#RfC on "Supported by" in the infobox for Ukraine

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: Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_9#RfC on "Supported by" in the infobox for Ukraine, closed 9 June 2022.

See also earlier RfC: Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox?: closed 6 March 2022.

Both RfCs were closed with "no consensus". Cinderella157 (talk) 08:27, 16 June 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 cuts to the background section

There are two proposed versions of the Background section of this article (version A and version B), both of which might be further refined. Which of these two versions is the better option moving forward? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

(View change as a diff here.) (See previous discussion 1, previous discussion 2.)

Previous RfC statement, retained for context: Should the previous background section ("A") be reduced in size? Is the shortened background section ("B") better or worse? Jr8825 • Talk 01:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Notified at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Survey

Keep A - this covers quite a bit of essential information that I think gives a good picture of the background to the topic. I don't think it's necessary to cut it out. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I would prefer B. We do not need to repeat the long story of Ukraine in the 21st century, readers can read the details in the articles linked from the section. On the other hand I think that we have to add that hostilities of the War in Donbas were largely ceased following Minsk Treaty and Zelensky's pacifist politics. Since 2020 up to February 2022 were only a handful of civilian victims from the both side almost all are from the landmines that had been installed in the active period of the war. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

could you expand more on the pacifist politics on Zelensky and they relation to de escalation, also the compliance of the minsk accords, with proper sources preference given to ukranian own sources, and in second place western media outlets. Juanriveranava (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I see no reason not to reduce it. So B. Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

While it might be possible to shave off a few more words, I think A is already pretty succinct, so my argument against (significant) reductions is that this necessitates losing background information I consider valuable. I listed the information removed in B which I think should be kept in the previous discussion. What's your opinion on these points? Jr8825 • Talk 15:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Keep A, perhaps it's a little on the long side but the current invasion is one part of a very complex broader problem of Russian aggression, and it's good for readers that the background section contextualises it. Using bytes as a benchmark is foolish; a much better criterion is whether the text delivers information that's relevant to readers. If anything I'd have two other aspirations - to shorten the lede a little (in principle a lede should be a brief overview before the body of the article covers many different details), and to resolve some of the templates at the top of the background section, relying more on links in the body of the text. However, the former would be an extremely difficult task, fraught with reverts! bobrayner (talk) 10:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Either Keep A or restore the long-standing version, If this article was, in fact, too long, then it would have made sense to trim it. But it's well within the limits of WP:PROSE, not too long at all. One thing that I am not sure of is would readers actually visit Russo-Ukrainian War for the rest of the background?. Rousillon (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Is there anything in particular about the older version that you prefer to A? Content-wise I think they cover most of the same ground, but A does so using less space. I think several other editors felt quite strongly that the older version took up too much room. Jr8825 • Talk 16:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Keep A, mainly for context. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Concerned that both miss the point. The background of the invasion is that Putin wants the USSR back. See [1]

[Putin] calls the Soviet collapse the "greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century." Russian forces seized the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine in 2014, and remain to this day. Putin wrote last summer that Russia and Ukraine are really one country — which they were for long periods over the centuries.

Adoring nanny (talk) 00:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I think this is already covered at least in part by the sentences on Russian imperialism at the end of the section. Perhaps more should be made of this -- suggestions welcome. Jr8825 • Talk 02:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Covered in part, sure. But it is the reason for the war and should be treated as such. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Jr8825, while it is good to garner further participation, I think that your RfC is premature.

• It assumes that there is an intractable stalemate wrt the two version. That is not my perception.
• It presumes that neither version could be improved by iterative editing.
• You yourself acknowledge that version A could be improved per this edit stating above: I can see an argument for keeping Cinderella's shortening of the Euromaidan summary as it successfully manages to cut a couple of sentences ...
• The RfC might be worded more neutrally?
• The RfC gives a binary choice. Considering the above, the phrasing and choices presented for comment, it is unlikely that a workable consensus will be arrived at. It is the inherent nature of RfCs.

You may wish to reconsider this, at least for the present. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it's necessary to engage more editors as our positions on the two questions are incompatible. There have been 2 lengthy discussions. While I've expressed willingness to accept some of the above proposals, this has been out of a desire to find compromise, not because I've felt the changes are necessarily positive. Ultimately, both camps seem to think each others' preferred version is moving the article in the wrong direction, and as you feel further significant cuts are needed beyond the already reduced text linked as "A", I can't see how my concerns can be accommodated. We fundamentally disagree over whether A or B is closer to the right level of detail, so more perspectives will hopefully shed light on strengths/weaknesses of the two approaches. Although the questions are narrow in order to focus discussion, there's no need for a binary outcome if participants review the opposing options and offer feedback. Jr8825 • Talk 03:11, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm open to your suggestions regarding the RfC wording. Jr8825 • Talk 03:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Nether version is necessarily the best or ultimate version and one might be edited up, the other might be edited down. I have already indicated this passage: In February 2014, clashes in Kyiv between protesters and Berkut special police resulted in the deaths of 100 protesters and 13 policemen; most of the victims were shot by police snipers, where the numbers killed is "intricate detail" it is sufficient to say that there were widespread protests and possibly, that these resulted in deaths. Also: ... candidate Viktor Yushchenko was poisoned with TCDD dioxin ... - it is sufficient to say he was poisoned. And that is without really looking. A better proposition in phrasing the RfC is to acknowledge that both are a basis for further review and which is the preferred basis for this further review. The questions posed by the RfC are not "equal". Consequently, there is an intrinsic and subtle bias. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Per your invitation, I have added an alternative RfC statement. I understand that you hold the personal view that your version is a minimal level of detail. But I also note your willingness to accept some changes. I hope, where I write: both of which might be further refined, it is an acceptable statement of the reality of WP. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for providing an alternative statement. I fully agree these are frameworks for future refinement, not the finished product. Best, Jr8825 • Talk 15:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment. It looks fairly plain that if Jr8825 and Cinderella can agree on a version off-page for this edit, that it would be accepted by the active editors as adequate and not require the full thirty day RFC cycle. It seems that Cinderella is basically asking that Jr8825 trim back some of his 8Kb expansion to the article; is that possible to do? ErnestKrause (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm confident we'll be able to agree on small refinements such as the ones Cinderella suggests just above this, but as there are differing views on the bigger question of how much and what information should be included it's helpful to draw wider feedback and establish which base we should work from. Jr8825 • Talk 23:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Lack of response on this RFC suggests that it is not establishing abundant feedback. After 10 days are you sure you need this RFC for another three weeks? ErnestKrause (talk) 00:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Troop numbers updated

I remember reading several weeks ago, I believe in the ISW that Russia had committed upwards of 330,000 Soldiers to the invasion. I believe that, along with more recruits who have joined the forces of the DPR and LPR around with the estimated 10,000 - 20,000 foreign mercenaries who have reportedly been flown in by the Russians should be included in the "Strength" section. As for the Ukrainian side, they have also highly increased the number of fighters they now have, I believe their president also recently reported that up to 700,000 people were participating in the "defense of Ukraine" in some way or another. Either way, the strength section should be updated to reflect more current figures of troops involved on both sides. History Man1812 (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)History_Man1812

I've seen this preliminary report which would effectively double or triple Russia's current invasion size in number of troops deployed; however, when are they to arrive, when are they to be deployed, are they still to go through training before arriving in Ukraine, etc.? Must answer RS as well. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I believe most of that number includes replacements for casualties Russian forces have already sustained (some estimates place Russian losses so far at above 80,000, including killed, wounded, missing, and captured. Once again, this is a higher estimate but it would explain the new troops committed, and that number also seems reasonable given the intensity and scale of the fighting, as well as the numbers and professionalism of both sides involved. History Man1812 (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)History_Man1812

The source cites Ukrainian intelligence, and includes a breakdown of 330k already committed (but not necessarily trained and in the field?), including Rosgvardia and mercenaries but not foreign troops, and unknown whether it includes DLNR.[2]  —Michael Z. 17:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Russia has active troops up to 1.01 million; it might make sense to wait until at least part of the promised 330K troops are confirmed as getting to the Ukraine border. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Not sure how you’re envisioning “confirmed.” All troop strengths in this and related articles are just estimates given by sources someone decided is good enough to repeat.

Is that 1.01M confirmed, or an estimate by IISS? I presume about a third or less of that is ground forces. —Michael Z. 02:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

That number is confirmed in the Infobox of the Russian Armed Forces Wikipedia article by RS from 2021; it would make sense to find out if 1.01M is to be augmented by 330K, or if the existing active troops are to be re-allocated to Ukraine from their existing assignments accross Russia at this time. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

330k is the total committed, including ~190k initially assembled, plus forces diverted from elsewhere since (presumably Russia, Kaliningrad, Syria), plus mercenaries and reservists recruited since February 24. —Michael Z. 16:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The linked source you are citing states; 'Russian forces grouped 150,000 servicemen into battalion tactical groups'. Which is down by attrition from the original troop allocation of battalion tactical groups from 190,000. This is the way the Wikipedia article is currently oriented, in terms of boots on the ground. The current number appears to be 150K Russians in the field at the end of June 2022, after attrition since the start of the invasion. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Minor edit request

Foreign military support section, Foreign military involvement subsection : "On 5 May, a US official confirmed that US gave "a range of intelligence"... should have a "the" before "US gave". Astrosalad (talk) 01:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• Done Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

When does an invasion become, simply, a protracted war?

At what point shall we rename this article from "2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" to something more resembling reality, as was the case with the Iraq-Iran war, which followed a similar pattern? LordParsifal (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Russian forces are still invading: more of them are still crossing from Russia into Ukraine, and they are advancing and occupying more territory. So the title doesn’t in any way contradict the objective reality. —Michael Z. 21:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the wording that wikipedia has chosen is very confusing. It has labeled the Ukrainian-Russian conflict from 2014 onwards a war so it is forced to find a different wording for this article. In reality whoever mentions Ukraine-Russian war means the one started in February. No one actually means a "continuous" war from 2014. It feels like an artificial label used exclusively by wikipedia. In my opinion the first article should be renamed to Ukraine-Russian conflict and that one to Ukraine-Russian war. As for the -Russian invasion- wording it better suits the "first" part of the war, as the war itself approaches a stalemate and becomes protracted. NickTheRipper (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this. I understand the distinction and the need to not downplay Russia's involvement since 2014, but eventually the invasion is over, and we're just looking at a regular ground war, which is where I think we're at right now but we lack a name to call it, this would also help the scope of this article. It seems like most RSs at this point have also transitioned to just using war. Alcibiades979 (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

To be fair, prior to the 2022 invasion a number of Ukrainian politicians (mainly those opposed to Zelensky [who was a moderate figure until the 2022 invasion], and the most anti-Russian figures) claimed that the country had been at war since 2014. I'm guessing that's why we have the current wording on Wikipedia, due to certain editors taking this position. YantarCoast (talk) 20:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

“Claimed”? Are you saying Zelenskyy denied that Ukraine was at war? Source, please. I don’t think you’re painting a picture in line with the facts. —Michael Z. 21:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

That was my impression from watching Прямий канал for something like three years. Anyway, here you go (sorry, it's not in English). Apparently, Ukraine wasn't at war (apologies if it doesn't fit in with your view of the situation). YantarCoast (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Of the two articles, Russo-Ukrainian War is the one which dates back to 2014 and is much older than this 2022 Invasion article. If you have comments on how the two pages should relate to one another than you can bring it up here. Both pages seem to serve their own respective purposes. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Aa the infobox already says "Part of the Russo-Ukrainian War". Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Belligerents - Supported by

There are a ton of western countries supporting and military supplying Ukraine (whole of NATO, Australia, Japan ect). Yet none of them are mentioned in the section. As per other wikipedia articles about conflicts, military assistance to a country in the form of providing weapons is considered a semi-belligerent mentioned in "supported by" section.

I hope the editors familiar with the article see my post and make the necessary changes. Thank you all for your work! NickTheRipper (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

There is no “semi-belligerent” status in international law. We know providing weapons doesn’t make one a belligerent, because it is done constantly by a large number of states without ever creating a state of war. Please see multiple previous discussions above and in the talk archive. —Michael Z. 21:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

All the other wikipedia articles (about military conflicts) list countries in "supported by" section that have even provided just diplomatic support to the belligerents (e.g. see Vietnam War for reference). Also I don't see how international law has to do anything with how a wikipedia article is structured. Thanks NickTheRipper (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Assessment of military alliances is normally done by observing boots on the ground or planes in the air. No country has provided Ukraine with boots on the ground or planes in the air. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it's kind of laughable to assume that Ukraine is not supported by anyone in the world in its war against Russia. But I guess wikipedia's political bias has changed a lot from when I used to edit back in the day... NickTheRipper (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

We are not saying that, we are saying they are not beligerants. That their level of support does not rise high enough to really count as involved in direct conflict. Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take the time to answer even though I know that will not change your pov.

>Michael Z

"There is no “semi-belligerent” status in international law." International law has nothing to do with how a wikipedia article should be structured. "We know providing weapons doesn’t make one a belligerent, because it is done constantly by a large number of states without ever creating a state of war." Never said otherwise. Providing weapons makes one support a belligerent.

>ErnestKrause

"Assessment of military alliances is normally done by observing boots on the ground or planes in the air." A party does not have to be in an alliance with a belligerent in order to provide support to them. Also units (on the ground or in the air as you said) would make a party full-fleged belligerent (providing they take part in hostilities). "No country has provided Ukraine with boots on the ground or planes in the air." Again that would make a party a belligerent.

>Slatersteven

"We are not saying that, we are saying they are not beligerants" Ok, we agree here. They are not a belligerent. They are providing support for one. "That their level of support does not rise high enough to really count as involved in direct conflict." I think you have not understand what I am trying to say here. These parties are involved in the conflict not enough to be listed as belligerents but enough to be listed as supporting a belligerent. NickTheRipper (talk) 17:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

But what criteria do we use? China is selling kit to Russia, France and Germany were (but no longer are). Sanctions, do they count, what about political support? Do we list those nations who have given political support to Russia as aiding them? Where do we draw the line? Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

You are really correct here. I assume Wikipedia guidelines exist for the uniformity of such pages. That is something editors familiar with editing conflict pages know. That said, just by a quick surf through such pages it was easy to understand that the current format of the section is certainly incorrect. NickTheRipper (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

But they are not uniform. Starting with the list of ongoing armed conflicts, I clicked through to the articles about international conflicts, and it looks like a minority of them have supporters listed in the “belligerents” section of the infobox. —Michael Z. 19:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

That is the case because not all conflicts have major parties supporting a belligerent. NickTheRipper (talk) 03:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I made a quick look at the page you sent and apparently the first 8 conflicts that I clicked all had "supported by" section in their infobox. I clicked them as they are listed in the page until I found one that it does not have the "supported by" section in it (excluding the Ukraine-Russian one). For reference Internal conflict in Myanmar, War in Afghanistan (2001–2021), Yemeni Civil War (2014–present), Tigray War, Colombian conflict, Oromo conflict, Somali Civil War, Allied Democratic Forces insurgency. NickTheRipper (talk) 03:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The principle (and policy) is called wp:consensus, when things are not directly contradictory to policies (and even sometimes even then (see wp:iar, a policy I loath)) local consensus determines what is an is not relevant to an article. This means that sometimes pages do not follow the same logic. In this case, local consensus is that we only include directly involved parties. Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

When you say "local consensus" you mean for this page only? NickTheRipper (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Sort of, I mean on any page where the local consensus differs from what is generally done, but is not (technically) against policy. So in this specific case yes, this page as opposed to another. Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok understood what you said. I saw the "local consensus" and unfortunately I was not here to defend my point. The reason why I made this post in the first place though is that the belligerent section is way to misleading for a new reader. Yet again anyone following the news knows (?) that Ukraine is supported/backed by other countries. NickTheRipper (talk) 18:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Would you add something to the Foreign military support section which is not there at this time? ErnestKrause (talk) 18:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I am talking about the template. And no, I have nothing against anything written in that section. NickTheRipper (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

For the Vietnam War Soviet Union and China are listed as supporters of the North Vietnam, even though we still don't which kind of support it was.

For this war we have a detailed list of Ukraine's supporters, but they're not mentioned in the chart. Marcodicaprio90 (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Who is "we"? The political and military support by the USSR and communist China to North Viet-Nam during that war is very, very well-documented.50.111.18.139 (talk) 16:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Same criteria as stated by Slatersteven above for Infobox; "In this case, local consensus is that we only include directly involved parties." ErnestKrause (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Media depiction manipulated

The article currently reads some press reports grew increasingly unsure about a possible Ukrainian victory in the conflict. The German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung noted, after the loss of Severodonetsk, that the chances for a Ukrainian victory "tend towards zero". with two sources given. One is Süddeutsche Zeitung itself. The other one is an Al Jazeera article that has the opposite tenor, claiming the loss of Severodonetsk is of minor military importance but the Russian forces are running out of ammunition and are demoralized: To some observers, Moscow’s long-term perspectives in the war do not look promising because of heavy losses and demoralised manpower amid Western sanctions that prevent the production of high-precision weaponry.[3] SovielHungerhabichgarnicht (talk) 02:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Avril Haines has just stated to expect a long and protracted invasion; and Joe Biden is sending another 800 million dollars US to assist Ukraine's military efforts. What does this mean to you?

I was wondering about that as well. I think we might be able to say that "Süddeutsche Zeitung noted", but that might violate undue as it is one news organ. Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

The statement “some press reports grew increasingly unsure,” comparing two current reports to nothing at all, is an opinion that does not even meet the definition of WP:original research. Please remove the sentence, or perhaps the paragraph with two cherry-picked sources.

Ukraine has been conducting a fighting withdrawal for two months. After every notable advance, some non-expert media and pundits have declared a disaster. But overviews by experts maintain that Russian advances are glacially slow and no Russian strategic objectives are being achieved while attrition and degraded troop quality continues. —Michael Z. 15:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I removed this without seeing this discussion. My reasoning was as follows: Al Jazera says the opposite of what this paragraph says. That leaves a single Op-Ed in the Süddeutsche Zeitung to document this supposed trend. Deleting paragraph and This mischaracterized an OP-ED by a single journalist as the position of the newspaper. This paragraph may need to be altered further, having [should be "haven't"] checked al jazera but the fact that a single journalist in a country full of defeatists (Germany) wrote something defeatist is not really notable. So basically, I think we're all in agreement. The Al-Jazeera article says that the loss of Severodonetsk isn't strategically important and quotes experts to that effect. Now I have seen a Washington Post article about differing assessments in the US, with some saying the US isn't doing enough to help Ukraine and a minority saying US assessments are too rosy and Ukraine can't win, but that's not really about media coverage. German "intellectuals" and "pacifists" have been calling for Ukraine basically surrendering for various reasons since before the conflict, though they don't call it surrendering, which is how the article in the Süddeutsche Zeitung has to be contextualized.

The long and short of it: Defeatists and Ruscists gonna defeatist and Ruscist. The paragraph was OR.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Ukrainian refugees from 2022, crossing into Poland.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Error in number of refugees

It is estimated around 8.4 million Ukrainians have fled the country not 6.4 million 5.59.117.168 (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source for this please? — Czello 21:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Ignore this, I see the existing source has been updated. Thanks. — Czello 07:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)