Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine

source needs home

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.

---

I accidentally overwrote it and am putting it here because I don't think it is a very good source anyway for Russian involvement in Donbas. I looked quickly but the gist seemed to be that the US should not provide military aid to Ukrain in 2022. But maybe I am wrong, or maybe some other point in the article could use some support from the US defense contractor point of view. Russian troops were deeply involved in the conflict.

References

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.

Is the UK a Co-belligerent based on Taurus Missile Leaks?

The German Taurus leak has also been reported to indicate that British troops are on the ground and assisting in the use of Storm Shadow missiles as well: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/04/british-soldiers-on-ground-ukraine-german-military-leak. Per FAQ, prior talk on whether countries supplying Ukraine with weapons should be listed as co-belligerent came to no consensus. Most opposition was on the grounds that just selling weapons was not sufficient for co-belligerence. However, sending troops to assist in their use would be a different matter. Though the UK has not officially stated why it's troops are there, it has admitted they are there, Germany has not denied the contents of the leak, and the UK has not denied the contents of the leak either. This may still be "alledged" co-belligerence, however. Tophattingson (talk) 12:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

"Kremlin claims audio of officers discussing UK help with missiles shows involvement of ‘collective west’", so no not in our voice, but we can say "russia has claimed...". 13:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

This story is covered by multiple mainstream sources. Exceptional doesn't apply. In addition to The Guardian:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/03/03/germany-intelligence-leak-uk-troops-ground-ukraine-nato/

"“If we’re asked about delivery methods. I know how the British do this,” he said. “They always transport them in Ridgeback armoured vehicles. They have several people on the ground,” he said."

https://theconversation.com/british-troops-operating-on-the-ground-in-ukraine-what-international-law-says-224896

"An unencrypted telephone call intercepted and leaked to Russian broadcaster RT suggested British troops were helping the defending forces in the use of Storm Shadow cruise missiles the UK has supplied to help Kyiv’s war effort.

In response, the UK prime minister, Rishi Sunak, confirmed that there are a “small number” of British army personnel “supporting the armed forces of Ukraine”. But he added that “we haven’t got any plans for large-scale deployment”."

https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-olaf-scholz-slammed-claims-france-uk-help-ukraine-target-missiles/

"“This is a very far-reaching weapon,” Scholz said of the Taurus. “And what the British and French are doing in terms of target control and support for target control cannot be done in Germany.”" Tophattingson (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

There are also further sources available in the existing article on the German Taurus leak now that it has been greatly expanded upon since this morning. Tophattingson (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

In response to the recording, it has been confirmed by the British Prime Minister himself [1]. There are British troops present in Ukraine supporting the Ukrainians. Thus the UK should be added. EkoGraf (talk) 23:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The presence of troops does not equate to co-belligerent status. Per Britannica's definition of belligerency "Under Geneva Convention III, lawful belligerents comprise members of the armed forces as well as the members of militias, voluntary corps, and organized resistance groups who are commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates, have a distinctive sign, carry arms openly, and conduct operations lawfully. A nation departing from strict neutrality by giving assistance to one of the contending factions in a war may still be considered a nonbelligerent under certain circumstances." (emphasis added). Until we have reliable sources claiming that the UK is a co-belligerent, we cannot include it simply based on WP:SYNTH from the leak alone (which does not directly make this claim) -- there is nothing new from this leak sufficient to overcome the existing determination that no consensus for including additional nations exists. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Per that logic we should then remove Belarus which has not even provided troops, let alone them being in Ukraine itself, unlike the UK which has now openly admitted it has troops in Ukraine itself with the purpose of supporting them against Russia. Simple as that. In any case, I am in agreement with both Tophattingson and RadioactiveBoulevardier that based on available sources, the UK PM's admission and the German chancellor's statement (plus the leaked conversation for good measure), the UK should be added (in a support role at least) to the side of Ukraine. EkoGraf (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you.Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 08:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

To claim co-belligerency (a term that, as I and others have previously pointed out, has a specific definition) is clearly SYNTH and not supported by even the sort of non-reliable sources that were using the term about Belarus. But the recent leaks do, in my view, further strengthen the case for adding the UK to the infobox as a supporter. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 02:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree, both on the point of Belarus and the UK. EkoGraf (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

As Cinderella157 has said, the "Supported by" classification in wikiboxes seems to be deprecated, at least in this article, but I feel like this is worthy of a mention in the "Foreign involvement" subsection of "International Aspects" V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 12:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Tophattingson, User:RadioactiveBoulevardier, User:Nafis Fuad Ayon, per the discussion here, and based on the sources provided, I have added the UK in a support role [2]. However, mind you, despite the apparent consensus here and the sources available, it should be taken into account that since the start the subject of this conflict has been a very heated one among editors, and thus I expect that my edit will be promptly cancelled out by editors who in the past opposed the inclusion of any country in a support role for Ukraine. Thus, if it comes to that, I leave it up to you to continue the discussions. I will be here to provide arguments of support if needed since we are in agreement. EkoGraf (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

EkoGraf, you should know quite well that supported by in the infobox is a deprecated term and that the close of the RfC leading to the term being deprecated tells us that an RfC is the appropriate course to override the strong community consensus not to use the term. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Cinderella157, if its deprecated, why hasn't "Supported by: Belarus" been removed from the Russian side? And consensus can change, which is evident from this discussion which has shown strong support for the addition of UK based on the available sources. In any case, like I said above, removed [3], I leave it to the others, not getting involved anymore, will only voice my agreement as before. EkoGraf (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

EkoGraf, there was an RfC here which confirmed that Belarus should remain as "supported by". Cinderella157 (talk) 00:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I also agree to add UK in a support role.Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

European arms initiative

This is my last attempt, but I will try it. There should be article about Czech-initiated European arms initiative to supplying Ukrainian Armed Forces during current shortages. Is there anyone, who will create article about this?--178.255.168.45 (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Why is this more significant than any other aid? Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Because problems in the USA and it was already favoured by Dmitro Kuleba, so it have significance at current critical situation. 78.45.59.159 (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@178.255.168.45 If you really want stuff added, you can make some edit requests to Talk:Ukraine Defense Contact Group.

As Slatersteven said, there is as yet no indication in RS that this is more significant than the supplies of Patriot, HIMARS, F-16s, Bradleys, Javelins etc.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

On wiki are far less significant articles (in case of this war, various local skirmishes articles etc. and no one will delete them). Thus, not sure if thats valid argument.--78.45.59.159 (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Something gets added to Wikipedia if it is notable, not if it is significant. Something is notable if it is mentioned in secondary sources. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

If it is notable, than in that case, this article should be there much earliers, as already even WSJ mention this initiative. 178.255.168.45 (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Lithuania also joined initiative with 35 million Euros.--178.255.168.45 (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Zelensky thanked for initiative.--178.255.168.45 (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Another sources: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/19/czech-republic-to-deliver-thousands-of-extra-artillery-shells-to-ukraine and https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/a-small-ex-soviet-satellite-state-goes-hunting-for-arms-for-ukraine-35255577 or https://www.france24.com/en/tv-shows/the-debate/20240321-ukraine-and-arms-supply-can-the-eu-bridge-the-gap --178.255.168.45 (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Well more of the articles you speak of are gonna get deleted by consesnsus pretty soon, almost certainly… RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 04:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Such as? Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

For example, Battle of Balakliia is unnecessary in comparison to this initiative. Would someone delete that article? It can be merged to Kharkhiv counteroffensive without any problem.--178.255.168.45 (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

That is an article about a battle, not aid. They are not comparable. Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, you are right. Battle of Balakliia is much less notable than military aid. Thank you! Will you write that European arms initiative article? I do not have much time for creating article. 178.255.168.45 (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Related article needs expansion and cleanup

Hey all,

Fortifications of the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a messy start-class article that could use a lot of improvement. Attention from more editors would be helpful.

Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 09:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Expanding the map

The war map at the top only focuses on the situation inside ukraine.but thats just not how this war is working. there have been some rather sizable incursions in the belograd, kursk, and voronzenh regions. I think that these should be shown somewhere, since, even if the ukrainian government is not taking part in them, they are direct response to the invasion and are mainly used to divert rusisna resources from ukraine. i dont this would to hard to do. I also think the detailed map should be updated and maybe the tterritorial control during the war as well. Definetly the list of engagements 68.132.201.101 (talk) 22:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Seems like a better fit for Russo-Ukrainian War rather than this article which specifically focuses on the Russian invasion. TylerBurden (talk) 15:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I created the Template:Russian internal conflict detailed map/ Lukt64 (talk) 05:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

While I see the value of this information, I am not convinced this should be on a map. The current map gives an overview of territory that is controlled or being fought over. Small scale incursions that were never intended for lasting control are not on that map, nor are airstrikes etc. If we would include those for Ukraine the map would probably unwieldly filled with such minor actions. But if we agree it makes no sense to include each and any (known) airstrike or command raid within Ukraine, that raises the question why we would then need such a map for Russia. It seems a bit asymmetric to me. Also I am not sure the proposed internal conflict map works for this purpose. Arnoutf (talk) 10:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

These territorities have been held for nearly 2 weeks now...@Arnoutf 68.132.201.101 (talk) 10:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Find a source saying that the pro ukrainian groups have been driven out of said territory. In the absence of one its reasonable to assume their still there @Slatersteven 68.132.201.101 (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

British English is probably unenforceable

This topic area is finally peaceful and quiet enough that it’s time to seriously consider what that banner is doing up there, given that it’s honoured only in the breach. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

At a glance, inconsistently, rather than not at all? I would think it could be difficult to enforce either way though. Usually Europeans are split on US and UK English usage, and the topic is of interest to a very broad audience, so I think this is likely to be a problem whatever anyone does. Jim Killock (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)