Talk:War in Donbas

remove Russian armed forces from infobox

They are clearly not doing combat. It is arguable if they train NAF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.219.34 (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. No. They clearly are "doing combat". I encourage you to read the sources cited in the article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

These are not neutral sources. These are American sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.219.34 (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

All sources, cited as proof for involvement of the Russian Armed Forces, are either just accusations without evidence, or have only circumstantial evidence, which original source, when properly back-traced, lead either to the Ukrainian services, or western agencies, allied with the Ukrainians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.70.114.11 (talk) 09:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

You guys are pretty funny, but Russia is in the infobox and it ain't going anywhere. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I think you've missed the point - it's not about if the Russia should be in the infobox, or not - of course it would be there, albeit with a note that the Russian government deny its involvement (this is the english Wikipedia after all); it's about the veracity of the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.70.114.10 (talk) 08:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Russia's laughable denial of involvement is immaterial to the reality that Russian troops have been verifiably documented to be on the ground and fighting in eastern Ukraine. The article already notes in several places that the Kremlin maintains the fiction that "I triple guarantee you, there are no Russian soldiers in Donbass" (pardon my paraphrasing), as is proper. It doesn't belong in the infobox, as Russian military involvement is a repeatedly, exhaustively proven fact despite Putin's game of deception. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

And it appears there is already a note on Russia in the infobox that its government denies involvement, for whatever that's worth. Personally, I don't even think we should have that note, but them's the breaks. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Here we go again http://www.globalresearch.ca/obama-is-a-liar-fake-nato-evidence-osce-confirms-that-no-russian-troops-no-tanks-have-crossed-the-russia-ukraine-border/5399457. So on one side we have Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa, Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal, Editor of Global Research and on another we have Kudzu1 personal opinion. Is article written by Ottawa professor reliable source, is what OSCE (even though heavy biased pro West organization) reliable source. Please advise?

201.103.94.240 (talk) 06:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

"verifiably documented", "exhaustively proven", but by whom? The problem is, when back-traced, most of the so called "documents" and "proofs" lead to the same origin - either Ukrainian services, or agencies, allied with them. Which definitely put a shade of doubt even on reliable sources. And I'm not sure that personal opinions about russian politics are relevant on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.70.114.11 (talk) 09:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

All this rubbish has happened many times before. For example, they denied that the Soviet State was responsible for the Katyn massacre; they denied that the people who seized government installations in the Crimea in 2014 were Russian Spetsnaz/Army; eventually they admitted it. It is the same today as always.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

My apologies. I was left with the impression, that the talk pages are supposed to be discussion about the quality of the article content and its sources, not a political dispute. Obviously I was mistaken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.70.114.10 (talk) 10:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. Whoever started this thread is doing a horrible job of building consensus. The only argument seems to be that the information is from sources that they considered biased. Unless you can convince enough editors and build consensus in support of your claim, then this thread is a waste. Myopia123 (talk) 11:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Whether it is proven or not regarding Russian REGULAR soldiers is not up to Kudzu1. It should be up to the international court. Of course there are Russians fighting in Ukraine, but it is REGULAR soldiers that count. For one thing, I have not seen a single Russian air force bombing sortie on Kiev. Do you?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.200.29 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 3 April 2015

Nice red herring. The information in this article is well-sourced. Not liking it is not a valid reason to remove or undercut reliably sourced content. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Red herring? Are you referring to sources that claimed there are Nukes in Iraq? Is this reliable source http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2015/2/10/its_not_just_brian_williams_inside. I mean that women got Pulitzer price if I am not wrong? So what is your outrage on this one?

201.103.94.240 (talk) 05:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you honestly think Ukrainian army can withstand REGULAR Russian forces backed by airpower? If so, you are delusional. Look what happened in Crimea. Ukrainian soldiers never dared to fire a single bullet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.200.29 (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

If you want to boast about the awesome power of the vaunted Russian military, boy is this not the website for you. WP:NOTFORUM. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Again arrogance! Amazing. Well http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/10740256/Nato-military-chief-Russia-could-take-Ukraine-in-three-days.html is source that you like. So what NATO general said there? You believe in those, don't you? How come this is not now relevant source now? Could you explain? Btw mentioning Afghanistan one fact, Soviets where fighting Afghan armed and supported by US. US quite contrary is even supported by Russia, and? I mean where did that Rambo go? Your comments are bitter to everyone and you rushed to delete my comments that are, as well as here, well argument-ed as you can see. Please provide arguments for your arrogance?

201.103.94.240 (talk) 05:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. There are plenty of articles on wikipedia that contain information which I do not like being discussed so openly. I don't go bitching and moaning on them. Provide WP:RS and build WP:CONSENSUS or deal with it. Myopia123 (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

In Western society, proof is everything. If you don't have proof, then don't put something in the infobox. News articles are not proof. It's like some people claim a Russian Buk shot down MH17, well, that's a CLAIM, that's not a PROOF. You cannot say there are Russian REGULAR soldiers fighting in Ukraine sent by the Russian government unless you have PROOF.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.219.200.144 (talk) 12:37, 4 April 2015‎

Unlike Western Society, all Wikipedia requires are Reliable Sources. These people really need to read this page which discuss RS's in detail and then come back here. Myopia123 (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

There is ACCUSATION that there are Russian regular soldiers in Ukraine. There is no proof of this. Not a single Russian regular soldier has ever been captured as proof. Accusations should not be put into the infobox. Only things that are proven should be put into the infobox. This is a matter of ethics and morality. Wikipedia has a responsibility to provide true information to its readers, not unproven accusations.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.219.200.144 (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2015‎

Actually there is proof and in fact a whole bunch of Russian regular soldiers have been captured [1]. This is a matter of reliable sources, so drop it, Russia stays as a combatant in the infobox for good. You might try a different website as an outlet for your "opinions".Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Or here, here or here. Basically, they're not even pretending anymore (which makes a whole bunch of people who've participated in these discussions in the past look really silly now).Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Reduce the use of quotation marks where they weaken NPOV

Using quotation marks to describe belligerents' rhetoric seems fine, but we should reduce their use in passages that are primarily intended to describe events.

Probably fine:

demonstrators regathered for a 'people's assembly' outside the building and called for a 'people's government'

Turchynov vowed to launch a major "anti-terror" operation

Needs work:

which prompted the Ukrainian government to launch a "counter-terrorism" operation to retake the city. (just say "an operation")

They said that they would use force if needed to defend the building from "criminals and terrorists" (just say "defend the building")

etc.

The quotation marks aren't technically wrong (they really are quotes), but they often read more like scare quotes. Both sides receive this treatment, but I think it more often slants against the Ukranian government. I don't see any reason to believe there was bad faith, but I think they weaken NPOV nonetheless.

Dmurvihill (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2015

The Russian army is not involved in the war in the Donbass. Somarzen (talk) 19:06, 5 April 2015 (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. Amortias (T)(C) 19:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is NATO biased

In all this one cannot consider Western Media as reliable sources. At the same time Eastern media are ignored. Russia is part of conflict and US is not?? Well everyone could see, and US never denied what Mrs. Noland was saying. There are reports of US Contractors involved in the war. How come this does not make US as part of conflict in Donbas and makes Russia. This is not about Crimea but Donbas Actually there are more physical proofs of US involvement and presence of their politician on Ukrainian soil and interference in Maidan than it is of Russian presence in Donbas - again Russian from Russian Federation official institutions, not local Russian with volunteers. Many times especially UK media embarrassed themselves talking on Russian soldiers because they speak Russian or say they are Russian. That does not prove they are soldiers of Russian Federation for there are Russians in Easter Ukraine, lots of them, and there are also Russian volunteers from Russia as there are French on the other side. Many Ukrainians on East consider themselves Russians too. This was disgrace of UK self-proclaimed the most respected news organizations and you can find those clips now on youtube. There is clear effect of "Manufacturing consent" among all those media especially US and UK. There are no significant media from China, India, Brazil, Argentina, Russia, Greece, Iran, Indonesia,.. etc. that agrees on Western views. What makes Guardian or BBC so relevant. What makes Western media so much relevant then those other countries ones. We all know how they were badly and consistently wrong before. Look at your sources for this article. They are either Western Ukrainian or NATO countries and Quatar (in tune with Nato). Call this NATO-pedia then. There is no neutrality at all. Its utterly biased simply analyzing its sources. Not to mention Kudzu1. What an arrogance. Who are you to make such a strong statements to put yourself as arbitrator of the truth. Ango-Saxon (Canadain) arrogance. So Canadian will confirm British media credibility?? Again no one would have anything against if you call this thing Anglo-pedia or Saxon-Pedia or Nato-pedia or Western-pedia. But you like it or not White people and Western World is not entitled on TRUTH!

201.103.136.71 (talk) 06:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

You should know I take your indignation and wear it as a badge of pride. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I know, what smart is ashamed of full gets proud in it. But honestly I do not care. This is not forum. I stated my facts and they are clear. All this is based in one sided sources with questionable integrity and credibility to be taken for granted.201.103.136.71 (talk) 07:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

201.103.136.71, don't bother - when it comes to ongoing events with different political agendas involved, many people, who don't live in Western countries, consider english Wikipedia to be just another propaganda tool. What western citizens choose to say or believe - well, it's up to them, isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.70.114.11 (talk) 08:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

If you cite specific sources used in the page and indicate reasons they should not be considered WP:RS, we can try to build a consensus to remove or replace them. Otherwise, they will stay in. Dmurvihill (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but that's the nature of the beast. Wikipedia has a number of tools and policies that have been used to make the article what it is. One of them is a policy (WP:UNDUE) whose goal is to make sure that "fringe" views are not given undue prominence (originally created to discourage uncritical articles about wild conspiracy theories. However, in any war in which one side is smaller than the other, as is the case in Ukraine, that side's views will be considered "fringe" and will therefore be largely not mentioned in any article, while the views of the other side will be largely accepted as the mainstream truth, per the policy). Another related policy is the one that has to do with reliability of sources. Simply put, there is no neutral metric for judging which sources are reliable - it is simply decided that English mainstream media is more reliable than most Russian-language sources, or "small-press" English media, because that's the majority opinion of Wikipedia editors. In support of their opinions, numerous known cases of the Russian mainstream media, or "small-press" English media, being wrong about something are cited. That there are also numerous known cases of the Western mainstream media being wrong about something doesn't seem to affect its perceived reliability to the same degree. The problem is that there is no independent organization that evaluates potential Wikipedia sources to determine which percentage of factual claims that they report turn out to be true or false. This makes accusations of bias such as yours both predictable and unavoidable.

There are potentially a few ways in which the situation (specifically in this article) could change.

1) if the mainstream Russian POV becomes adopted by significant geographical areas or political groupings outside of Russia's borders. For example, a major party in one of the EU's more important countries (Germany's "Left Party" and France's "National Front" don't count as such), or in China (where officials and media have been carefully noncommittal). In that case, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE could no longer be invoked, and an article such as this would be forced to change radically.

2) if Wikipedia adopts a specific policy for "war" articles which recognizes that truth is the first casualty of war, and that therefore the emphasis should be towards presenting both sides' views equally and attempting to reconcile them, even if one of them is an internationally "fringe" view. I do not expect this to happen until the major Anglophone countries (the Five Eyes) find themselves in a strong minority in some international conflict. If that ever happens, I fully expect Wikipedia's WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE policies to be amended so that Wikipedia can still be used to present the mainstream Anglo view!

3) if someone creates a neutral metric for judging which sources are reliable, which proceeds to change the "balance" of sources that are acceptable in Wikipedia articles. As this is far too huge of an undertaking, it is merely a fantasy unless some powerful state or private interest decides to fund it, in which case the results might be open to charge of bias anyway.

All in all, your best bet is to recognize that the deck is stacked, that there is nothing to do about it, and try to solely use pro-NATO sources, which do sometimes publish things that go against the official narrative (that way, you are shielded from charges of bias, fringe theorizing, etc.).

Esn (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is the point. If one is to write article on something he should make sure his sources are reliable. It is amazing that audio record of Noland available to world and never denied by US is not an clear evidence, yet writing based on western newspaper is, especially as stated above considering record of lies from Salvatore Allende till today (not to go further in past). It is amazing that US ambassador is lecturing Czech president or Hungarian president, that Greeks are openly threatened not to go to Russia for military parade. This is evidently apparent. Is this to you "free will" of Europe. Or disciplining Europe into single thought. Does this raise eyebrow what messages then could be delivered to those western media. It takes no much analysis to realize "consensus in lies" across the NATO media that is denounced publicly by many known names and more over not accepted by any of significant media in other then NATO and significant world countries mentioned above. There is known fact that West was manufacturing tragedies and motives for intervention. They could not get German consensus on action till Malaysian plane was crashed. Now apart being loud no real proof of neither Russia not rebel responsibility is proven. Many western news published key evidence against Russia recently found by Dutch investigators, which shamefully Dutch investigators promptly denied. Simply, by constant public blame, image of Russian responsibility is created even though claims associated with Dutch investigators or Malaysian officials are constantly denied by the very same parties. The most astonishingly MSNBC with liberal views (for US standards, for European one this are clear no-conservative not to go further) Rachel Meadow (or whatever is her name) spent hours convincing audience it had to be Russians. First Russia has no responsibility for rebel action even if given them arms for arms given were not given to take down civilian plane. If so appear to be logical to Mrs Meadow, then in honesty she should be aware that every Western sold and supplied weapons given to other countries or movements count for western responsibility for every evil doing. Then, however, memory of Mrs. Meadow suddenly shuts down. Example: West armed Suharto in Indonesia, that commit genocide over East Timor people. Not one airplane, but if I am right few hundred of thousands of people dead. Would Mrs. Meadow accuse US for that in rage and not let it go and demonize responsible ones, claim sanctions against her own country. If Russia for not proven responsibility over airplane crash suffers EU sanctions, what shell be done to USA in moral outcry of Germans and EU. Where are this honest administrators of this Wikipedia to answer this question. Where is the "international community outcry" on behavior of US and UK. It was 200000 people against 400 in Russian unproven case. Even though it is now know and publicly available fact on that case, there is no outcry of western media quoted here as relevant and reliable source. There are no penalties on US and UK and their officials. You will not see BBC panels on discussing if US is responsible power after such an record demonizing it and requesting EU to get sanctions on US. Not to mention Iraq, Lybia, Yugolsavia, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Afghanistan... (end show goes on).... However, lamenting on Russian bear responsibility is overly present. Damn Russians.

So I am asking you based on your senses. If Russia is so so responsible to be penalized by sanctions by EU for one airplane (again not proven to be Russian responsibility even by Dutch(NATO) investigators) where is Western Media outcry on US, not on Indonesia, but US who armed Suharto and presented him to world as roaring economy tiger leader, proud of IMF, dear friend of HRM Elizabeth II. Where is pointed finger of blame, to demand responsibility and punishment. I believe Mrs. Meadow, when it comes to that, somehow loses herself in Prada, somewhere on 5th avenue. Where is anger of Germans and EU media who so much demonize Russia and Putin now. Nowhere? 200000 East Timorian dead and UK is celebrating pathetic Queen Jubilee and world watches in amaze. Dear friend of Suharto is not demonized as Putin. For God sake she is English!

So to write article that aims to be objective and truthful, you should do more then simply being Rupert Murdock agents in establishing his media prints into encyclopedic facts of the matter. Otherwise simply do what I have advised you for a sake of honesty, if nothing else. Call this FOX-Pedia, CNN-Pedia, NATO-Pedia, WesterView-Pedia so at least people know what they are dealing with. What is wrong with that.

How is this relevant to article? Well to help you, it shows you how one sided sourcing can lead you to strange conclusions. Again ask yourself if Putin is demon for one airplane (and again not even proved to be the case but Dutch(NATO) investigators) how come there is no Western media demonization of US and UK and their leaders on killing of one nation. Instead, one borrow the name to airport, the other has her statue in bronze in British parliament. They are praised by EU leaders and western media that are used as sources of "truth" here. Unlike them East Timor dead do not even have marks on their graves. .... "and waltz goes on"...

Finally if Russia is to be put as side in war in Donbas, then US and U should be put as side in genocide in East Timor. Otherwise this views are of David Cameron. On one side he honors Thacher on another he is blaming Putin. More over UK and US involvement is proven fact today. Russian is Donbas is proven even less then American in Ukraine overall. Keep in mind on your pages on East timor invasion you have not put US and UK as participants but supporters (which is quite different) and you did not associate them with genocide responsibility what wester media quoted bluntly do with Russia and Putin when it comes to airplane case.

201.103.94.240 (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

See Whataboutism.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Do not see any relevance with the article. Maybe you should find meaning of words principle, shame and honesty. There is nothing "Whatabout" when it comes to killing of 200000 people in East Timor and those responsible are honored instead of being hanged. There should be only shame and blame on Wikipedia to participate in cover-up. Instead of blaming them, world faces cheep trill of Jubilee of Elizabeth II, honoring death of Margaret Thacher and Ronald Regan and their "greatness" at every step. Media you quote had no decency to raise their voice in name of those killed and demand responsibility. So it is 1. Principle: justice should be blind and truth should be based in facts 2. Shame: Killing of that many people with direct arming by US and UK should be denounced in shame and US and UK should be found responsible in full if same principles used in Nuremberg are applied 3. Honesty: to admit lacking of 1. and 2. instead talking on Whataboutism. I will repeat it again 200000 people killed in East Timor by Suharto praised, armed and sponsored by US and UK openly. There are many photos you can find on Google. Be not afraid of facts like media. For many years Western Media did not report anything on it, they bluntly hide it from eyes of public; interestingly what does it tell us about your sources? Yes in Wikipedia there is no finger of blame pointed though there are articles, pictures and videos on it and even parts of documentaries ("Manufacturing consent"). There is John Pilger documentary clearly mentioning it, going after IMF chiefs. Yet at the same time Putin is demon by Western media and EU Brussels oligarchs for airplane never proven to be his responsibility. This media instead on castigating those demons responsible for it (Demons of Nazi caliber) go after Greek, Czech and Hungarian president for attending military parade honoring those who fought against Nazi :-). If not sad (horror and sad) it would be comedy. That is what they found appalling. Quoting this media as relevant without clear checks and balances shows lack of senses to me. Whatabout, has nothing to do with what has been said. I am not Soviet representative I am pointing you clear luck of competence, consistency, neutrality, principle and lots of dishonesty in what has been presented here. I leave you to see if you should have feeling of shame for whatabouting comment, for even if I was whatabouting (though have never been in Soviet world not Soviet leader), you still could have taken action on the other side and correct what was written on East Timor invasion page. You could have use sources overly available to correct what was incorrect there in respect to truth that you are advertizing on these pages without bothering with Russia and Putin and Whataboutism. Your argument is as relevant as one of Bill O'Railly. Low punch as response to argument-ed criticism with labeling not followed but one single argument to support it. Again, remember I was never using East Timor to justify one side but to point lack of consistency in judgment and lack of credibility of sources used. What I used in argument to show your bias on US vs Russia in Ukrainian conflict itself is beloved Noland that was so "open" on the phone on what the real intentions of US were and lack of principle on Wikipedia to trust obvious and to be at least a bit suspicious about speculated western thought. Of course other speculations are by wiki standards to be ignored unless they align with western one. Hope you get what I mean now? 201.103.94.240 (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Re-opening this as I do not believe that WP:NOTFORUM applies; anonymous IP is discussing systemic bias in the article and pointing out specific perceived editorial lapses, not simply using the talk page as a "soapbox for discussing the topic". Nevertheless, I would advise anonymous IP that the only productive discussions you will have here will happen if you accept the current page's editorial line and overall modus operandi (abhorrent as they may be to you) and try to work within them. Please also see the message on your talk page. Esn (talk) 11:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

US supplying lethal arms to Ukraine

Poroshenko reviewed the Ukrainian army a couple of days ago and what do you know, we have a photo showing an American flag and an M107 Barrett large caliber sniper rifle. This is proof the US is now involved and supplying lethal arms to Ukraine. This needs to be added to the infobox.

photo proof

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=231579&d=1428313367

207.35.219.34 (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Bone up on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Don't forget to sign your posts! -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

How do I sign?

Four tildes. A reminder is right above the text field when you edit any Talk page: "This is a talk page. Please respect the talk page guidelines, and remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes..." -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

May I suggest that you register an account? Best regards /EriFr (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)t

It's only proof that they have american flags in Ukraine. And also, the muzzle does not look like the muzzle of an M107 Barrett. And even if it is, here's video of Berkut police officers using one during the maidan protests, which means there's nothing shocking about M107's in Ukraine. Ipso facto, nothing new here. Myopia123 (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

You are correct. It is M82A3. The one in the video is APR rifle, not Barrett. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.219.34 (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Then perhaps we should add Switzerland to the info box. Dmurvihill (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Good idea. While we're at it, we can add Liechtenstein, because it's well known as Switzerland's little friend. We should add Sweden, because it gets mixed up with Switzerland by some people, so there must be something going on there. Austria is a lot like Switzerland, in that it's an Alpine country that speaks a lot of German and claims to be "neutral", which is an obvious smokescreen for nefarious activities. And speaking of suspicious "neutral" countries, what about Costa Rica? It says it's a sovereign country, but it's in the Americas, its name sounds a lot like "Puerto Rico" which is a U.S. territory, and it doesn't have its own military, so it is clearly just a front operation of the United States and Vicki Nuland. And if Switzerland is a belligerent, we need to list Roger Federer as a combatant because of all the times he has beaten Russian players at tennis. He is definitely involved. Am I forgetting anyone? -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Systems such as Buk and Grad should not be classified as weapons - humanitarian assistance is a better description for them. Russia should be listed in the same category as the Red Cross.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Here a nice photo of the president posing with a sniper rifle, note the silencer on the muzzle. It looks like a Brügger & Thomet APR338. Perhaps the president is interested in shooting?-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Press release dated 12 December 2014, that Ukrinmash (part of Ukroboronprom - a Ukrainian government organisation) had signed the contract with Barrett Firearms (an American company) for the supply of weapons to the Ukrainian security services and the national guard. See also [2]-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Ukraine side casualty update

At least 2,053 killed and 6,331 wounded.

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/at-least-2053-soldiers-killed-in-russias-war-against-ukraine-385834.html

207.35.219.34 (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Ukrainian Army - 1205 dead, VDV - 336 dead (for the total of 1541), occupying forces – 14,600 dead. SO the minimum should not be 2,053 but 1541.

http://gordonua.com/news/war/Volonter-Rychkova-Za-242-dnya-oborony-doneckogo-aeroporta-pogib-1541-ukrainskiy-soldat-i-14600-okkupantov-75466.html?hc_location=ufi Goliath74 (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The number 2,053 are Ukrainian soldiers only.

French military intelligence disagrees that Russian troops made plans to invade Ukraine

This is what appears in a statement from General Christophe Gomart on the National Assembly's website: "The real difficulty with NATO is that US intelligence is dominant, while the French intelligence is more or less considered - hence the importance for us to supply sufficiently commanders of the NATO French origin information. NATO announced that the Russians would invade Ukraine while according to the information of the DRM, nothing came to support this hypothesis - we had indeed found that the Russians had not deployed command or logistics, including field hospitals, to consider a military invasion and the units of second level had made no movement. Subsequently showed that we were right, because if Russian soldiers were actually seen in Ukraine, it was more of a ploy to put pressure on Ukrainian President Poroshenko as an attempted invasion."

Is this statement enough to add France as being one of the countries that denies a Russian invasion of Ukraine? Esn (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. He is saying that French military intelligence showed that the hot air from deniable Russian-sources about Russian tanks soon being in Kiev could be ignored because the Russians had not deployed the supporting troops essential for such an invasion. In his opinion, US intelligence had been taken in.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that this statement is not noteworthy? Consider also this, from Spiegel:

Breedlove's Bellicosity: Berlin Alarmed by Aggressive NATO Stance on Ukraine

I think we could work something into the article along the lines of "Both Berlin and Paris have criticized NATO for uncritically echoing unfounded claims made by Washington and Kiev, unnecessarily and dangerously exacerbating tensions with Moscow" based on these two sources.– Herzen (talk) 01:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Both references are about the build up of Russian troops on the Russian side of the border and the alleged threat of a full-scale invasion of Ukraine (similar to that by Germany on 22 June 1941). The article does have a few references to Ukrainian fears about the threat of a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, but the issue has been down-played in the article - presumably because Wikipedia does not attempt to predict the future.

If you wanted to use the sources, a suitable way might be to create a section on the threat of a full scale 22 June 1941-style invasion by Russia. You could then use the Spiegel article as a reliable source that the Russians only had 20,000 troops apparently ready to invade Ukraine instead of 40,000 as claimed by specified Americans. If the article had such a section, it would be useful to cite articles on what those specified Americans were saying (as well as the debunking Spiegel article). It would then be appropriate to cite the Assemblee-Nationale source on how and why French military intelligence claimed to be superior to US military intelligence.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

"If Russian soldiers were actually seen in Ukraine, it was more of a ploy to put pressure on Ukrainian President Poroshenko than an attempted invasion". It doesn't seem as if the good general believes that there was a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, nor is he certain that any Russian soldiers were actually seen in Ukraine. Esn (talk) 10:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

request to rename War in Donbas to Conflict in Donbas

Neither Ukraine nor Russia have ever declared war. This is an Anti Terror Operation, so it should be called Conflict in Donbas rather than War in Donbas. If it is a war, then both sides are liable to war crimes.