Jump to content

Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Washing Machine (talk | contribs) at 18:55, 27 February 2022 (→Countries list: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

WP:Common name and WP:POVNAME

Rename the article to Russian military intervention in Ukraine or the Russo-Ukrainian conflict. Most sources don’t call it the Russo-Ukrainian War. Please read WP:Common name, and also WP:POVNAME. The article was originally titled the Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present), but in June 2020 it was changed to the Russo-Ukrainian War—the proposer of this page move was sockpuppet of User:Dolyn. Perhaps someone could make another move request. -- Tobby72 (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the history of move requests near the top of this talk page. There isn’t a single name that most sources use. This name is in use by reliable sources, and many close variations like Russia–Ukraine war, Russia’s war in Ukraine, Russian war in Ukraine, etcetera. The name is also controversial as the subject of war propaganda by which one side denies its role. If you would like to try again, go ahead and file a formal move request, but I suggest you collect some convincing evidence that your choice is an improvement, with specific reference to Wikipedia naming guidelines. —Michael Z. 20:08, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah as it stands right now this articles' title is extremely embarrassing for the entire Wikipedia, literally not a single source outside of Ukrainian right-leaning media or pro-NATO sources would ever refer to "Russo-Ukrainian War", this is why no one believes that Wikipedia is a reliable source of information. An article describing Russian military intervention in Ukraine would be genuinely worthwhile and interesting but now this is merely a propaganda piece. Juihuhuiytfdtry (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first mention of the name is followed by a note listing literally three sources, none of them being “right-leaning” Ukrainians (nudge, wink, know what you mean). But “Russo-Ukrainian war” appears in more sources from 2014 to 2019 than “Russian military intervention in Ukraine” by 1,940 to 952 Why don’t you propose a better name and post a convincing move request? —Michael Z. 00:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Timothy Snyder is extremely well-known for his explicit pro-Western take on issues in Eastern Europe, and the following two articles are written by individuals either affiliated with Ukrainian state-sponsored academic political science research institutions, Canadian/American Ukrainian diaspora or by institutions affiliated with Western military financing - Joshua P. Multer is literally a member of US Army. It takes few seconds of pondering to realize that these takes are unrepresentative of perspective sub specie aeternitatis as a whole, it just makes no sense to look at an article written by a US military member and proclaim "look, our take is objective, Russo-Ukrainian War it is!". I mean, have you even read the articles before making this comment? The links you show me are broken for me but it is obvious that popularity isn't an indication of objectivity of material written (especially given that we're talking about sources here written in English), and it's a no-brainer that 5-word 13-syllable name would appear more often in both biased and non-partisan material than a 3-word 6-syllable one, people have an innate tendency to save cognitive resources even when it comes at expense of tracking truth. All of this strikes me as so blatantly obvious that I see no reason to "state my case" or "give a convincing argument" - a website so poorly moderated to avoid pure propaganda pieces as its article name is past all hope, that's like arguing with people believing that Navalny was not poisoned by the Russian government, with people who think that Moon landing was a hoax or with people who believe that the Earth is flat.Juihuhuiytfdtry (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments hold no validity until you can bring sources that support your personal opinions. You've recently deleted/renamed this account to 'Bound Variable,' so I'm assuming you've dropped the stick ... 50.111.6.149 (talk) 10:52, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be re-named. This is completely absurd. No country has declared war. Only Wikipedia has, it seems. Michaelwuzthere (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Michaelwuzthere: please see AlexEng's message under "This event never occured". ― Tuna NoSurprisesPlease 22:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be deleted or renamed. Niether Ukraine nor Russia declared war. Ukraine trading with Russia, fight to transport russian natural gas to Europe. Russia is not take part of the war in Donbass in the main documents signed by Ukraine, Germany, France and Russia - Minsk protocol (it's agreement between Ukraine and separatists). This article is definitely not neutral and is provocative to say the least. And most likely it can be seen as pro-Ukrainian propaganda. AstroAntares (talk) 11:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the discussions above and at #This_event_never_occured where this has been discussed endlessly. — Czello 12:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is definitely does not comply with the "Neutral point of view" policy. The source(#60) of this term is written by Demian Shevko, "political science researcher" from Ukraine. This is a politically argued article with a politically argued non-existent term. AstroAntares (talk) 08:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russia has officially completely invaded ALL of Ukraine, I think the question of whether to call it the "Russo-Ukrainian War" is moot. "Russian military intervention" is much less of a NPOV than Russo-Ukrainian War. 12:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkdb44 (talk • contribs)

russian build-up map

does anyone have a map of the Russian build-up Cadyro1 (talk) 11:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There’s a detailed map that can be used for information or as example here:
 —Michael Z. 15:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another one here, apparently from the Ukrainian military:
 —Michael Z. 22:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
you can have a look at these: https://informnapalm.org/en/ukraine-intelligence-about-russias-military/ , https://gdb.rferl.org/387b0cda-b79c-4878-b545-535e90478af5_w1300_r0.png - HammerFilmFan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.19.34 (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The InformNapalm article has some more maps, but they are from July 2020, before this year’s buildups. —Michael Z. 17:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have just added a U.S. intelligence assessment map and imagery which partly tackles this request. Rwendland (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of "claimed" to include territories controlled by Russia but claimed by Ukraine

@AlexEng: It seems to me to be correct to use the word "claimed". Whether or not one agrees with these claims, the territories are in fact only "claimed" and not controlled. Usually on Wikipedia, when talking about territorial disputes, the claims are addressed without making a judgement as to which is "correct" (in accordance with WP:NPOV), and I don't know why there would be an exception here. Furthermore, a statement by the president of Ukraine doesn't seem like a reliable source with respect to this topic, and if you want to keep the current wording, it should probably be changed to something better. पदाति (talk) 04:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not your run of the mill territorial dispute, पदाति. The territory in question belongs to Ukraine de jure, as a matter of international law; it is not merely claimed by Ukraine. It is controlled by Russia, which implies de facto control, or occupation. This does not reduce Ukraine's ownership to the status of "claim". WP:NPOV has a provision against improperly giving equal weight to minority viewpoints, which is what this boils down to. The wording that you suggested is improper, and restoring it requires community consensus. AlexEng(TALK) 04:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alex is absolutely correct. -HammerFilmFan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.6.149 (talk) 21:45, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see a diff or what text is being referred to. But indeed, Crimea is internationally recognized as Ukrainian territory, and the Russian Federation’s status is legally “occupying power,” and is treated as such in international courts, according to recognition of its legal and treaty obligations, and by UN agencies. If we’re also talking about the non-government controlled eastern Donbas, the entire Donbas oblasts, or “New Russia,” the RF doesn’t claim sovereignty or control over any of that, and the Russian proxy republics are not states recognized by anyone, including the RF, nor in the text of the Minsk agreements.
But it wouldn’t hurt if there were a secondary source confirming this, wherever the disputed text is. —Michael Z. 00:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proves that German really support Ukraine?

Needs a facts not a claims of politics, that worth nothing.

Technically Russia is financed by German. Ukraine don’t getting any support from German. 8.28.81.21 (talk) 02:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your English is so poor I have no idea of what you are trying to say, let alone see you bringing any RS to the table for the discussion of how to improve the article.50.111.40.110 (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like Germany is listed as a Ukraine supporter in the infobox, but its status is debatable. Germany has given Ukraine a lot of civil support, and mediated in the Minsk agreements, but it has also allowed construction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, widely considered to destabilize the Ukraine–Russia relationship, and now we know it has blocked NATO military aid to Ukraine. So it’s reasonable to ask for some secondary sources that define Germany as a Ukraine supporter in this conflict. —Michael Z. 00:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They've partially backtracked on that: https://112.international/ukraine-top-news/during-merkels-rule-germany-in-nato-vetoed-supply-of-weapons-to-ukraine-67717.html , and Ukraine is purchasing what it needs directly from NATO members U.S., UK, etc.: https://euromaidanpress.com/2021/12/13/germany-blocks-ukraines-arms-purchase-from-nato-as-unofficial-arms-embargo-on-ukraine-continues/ 50.111.34.214 (talk) 15:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well half the anti-drone systems were eventually allowed, so that qualifies as aid from NATO and Lithuania, not from Germany.
Relevant that some states, including Germany,[1] continued to honour pre-2014 contracts for the Russian Federation’s military capability, while banning arms and other military sales and aid to Ukraine. The second article quotes the Ukrainian defence minister in December 2021: “You’ve got interesting things out there: you supply weapons, military equipment and technology to the aggressor country, while Ukraine has been banned from military supplies since 2008 and from any contacts of a military-technical nature. This was then an implicit embargo on Ukraine, as Ukraine supplied arms to Georgia during the Georgian-Russian war. Nothing has changed since then: Europe — I mean Western Europe — does not supply us (Ukraine, – Ed.) with anything of this kind.”
We need a definition of what qualifies a state to be listed in “supported by” in the infobox. I’ve been entering states that provide military aid, including training, equipment, and weapons. I believe Germany may have provided medical supplies or hospital care for wounded Ukrainian soldiers, but I’m not sure about that. —Michael Z. 21:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Solowax (talk) 13:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

nothing new here

A wholely left-ist euro article with non-leftist ideas and facts canceled. I think there is a problem. No treaty with Ukraine was cited and the statement "russia gave it away" is suspicious. It's true that it was big news in 1991 - it's true Russia's economy was difficult and succession challenges were not something central russia was able to challenge as they wished. As far as what is true today "some people protested in Russia" means "everybody in Russia is protesting". The authors seem to have deployed logic fallicies single sidedly - as they do in most wiki articles. Lastly, there isn't a single paragraph citing russia's positions and how many in russia hold those positions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:143:480:A4C0:4ECC:6AFF:FE8E:47D (talk) 16:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly anti-Russia?

I have to agree with the previous "nothing new here" 2601:143:480:A4C0:4ECC:6AFF:FE8E:47D anon IP. This article reads grossly pro-West and anti-Russia, when equal or about equal, weight should be afforded to both sides. Also, why is the article titled y give undue weight to one side or another. I think the largest problem here is that there aren't any good, reliable sources that are pro-Russia because pro-Russian sources tend to be state media, which isn't independent and shouldn't really be trusted by anyone.

Russo-Ukrainian War applies because Russia occupied Crimea (a former Ukrainian territory) and has been directly involved in fighting in various places. I'm not that knowledgeable on the cyberattacks, but all of these show that Russia is pretty much directly attacking Ukraine, in which case I think it's fair to call the article "Russo-Ukrainian War". ― Tuna NoSurprisesPlease 05:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tunakanski "the largest problem here is that there aren't any good, reliable sources that are pro-Russia because pro-Russian sources tend to be state media." Or, perhaps the largest problem here is that the community, composed disproportionally of Americans (a fact) who happen to be disproportionately anti-Russia by birth (a fairly certain fact), has chosen to view anything that's Russia-based as "government-controlled" and "state-controlled", without evidence, while at the same time refusing to admit that even its state-funded media outlets like VOA are government-controlled by the US. If this last one wasn't so, why then is it everything you hear in VOA pro-US and anti-Russia. That's hardly a sign of a neutral organization, isn't it? In addition, there are 1000s of newspapers and magazines in Russia, as in any other major world economy, yet, as in virtually any other free, democratic, and Christian country, only the official government publications receive state funding. Clearly, there is a bias against Russia which, then makes it difficult to use independent Russian publications because the mere fact they are published in that country makes them, in the biased Western minds, automatically state-controlled and therefore, again in the biased Western mind, unreliable. That is, the most likely scenario here.
Regarding "Russo-Ukrainian War applies because Russia occupied Crimea", the ordinary definition of a "war" is where shots are being fired, but it's my understanding (and the article supports this) that not a single shot was fired when Russia occupied Crimea. Nothing is said in the article about the fact that a democratic election did take place in Crimea before Russia formally annexed it, and which election resulted in the residents of Crimea overwhelmingly choosing to join Russia. Yet to this day Ukraine, and the Western world oppose the fact that the people of Crimea want to stay with Russia and they would rather force them , against their free will, to be part of Ukraine. The Crimean election is a fact little made public in the West, perhaps because whether democratic or not, it brought forth a result the Western bloc didn't like: a reduction in the amount of pro-Western territory. They are news that are not convenient to Western governments so they (the so-called, "free world") would rather keep these inconvenient truths from its citizens. Again, seems like a blatant denial of what reliable sources really means when you (again, not the personal you) call something reliable only if it fits your political views, tendencies or preferences, in this case the views of the West. Mercy11 (talk) 03:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the above is factually incorrect. Taints the argument that the article’s WP:POV is not neutral. Articles are based on WP:reliable sources, not a WP:FALSEBALANCE between “pro-West” and “pro-Russian” political positions. —Michael Z. 15:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopedia, not an opinion poll; here we we deal with supported facts, not unsupported allegations of incorrectness. Mercy11 (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This event never occured

There was no Russo-Ukrainian war in 2014. The war, if such it be, was an internal conflict within the Ukraine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.92.107.127 (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russia moved forces into Crimea in 2014, which was a Ukrainian territory. That means Russia invaded the Ukraine, and is an act of war. Although they are not formally at war, they are still fighting one another, and it certainly isn't an internal conflict. ― Tuna NoSurprisesPlease 21:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources agree the Russian Federation’s military, intelligence, and mercenaries have been in Ukraine’s eastern Donbas too, since 2014. If we act coy about it to avoid an argument, then it becomes self-censorship, and perceived as a subject for a valid argument. —Michael Z. 22:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is an understandable confusion, within reason. The term "war" evokes thoughts of trench warfare and tanks blowing each other to smithereens. But that's the "war" of the 20th century. Now, war is often undeclared; it can be fought with proxies, or through political moves, or sometimes entirely online. This was a war, and the article is correct and reliably sourced. AlexEng(TALK) 03:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, in 2014–15 more tanks were destroyed than some European states own.[2] Since then, it has been non-stop trench warfare. More importantly, millions have been displaced, thousands killed, and tens of thousands wounded, in both phases of the war, in fighting involving two countries, that has been found by the International Criminal Court to be an international conflict. At the same time, part of the conflict comprises an occupation of territory, which international law considers an act of illegal aggression and applies the laws of war (Geneva Conventions, especially regarding treatment of civilians in wartime).
It occurs to me that the article should make clear the status of this conflict in these terms. —Michael Z. 14:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Niether Ukraine nor Russia declared war. Ukraine trading with Russia, fight to transport russian natural gas to Europe. Russia is not take part of the war in Donbass in the main documents signed by Ukraine, Germany, France and Russia - Minsk protocol (it's agreement between Ukraine and separatists). This article is definitely does not comply with the "Neutral point of view" policy, not neutral and is provocative to say the least. And most likely it can be seen as pro-Ukrainian propaganda. The source(#60) of this term is written by Demian Shevko, "political science researcher" from Ukraine. It isn't a neutral source. AstroAntares (talk) 08:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So why all these sources about the 2014 russo-ukranian war? Kuolex (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This subject reveals the fundamental error of Wikipedia relying on "sources" instead of reality. None of the "sources" citing an invasion by Russian forces provide any actual evidence of such an occurrence. No photos of Russian columns, no Russian military casualties, no reports of civilians interacting with Russian troops, no damaged hardware left behind -- literally nothing. But captive to its "sources" Wikipedia can only reflect narrative, like the shadows on the wall of Plato's cave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.92.107.127 (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No photo? Maybe you should search at least \abs little bit - and you will find not only photo, bit video, and even graves of Russian soldiers? Constantinehehe 14:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Graves of russian soldiers" as "source"? That's the real level for Wikipedia sources? AstroAntares (talk) 08:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

alley of angels

According to UNICEF data released in October 2018, mines have killed at least 149 children since 2014 in the armed conflict in eastern Ukraine since 2014

Russian Wikipedia and links to sources there, please translate, at least with Google, and add to the article

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%8F_%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2

+

https://yandex.kz/search/?text=%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%8F+%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2&lr=163

--2.132.84.87 (talk) 03:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@2.132.84.87: we have an article on this subject: Alley of Angels in Donetsk. I will consider whether any of the content is appropriate to add to this article, but I am making no promises. If you have something that you would like to add specifically, please feel free to make the changes yourself. AlexEng(TALK) 04:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to landmines and to the UNICEF report (Dec 2019) I've added these contents to the War in Donbas article. There is a "Humanitarian concerns" section there. Here, however, I don't know if and where such contents could fit in. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War @Gitz6666: Cloud200 (talk) 07:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, done Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2022

I want to fix the grammer Dream4206969 (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the event a full scale war breaks out in the coming days, rename this page back to 2014-2022 Russian Military Intervention

I cite the historical example of Japan and Manchuria here. Japan invaded an area that was legally part of China in 1931 during an internal conflict, but it didn’t evolve into a full scale war. We don’t call THAT the Second Sino-Japanese War, we save that for the full scale invasion in 1937-1945.

So if full scale war breaks out, I’d suggest saying it started…on whatever day it starts, and give THAT the full blown name of Russo-Ukrainian War, and give this the more mild name.

I think I agree that something will have to be done with the naming of this article in the event of a full-scale Russian invasion. While the previous conflicts and a potential future war would arguably be part of the same 7-8 year conflict, a full scale Russian invasion would mean the beginning of a war which would deserve its own separate article. Leaving this current article named as "Russo-Ukranian War" would cause a lot of confusion. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A hundred different things can happen in the next days, weeks, months—or not. If there’s a new offensive, the main article on the war still remains the main article on the whole war, and WP:summary style would have us make new articles for individual phases. Without a WP:crystal ball, I think we shall assess the need to rename or split much better some time after the events that prompt it than before. —Michael Z. 04:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Michael, a full scale war would highlight how ridiculous this article's name change was. Prinsgezinde (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:48F7:77BC:3B5:6E9B (talk) 03:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC) Do it[reply]

Recent shelling by the UAF against the separatist republics and mass evacuation to Russia

I find it strange that there is no mention of recent shelling by the UAF against the separatist republics and the mass evacuation of their civilian population to Russia. No mention of the sabotage groups that blow up a car two days ago either. I know that this article is anti-Russia but denying or not reporting that in these days Ukraine is heavily shelling the Donbas and that the separatists are shelling themselves (like Zelensky said) is just false. Two shells even fell on Russian territory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.20.164.184 (talk) 12:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is discussed in detail in OSCE SMM report from 19 February 2022[3], and comes out to be a bit of a Radio Yerevan because OSCE has 1) recorded dozens if not hundreds of outgoing projectiles from Russian-controlled areas towards Ukraine and three projectiles the other way around, 2) confirmed that the school in Vrubivka was shelled from Russian-controlled areas. Cloud200 (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That does not reflect a neutral POV. Ukraine reported increased shelling from the Russian side, much of it confirmed, while the Russian side spreads blatant disinformation about shelling and their pre-planned evacuation. See, for example:
The allegation deleted by anon is not exactly true: OSCE daily report says they attended but had to conduct its evaluation from behind the fence due to police crime scene.[4]
 —Michael Z. 15:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah both sides are engaging in shelling but just by looking at the very same map that the OSCE provided (https://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/reports) it is clear that it is the Ukrainians that are doing most of the shelling. Two Ukrainian vehicles have even been engaged by Russian forces. Ukraine still denies that it is even carrying out shelling operations in Donbas while just by looking at videos online these can be disproven. The while article lacks one side; it only considers Ukraine and the West. It simply doesn't give the whole picture and renders it impossible for a newcomer to get an accurate broad picture of why the Russians are doing what they are doing. The breakaways republics didn't evacuate their population just for the sake of it but in consequence of continued breaches of the Minsk Agreement by Ukraine. Ukraine, Russia France and Germany signed this agreement in which: Russia is not even considered an active part in the conflict and a way to resolve a conflict by diplomatic negotiation between Ukraine and the breakaway republics is outlined. It is Ukraine fault for the escalating situation that is currently developing since they are the ones that don't even want to start negotiations with the LPR and DPR but there is almost no trace of any of this in the whole thread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.20.164.184 (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is WP:NOTCHAT. For improvement to the article, please propose concrete changes and cite reliable secondary sources per WP:RS. —Michael Z. 15:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fakes, rubbish and NPOV

The allegations about the shelling of the kindergarten turned out to be false or not very clear. For some reason, different opinions about this event are not given, for example, the authorities of the self-proclaimed republics talk about shelling from Ukraine: [5] [6]

It is not clear why the opinion of Western countries was inserted there that this could be a reason for the "invasion" - this opinion turned out to be false. If we insert every opinion about some event, then the articles will turn into a dump of an infinite number of groundless statements of some people. Every day there are new versions of the "invasion" date and other things that turn out to be false. So why include them in the article?

The article does not mention (or mentions very rarely) the opinions, actions and statements of the authorities of the self-proclaimed republics, as well as the statements of Russia:

The article should be neutral, there's no place for propaganda statements. 178.163.92.71 (talk) 21:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see our policy on reliable sources for guidance on determining whether a source is reliable and appropriate for use on Wikipedia. (hint: Russian state media doesn't meet the criteria, and will also rot your brain) Jr8825 • Talk 21:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the kindergarten shelling, see sources I linked in the previous talk section.[23][24] The shelling was real, and caused wounds to adults at a kindergarten while 20 children were in another room. The false report was Russian separatists claiming it was a shelling by Ukrainian forces on territory they hold, and then trying to deny the event after the truth came out.
For reliable sources, please check whether they are listed at WP:RSP before using them. Russian state media like RIA, Sputin, RT, and TASS are not considered reliable on factual information regarding this conflict. —Michael Z. 22:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you are saying that almost every media resource in Russia cannot be used in an article. I can only agree with such sources as Sputnik and Life.ru. However, TASS, RIA, RBK are some of the most reliable sources in terms of Russian official statements. Also, there can be no questions to Kommersant, Meduza, Interfax, as these are one of the most reliable sources in Russia at all.
This article also contains The Daily Beast, New York Post, and Rolling Stone that have been deemed unreliable and should not be used in articles. So it will be necessary to remove these sources and replace them with more reliable and independent ones. Sputnik and Life.ru may not be added because they are unreliable, but the rest of the sources cited by me may well be used in the article to reflect the opinion of the other side. 178.163.92.71 (talk) 07:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't bother, they've already made up their mind. Prinsgezinde (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know, they are clearly trying to whitewash Ukraine and make it look like they are being attacked without reason. It is also convenient that any Russian source is considered based and not reliable while some questionable Western sources are included. Also, no mention of the continuous fake invasion dates that the US government provided: first the invasion date was set for the spring of 2021, then summer, then autumn, then winter, then it was January 2022, then early February, then February 16th, now they are talking about the early march. For God sake, even Zelensky told the West to stop increasing tensions https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/biden-zelensky-call/index.html. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.20.164.184 (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If there are any unreliable sources (Western or not) that are in this article and you feel they shouldn't be (per WP:RSP) then we can and should remove them. However, state Russian news will almost always never be reliable as they are propaganda outlets there to tout the Kremlin line. — Czello 07:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2022

Change the title of the article to conflict or tension or intervention. War hasn't broken out. Simple as that. 79.168.249.28 (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Russia invaded Ukraine in early 2014. The war has been ongoing since then, with varying intensity. Please look at the multiple sources given in the text. If you look carefully, you'll see that the Russian invasion of Ukraine started on 22 February 2014, eight years ago. Any proposal to change the name of this overview article would be overwhelmingly opposed (except on minor technical issues such as hyphen versus en dash). Boud (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

States are occupied (like Japan's occupation of Fengtian Clique/Manchuria) without them being wars. Furthermore, the occupation of Crimea wasn't part of a war either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.249.28 (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The International Criminal Court found that the occupation of Crimea is part of an international conflict between the RF and Ukraine. I believe it meets the UN’s definition of international aggression, including at least points a, e, and g.[25] It falls under the rules of war, specifically Geneva Conventions regarding treatment of civilians during an occupation, etcetera, as the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea found in the case of the Ukrainian navy vessels attacked in international waters. —Michael Z. 15:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move page?

The title of this article should probably be changed to Russo-Ukrainian crisis (already a redirect to this page). The namespace for Russo-Ukrainian War (since 2022) will likely need to become its own article in the coming days. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 04:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What seems the most reasonable at this current juncture would be moving this page to "First Russo-Ukrainian War", "Russo-Ukrainian War: First phase", or "Donbass War" in order to clearly differentiate it from the apparent full-scale war that began today (as opposed to the limited war followed by frozen conflict with punctuated escalations this page covers.) Reyne2 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, making Russo-Ukranian War (2016-2022) and Russo-Ukranian War (2022) separate articles seems like a good cut off point. Yeoutie (talk) 04:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The events between 2014 and today's invasion have clearly not been that of war between Russia and Ukraine. What we are seeing now is the Russo-Ukrainian war. This page should be moved to "Russo-Ukrainian crisis" or something along those lines and 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine should be moved to Russo-Ukrainian War. The only war that has been happening before today is the Donbas War between Ukraine and DPR and LPR. --eduardog3000 (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Bear bites

Seeing as Russia has now invaded Ukraine. This article needs some updating. GoodDay (talk) 04:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 February 2022

Being bold and speedy closing this, clear WP:SNOW oppose. (non-admin closure) — Czello 12:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Russo-Ukrainian War → Russian intervention in the War in Donbas (2014–2022) – Now that the real war between both countries started as several sources stated (https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/ukraine-crisis-live-updates-un-to-hold-emergency-meeting-on-ukraine-russia-standoff-today-2785839/amp/1, https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2022/2/23/22948534/russia-ukraine-war-putin-explosions, https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/ukraine-shifts-to-war-footing-tells-citizens-to-leave-russia-11645616181, https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/24/russia-attacks-ukraine-news-vladimir-putin-zelenskiy-russian-invasion) Can we please move this article and avoid causing confusion and the under-reliability of wikipedia? Wikiman92783 (talk) 06:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Wikiman92783 (talk) 06:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can a brand new account with just few edits even propose such a move? Volunteer Marek 06:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No idea. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 07:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such ban, but [26] has "if it appears unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move". Author of that proposal at least seriously misjudged situation Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose since a lack of reason given by the author of this change request, and even then, it doesn't really make much sense imo. The intervention in the War in Donbas is a piece of the entire conflict. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 07:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do not, I repeat, do not consider this change. This is an explicit change proposed by a Kremlin funded individual, looking to slant the reality to an "intervention", rather then an Invasion by President Putin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silver24shil (talk • contribs) 07:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you retarded? I said the main ongoing war started just now. Sad to see wikipedia be run by people like these Wikiman92783 (talk) 07:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not use profanity or slurs to attack other users. A standalone article for the crisis in Donbas already exists. If you don't understand how a certain part of Wikipedia works, you can opt to learn more instead of being uncivil. TangoFett (talk) 07:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, war started in 2014. --Thesmp (talk) 07:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We already have an article on the current conflict in the Donbass, and this article describes the wider war happening since 2014. Trying to downplay it as an "intervention" is not only completely without precedent in Wikipedia articles, it's a laughably transparent attempt at pro-Putin propaganda. There are no Wiki policies that support this move. TangoFett (talk) 07:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this is the main article on the war itself. If necessary this should have been a split request instead of a move req.  Nixinova   T   C   07:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – per TangoFett and all above. Bgv. (talk) 08:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – per all of the above RobertEves92 08:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – this article documents the entire Russo-Ukrainian conflict, and includes Crimea which is not a part of the Donbas. The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is not the "real war", the war has been ongoing since 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owen250708 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per above -Kpddg (talk • contribs) 10:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per above 163.116.192.120 (talk) 11:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and propose speedy closing and removal of banner (is it OK to do this?). This rename proposal is either confused or a blatant pro-Russia propaganda completely mismatching reliable sources (and actual situation) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See [27] who can close move proposal (I cannot anymore as I commented, though Wikipedia:Snowball clause likely applies and this would benefit from speedy closure) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I opened https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Highly_embarrassing_rename_request_of_article_about_ongoing_Russian_invasion Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Suggestion to opening text

Following the events of February 24, it should be noted that Russia has fully invaded Ukraine in the last sentence of the opening paragraph. 2600:387:F:4515:0:0:0:B (talk) 06:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

them restrictions on editing

anyone else think that this article should be locked/partially locked for editing or something? y a know. just in case. like the ukraine article or the russia article. --2001:569:55C8:D500:A57F:7684:D136:E47E (talk) 07:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@2001:569:55C8:D500:A57F:7684:D136:E47E: Wikipedia's page protection policy, including any edit restrictions, are not preemptive measures, but are used in response to violation of policies & guidelines, like vandalism or disruptive editing. If these issues arise, a request for protection can be submitted to administrators at WP:RPP. Feel free to reach out with any questions. Bgv. (talk) 08:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any proof that North Korea is supporting Russia?

I've noticed that in the belligerents section, the DPRK is listed as supporting Russia. Has this been confirmed? Because I can't seem to find any evidence that North Korea has even said anything about the war at all. 2001:BB6:1E54:858:F401:D6FF:FE11:384D (talk) 12:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No source, I've removed it. Thanks. — Czello 12:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2022

Remove "Crimean Tatars" from belligerents category. Tatars are an ethnic group and are not monolith blindly in support of one side or the other or even a coherent faction/military force in the conflict Татары (talk) 13:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the list of supporting/belligerent groups from the infobox, per the concerns raised in this thread above. Jr8825 • Talk 23:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a better source for Iran supporting Russia?

Because this one urges both sides to show restraint and blames the West (US/EU/UK/CA/etc) for the situation in Ukraine, which seems to be anti-West but not pro-Russia/anti-UkraineAngele201002 (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was brought up on my talk page but "This guideline does not discourage the use of disambiguation hatnotes in a situation where separate topics are related, but could nonetheless be referred to by the same title and would thus qualify for disambiguation". We need a link up there so this page can be more easily found.

Rename this page to Russo-Ukrainian Conflict and make the current invasion Russo-Ukrainian War

I cite, among MANY other examples(Yemen, Libya), Nagorno Karabakh. We call the overarching cold conflict the 'conflict', and save War for the hot war in 2020 206.174.216.170 (talk) 16:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As this is part of the same conflict I am unsure this is valid.Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"save War for the hot war in 2020" there was active war with attacks also at other times, for example in 2021 and 2022 Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you get 2020 from? Prinsgezinde (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Russian invasion of Ukraine" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Russian invasion of Ukraine and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 24#Russian invasion of Ukraine until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 17:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chernobyl NPP Exclusion Zone Captured according to several official sources, add it to the map

The NPP-EZ, as pictured here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Exclusion_Zone#/media/File:Map_of_Chernobyl_Exclusion_Zone.svg ) was confirmed captured by both Ukrainian, Russian, and neutral forces. Add it in pink — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.216.170 (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nuetral forces?Slatersteven (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2022 (2)

Bpeh9508 (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You need to make a request.Slatersteven (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 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. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 00:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dates in Infobox

I feel like we should change the dates in the infobox similar to War in Afghanistan. The state of war between 2014 and February 23, 2022 is far different from the full out war that exists as of today. --2601:446:400:7F10:BCB0:770F:1601:38F2 (talk) 21:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Supported by" country lists in the infobox

Its seems bit silly to list countries as supporting either Russia or Ukraine based on statements they've made about the conflict, especially given that "supporting" a belligerent in war implies military assistance. I looked at the statements used to justify listing some countries as supporting one or the other and even then some of the statements don't actually indicate any support. Recommend excluding any country that isn't supporting either side militarily. To my knowledge, Russia has not received military assistance from any of the nations listed as supporting it (perhaps with the exception of Belarus) and Ukraine has not received any military assistance from any non-NATO country.216.169.22.237 (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Washing Machine (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is egregiously misleading. Many of these don't even have sources. The Cuba source is pretty much unrelated to the conflict, and doesn't suggest support in any meaningful way for this action. "Support" needs to mean sending military supplies or at a bare minimum, sanctions. Zellfire999 (talk) 02:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Non-NATO states have sent military support. I can think of Australia, and Japan has offered loans in view of the buildup a week or two ago, and now announced sanctions. NATO states have offered support outside the NATO framework, and so should be listed separately. —Michael Z. 03:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the Belligerents list in the infobox is a mess and could do with a cleanup. Jr8825 • Talk 04:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Came here to say this, no other conflict follows this pattern. KostaKusta (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the lists of countries for a second time, as @Marqwezzuh: hasn't joined the discussion here. Several editors have been warring it back in. It'd be helpful if they could join this discussion. As can be seen below, a lot of new editors have been appearing asking for their countries to be added to the list of Ukrainian "supporters" – this isn't what the combatant section of the military conflict infobox is supposed to be for. The guidance can be found here {{Infobox military conflict}}. Jr8825 • Talk 00:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2022

Change on the Beligerents list, Ukraine side, supported by, is missing some Latin American countries that are officially condemmning Russian invasion. Namely: Chile, Colombia, Uruguay, Mexico (also on the UN Security Council 2021-2022 and actively joining Ukrainian and UE efforts), and Ecuador. Below the link for the official statements that support the claims:

Chilean President Gabriel Boric: https://twitter.com/gabrielboric/status/1496877105484808202?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet Colombian President Iván Duque: https://twitter.com/IvanDuque/status/1496856138909954053 Uruguayan President Luís Lacalle: https://twitter.com/LuisLacallePou/status/1496846677986070531 Mexican Minister of Foreign Affairs Marcelo Ebrard: https://twitter.com/m_ebrard/status/1496999666902355976 & https://twitter.com/m_ebrard/status/1497015476370747392 Ecuadorean President Guillermo Lasso: https://twitter.com/LassoGuillermo/status/1496884482686824451 192.141.244.137 (talk) 03:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Please see the above thread discussing the list of belligerents. Jr8825 • Talk 04:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis § Hatnotes and similar articles

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis § Hatnotes and similar articles. Jr8825 • Talk 04:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2022 (2)

Add Albania as a supporter of Ukraine. Albania is a strong voice for Ukraine in UN Security Council.

https://www.barrons.com/news/us-albania-call-for-un-vote-friday-on-resolution-condemning-russia-diplomats-01645743906?refsec=afp-news AlbionOfAlbania (talk) 06:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Done Srijan Suryansh (talk) 08:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add Albania as a supporter of Ukraine

Albania has proved to be a strong voice for Ukraine in the UN Security Council.

https://www.barrons.com/news/us-albania-call-for-un-vote-friday-on-resolution-condemning-russia-diplomats-01645743906?refsec=afp-news AlbionOfAlbania (talk) 06:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

done ✅ Srijan Suryansh (talk) 08:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2022 (3)

The country of Belgium also supported Ukraine. (source: tweet PM Alexander De Croo) 81.82.235.38 (talk) 07:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://twitter.com/alexanderdecroo/status/1496723852164018184?cxt=HHwWkMC58buat8UpAAAA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.82.235.38 (talk) 07:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 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. Also, International reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine may be a more appropriate article for this type of information. Jr8825 • Talk 23:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2022 (4)

There is a problem with the dates as the war begun on the 24th, not on the 20th I like Potatis (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as though your concerns have already been addressed by recent edits to infobox. Jr8825 • Talk 23:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New articles

Why is everyone creating a new stub for every single military action? We're only on day 2. Imagine World War II having 10000 articles on every single time any village anywhere got attacked. ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

China’s Support For Ukraine

Take China out of the “supporting Ukraine column” they have refused to condemn russia, met with the russian leadership during the conflict, and has even said they will not impose any sanctions on the Russian Federation. Them simply saying Ukraine has a right to self-determination doesn’t mean they “support” the Ukrainian military. It’s a fictional narrative that the editor is trying to create. 173.71.144.242 (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've already removed the list of supporting countries from the infobox, per the concerns raised in this thread above. Jr8825 • Talk 23:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

/add supported albania Argentina Brazil United States United Kingdom Taiwan Germany Poland France Lebanon

/add supported Albania Argentina Brazil United States United Kingdom Taiwan Germany Poland France Lebanon Jonathan555568 (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit add supported Albania Argentina Bosnia and Herzegovina Brazil Bulgaria Canada France Germany Greece Turkey

Edit add supported Albania Argentina Bosnia and Herzegovina Brazil Bulgaria Canada Cyprus Colombia France Germany Greece Turkey United States United Kingdom Taiwan Vatican City Finland Jonathan555568 (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I have some dilemmas about Bosnia, since they have 3 presidents (Bosniak, Croat, and Serbian), and all 3 need to agree for Bosnia to officially condemn Russia and support Ukraine. As expected, Bosniaks and Croats support Ukraine, while Serbs support Russia. Article from Deutsche Welle (in Croatian language) about this problem: https://www.dw.com/hr/bosna-i-hercegovina-nesložna-i-oko-ukrajine/a-60933125

Of course, I will not change anything on the main page (I like the idea that Bosnia is on the list), but we should be aware of this problem. 46.188.161.254 (talk) 12:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

added Brazil

added Brazil Jonathan555568 (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

added France added United States

added France added United States Jonathan555568 (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

added Brazil

added Brazil Jonathan555568 (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

added Brazil Russo-Ukrainian War

added Brazil Russo-Ukrainian War Jonathan555568 (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

China Does Not Support Ukraine

There’s too much confusion, just remove the “supported by” column but it is obvious China backs Russia but wants to remain neutral so it doesn’t get hit with sanctions. 173.71.144.242 (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus as a direct participant of the war in the first sentence

While there are obviously questions about Belarus' status as belligerent (see this talk page thread on the invasion article), this article's first sentence, "...an ongoing war primarily involving Russia, Belarus, and pro-Russian forces on one side, and Ukraine on the other" seems to go too far. Are there any sources supporting it? Jr8825 • Talk 00:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties

In the casualties section, this has been posted “ 9,268 joined Russian forces after annexation[105]” the linked source is very clearly referring to the 2014 annexation however, which is not relevant to the casualties or losses in this war.

The whole casualties section seems to have a lot of spurious information but the above mentioned problem clearly serves to misinform readers. 2607:FEA8:C320:DB50:F158:F1BB:36FE:C320 (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Serbia's stance

Serbia does not implicitly support Russia and stated that it "respects territorial integrity of Ukraine" so I believe it should not belong to the list of countries that support Russia. It also offered to accomodate all Ukrainian refugees, so I think it belongs more to the list that support Ukraine than Russia. Serbia should be removed from both lists in my opinion. (Redacted) 09:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

"Serbia does not implicitly support Russia and stated that it "respects territorial integrity of Ukraine"" - not true at all. Serbia supports Russia. Renat 11:43, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, true. That link was from 2 years ago. Glasslibrarian (talk) 13:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2022

Add Chechnya (Kadyrovtsy) to the Belligerents,Units involved and update their strength. Doyle79 (talk) 13:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide a reliable source for the changes you want made. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 13:41, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kazakhstan

I don’t think Kazakhstan should be here as supporting Ukraine. They denied troops to Russia, but that does not necessarily mean a pro-Ukraine stance. Blackout8771 (talk) 14:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, the source does not say they support Ukraine. I've removed them. — Czello 15:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan does not support Russia in the conflict.

The PM of Pakistan only visited Russia for economic reasons and has not shown support for neither Ukraine or Russia but has awaited a peaceful end to the conflict. 80.5.199.172 (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed Pakistan as the source didn't support the claim at all. — Czello 16:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Pakistan has adopted a neutral stance and wished for conflict to be resolved through talks. Source: "PM Imran regrets Ukraine-Russia tensions, says conflict not in anyone’s interest". Pakistan also supports Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. So it will be wrong to say that Pakistan supports Russia. Source: "Pakistan reaffirmed support for Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity on Monday ahead of Prime Minister Imran Khan's impending visit to Moscow". 5.36.9.139 (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Israel as a supporter

Israel has only rescued Ukrainian Jews due to their religion and has not shown support for either side as it doesn’t want US sanctions ; neither does it want to damage its friendship with Russia. 80.5.199.172 (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Entire support infobox is redundant. JasonMoore (talk) 08:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Totals

Can someone do a total number for the strength card please? Also for the casualties card. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.166.137.174 (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine has conscripts.

Simple edit and simple addition of information. Zelensky intends on ending it in 2024 however. JasonMoore (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting countries

Are those exaggeratedly long lists of supporting countries in the infobox really necessary? I think only countries providing combat and medical support should be listed. 7szz (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same thing. Only countries that have directly supplied Ukraine should be listed on it imo. ― Tuna NoSurprisesPlease 22:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jr8825:@Israelgonz27:@7szz: Pinging you all so we can discuss having a list of supporting countries. I think that a list would be nice to have, but it shouldn't include countries that have simply condemned or supported one side or another, but rather actually supplied one of the main combatants (for example, the US sending Javelin missiles to Ukraine). ― Tuna NoSurprisesPlease 03:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-The reason I choose to re-add all the listed nations was that the word "Support" was not specific enough therefore I felt like nations not necessarily contributing militarily or medically should have stayed because they were supporting in other forms such as sanctions or economic ties, however, I would not oppose the removal of most of the nation if the term "supported" was more descriptive or maybe breaking it into two sections. -Israelgonz27 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Israelgonz27 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I'll move there. ― Tuna NoSurprisesPlease 04:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I move the support info box be removed entirely or only countries that are directly in physical support be added. JasonMoore (talk) 08:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

added Mexico Argentina Guatemala

added Mexico Argentina Guatemala Jonathan555568 (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Undid Mexico Guatemala Ecuador Argentina

Undid Mexico Guatemala Ecuador Argentina Jonathan555568 (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't the alternative title of "Russia–Ukraine War" getting a run?

Why isn't the alternative title of "Russia–Ukraine War" getting a run?

About nine out of ten media outlets are calling it as such, yet my edit gets reverted. I don't understand why having a secondary title by this name is even the slightest bit controversial. After all, it's purely semantic.

I don't know what "getting a run" means, but the phrase Russia-Ukraine War means the exact same thing as Russo-Ukrainian War. It's redundant to include it in the article. ― Tuna NoSurprisesPlease 02:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it as redundant, since not everybody knows Russo means Russia. Having an alternate title—especially since it is most commonly used in the media—would be helpful, I think. Electricmaster (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2022

I would like to add a final sentence to the introduction paragraph to reflect the recent advancements in Ukraine....

The current version is:

"In February 2022, the crisis deepened, and diplomatic talks to subdue Russia failed; this culminated in Russia moving forces into the separatist controlled regions on 22 February 2022."

... I would like to change it to:

"In February 2022, the crisis deepened, and diplomatic talks to subdue Russia failed; leading to Russia moving forces into the separatist controlled regions starting on the 22 February and culminating with the Russian invasion of Ukraine on 23 February."

I believe this new version will more accurately portray the series of events, as opposed to the current version which leaves out the critical detail of the Russian occupation in Ukraine. Dreadknoght (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreadknoght: What you said is the current version is not anywhere in the article, but the introduction paragraph already mentions the invasion on the 24th. ― Tuna NoSurprisesPlease 02:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

World war lll as already started is it.

Off-topic discussion. Jr8825 • Talk 13:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Wat do you think of this! 197.239.4.250 (talk) 05:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. "World" war implies the involvement of a large portion of the War. That is simply not the case. The only major players in this so far are Russia and Ukraine. That's two countries.User7355608 (talk) 08:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it's irrelevant how many countries are involved really. If WP:RS aren't calling it World War III, Wikipedia shouldn't be calling it World War III. John Bullock (talk) 11:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. Do not let the support infobox fool you. It’s less than 3 countries in total that are in a genuine physical altercation. JasonMoore (talk) 08:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC - Should NATO be displayed in the infobox as a support belligerent providing indirect military aid?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#RfC_-_Should_NATO_be_displayed_in_the_infobox_as_a_support_belligerent_providing_indirect_military_aid%3F

Maxorazon (talk) 09:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this seems like a good idea. Flecktyphus (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. NATO is not providing aid. Aid is provided by individual countries, and providing aid is not being a belligerent anyway. The only belligerent may be Belarus, if it sends its troops to Ukraine. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

9,268 servicemen defected to Russia

Under casualties there are 9,268 serviceman listed that joined Russia after the annexation. The source writes about how that number of former (!) servicemen, active members of the UAF and civilian (!) employees got the Russian citizenship after being employed on a contract basis with the Russian armed forces. The source says actually employed were 16,000.

Belligerents missing Wagner Group

It seems the Wagner Group ain't listed over belligerents on the aggressor side, I would suggest Nazi Germany Wagner Group Sure the Nazi German flag is a bit misleading, but I don't know what else symbol to use for an Russian nationalistic private created by a Neo-Nazi.

Former servicemen and civilian personnel getting new employment should not count under casualties. After the german unification most members of the NVA started working in the Bundeswehr. That doesn't mean the NVA took "casualties". Even if we count them as casualties we should count all who worked for the Russian Armed Forces not just those that got granted Russian citizenship. 145.224.73.80 (talk) 10:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Serbia & Montenegro

Serbia & Montenegro do not support Ukraine

Serbia & Montenegro have said they support Ukraine’s sovereignty but are not against Russia in sanctions or any matter

Please change this false information 94.204.55.67 (talk) 12:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Medvedev and Kadyrov in the info boxes

Medvedev is listed as 2014-20, but he is the deputy chairman (chairman is Putin) of the security council (relevant to the conflict as they were discussing the recognition of the DPR/LPR). Also, he was talking about sanctioning Western countries https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2022/2/26/senior-russian-security-official-issues-stark-threats-to-the-west

Kadyrov is listed with the Chechen flag, probably as he is the leader of the Chechen Republic, which has sent troops, but Chechnya is a part of Russia. Aksonov of Crimea, for example, has the Russian flag not the Crimean oneAngele201002 (talk) 14:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Countries list

Can someone bring back the list of countries that supported both Ukraine & Russia? Tikdaldo (talk) 15:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This should have stayed split!

The other article was better, people need information about the war that is happening now, not about the old part of the war.

I want to see a death tally at the moment, in terms of who's winning. The totals are from the beginning of the conflict.

Merging the two articles was a BAD idea! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.166.137.1 (talk) 18:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russo-Ukrainian_War&oldid=1074337658"