Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War

Death Civilian

Should say the source is from 14 April 2014 to 30 September 2021. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LucasW (talk • contribs) 20:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Turkish military support

Turkey's Bayraktar TB2 is an effective weapon and already being used by Ukraine. I saw just announced military aids yet to arrive mentioned but already used tb2 and Turkey doesnt appear in arm suppliers to Ukraine section 88.229.63.186 (talk) 08:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Can it be confirmed as to whether the Bosphorous and Dardanelles have been closed to all Russian shipping? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 08:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

No doubt turkey is among the most powerful countries in EuroAsia. Turkey have complete capabilities to country attack of any country around the World. However, Turkey learned a lot from history and lost a lot due to misadventure in 1st world war. Now Turkey is smart and developed country. Turkey will never involve in any sort to direct or indirect intervention in Russo Ukrainian war. Russia and Turkey have good relations and western media try to create confusion everywhere.--MindAndMemory (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@88.229.63.186 "For 2022, Turkey is ranked 13 of 140 out of the countries considered for the annual GFP review. It holds a PwrIndx* score of 0.1961 (a score of 0.0000 is considered 'perfect')." https://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.php?country_id=turkey#:~:text=For%202022%2C%20Turkey%20is%20ranked,0.0000%20is%20considered%20'perfect'). Esteban Outeiral Dias (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Actions in the Black Sea

Is there any evidence of Russian warships having been sunk?

add Ukrainian name

Many Ukrainian commenters refer to the war as "the war of Russian aggression", which would be fair to add as a (also known as ... ) to help people reach this page from Twitter and other social media platforms through searching 12.138.28.5 (talk) 05:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian Wikipedia gives three names:

• Ukrainian: Російсько-українська війна, romanized: Rosiisko-ukrainska viina, lit. 'Russo–Ukrainian war'
• Ukrainian: Російська збройна агресія проти України, romanized: Rosiiska zbroina ahresiia proty Ukrainy, lit. 'Russian armed aggression against Ukraine'
• Ukrainian: Українська Вітчизняна війна, romanized: Ukrainska Vitchyzniana viina, lit. 'Ukrainian Patriotic war'

 —Michael Z. 20:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Many Ukrainian commentator refer to the war as “The War of Russian Liberation” which would be fair to Add. --MindAndMemory (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Untrue. Appears to be trolling. —Michael Z. 20:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Mzajac, per this edit, telling us: (Ukrainian: Російсько-українська війна, romanized: Rosiisko-ukrainska viina, lit. 'Russo–Ukrainian war'), is of no real encyclopedic value. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

MOS:LEADLANG suggests “If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name can be included in the lead sentence . . .” —Michael Z. 00:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Mzajac, MOS:LEADLANG states that it could be added but underpinning this is whether there is any value to our readers and whether it is encyclopedic to do so, remembering that MOS:LEADLANG is a general guideline covering many subjects. Telling us that Cologne is Köln in German is relevant because it is pretty different from the English common name and it is not just a matter of translation. Telling us that the Ukranian name for the Russo-Ukrainian War translates into English as Russo-Ukrainian War is pretty inconsequential. There is then the matter of maintaining a neutral point of view. We would also need to be saying what the Russians are calling this. Just because the guidance says that we could do this, doesn't mean that we should. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

That is a very good point. In the RF it is now illegal to call Putin’s February “special military operation” a war or invasion. Independent media have been shit down for it and a new censorship law threatens fifteen years imprisonment for “disinformation.” Tells us a lot. How do we incorporate that into the article? —Michael Z. 14:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Mzajac, I understand that the laws you are refering to are fairly recent. It is something I think we should leave for now to those article specifically dealing with the recent events. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:44, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. The information space is a huge aspect of the last two weeks of this war, including Ukrainian dominance and the Russian denial of the war to their own citizens. It’s touched on in two or three sections of this article, but certainly deserves a solid paragraph. —Michael Z. 01:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

It feels weird to call 2014 conflicts and the 2022 invasion the same war.

Firstly I'd like to say, I like a lot of the changes that have been happening to clean this article up lately.

Secondly, I'll address my point. Every source that points to a name in this war was published before 2022, excluding this new conflict, and it seems really disjointed to call the Crimean invasion, the following fighting in Donbas, and the current invasion part of the same war. In fact, if you think about it, there was technically a ceasefire for 8 years between Russia and Ukraine, it was a war mainly fought between Ukraine and Russian separatists who also resided in Ukraine.

To mirror this, in 1935 Hitler's regime invaded the Saarland and this started the expansion of Nazi Germany. This is usually not considered part of the main war because in between then and 1939, it was mainly a ceasefire with military planning and internal conflict occurring in Germany.

Another example here would be the Russo-Georgian War, a conflict mainly driven by ethnic cleansing which had been occurring since the 1990s, with, again, no fire exchanged between Georgia and Russia until 2008, and then no more. The article lists the war as lasting 12 days, not 17 years.

So... while there is a lack of sources right now labelling this war, I think it's safe to say that calling this 2022 offensive a part of the war that preceded currently has no support in terms of the sources that were linked in this article.

On the other hand, I think that this should be handled after the fighting dies down or the victor in this offensive is decided. New source articles will start to come out, some of them giving this conflict a name, and I think that this page is currently a good landing page for people wanting to learn about this current conflict. Icepunchies (talk) 07:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Given recent developments, I think the title and scope of this article is untenable, particularly as a large-scale war is now taking place, starting in 2022. In the nearish future I think a page move to a title such as "Russo-Ukrainian conflict (2014–2022)" would be appropriate. Jr8825 • Talk 12:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

This is all WP:OR. This article is at this title precisely because reliable sources referred to the events from 2014 as such, not for any other reason. You can consult previous discussions on this matter for the relevant RS. We cannot create an independent, original historiography here. What is happening now is a direct extension of what happened in 2014. Ukrainians have been fighting this war for eight years. Just because the world is suddenly paying attention now, doesn't negate what has happened up until now. It is possible that a new historiography may arise once events have settled down, but Wikipedia cannot jump the gun and create its own historiography as distinct from RS. We must wait, and therefore, I must oppose any change at this juncture. RGloucester — ☎ 17:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

And by the way, please read War in Donbas#Russian involvement before making comments like the war before the present invasion 'was mainly fought between Ukraine and Russian separatists'. It shows an appalling disregard for the academic consensus on this conflict. RGloucester — ☎ 17:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@RGloucester: You seem to have conflated my comments and those of the other editor. Jr8825 • Talk 07:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@RGloucester: I apologize if my ignorance on Russian involvement in the Donbass offended you.

Anyways, I'm going to dispute your claim of WP:OR. Press releases exist of the leaders of Ukraine, Russia, and the US, as well as others, I'm sure, that label the invasion portion of this conflict as a new war outright. Icepunchies (talk) 08:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian news releases? As of yesterday, I believe, it’s illegal to call this “special military operation” a war or invasion in the Russian Federation. News outlets were blocked for it, and a new law makes publishing such “disinformation” punishable by up to 15 years imprisonment.

Regarding the original comment: it is hard to believe that the 1939 Nazi–Soviet invasion of Poland was the same war as the 1945 occupation of Berlin, but there you go. That war also spawned names like Phony War and Great Patriotic War to represent some POVs of its phases. Factually, there was no “ceasefire for 8 years,” but a ceasefire agreement with many (dozens or scores?) failed ceasefires over 7-1/2 years, while more than half of the war deaths before last week’s open invasion occurred after it was signed. As others have mentioned, the “Russian separatists” are considered Russian proxy forces, and not independent, and the war has been considered an international conflict from day one, but I won’t bother getting into the long list of evidence. Anyway, since you mentioned sources, why no sources supporting the argument? —Michael Z. 21:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Because I edit on mobile 90% of the time and I'm not certain how to format such sources into a talk page without just copy pasting the links. But, yeah you're right, there is the problem of NPOV with naming this article. The Russian side isn't happy if you call it a war outright, and Ukraine isn't happy if you don't publicize that this is indeed a war.

There is a Telegram video with Zelensky describing that this is the "7th day of the war", released on March the 2nd, and a transcript of Biden on February the 24th recognizing that Russia had declared war on Ukraine. The US claim is relevant because they are a NATO member and arms supplier and NATO member. Putin is, yes, calling this an "invasion" but clearly establishubg a motive not seen in previous conflicts. I have yet to read more press releases by different authorities, but again, with the lack of scholarly articles out at this time, I don't think it wise to say we're creating a histiography by separating the two conflicts when it seems that there is evidence that governments are recognizing this as a new conflict.

I'm sorry if this argument is made weaker by my inability to provide the sources directly, but again, I don't know how on a talk page, so if you'd link me somewhere that shows this I'm happy to post the sources for you. They are not "news articles" but press releases/statements either stated by leaders on video or posted to official government websites.

And, again, Saarland is not considered part of WWII or the eastern front, but Poland is. Saarland, in modern day, is viewed as escalation by the Nazis. It was gained in a status referendum, much like Crimea in 2014. So to counter your point, if Poland is part of the war, why isn't Saarland? Icepunchies (talk) 06:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

if these people join the war then would the tides of this war be turned (I'd like to see a page and the likely victor based on current events) Random kid who likes science (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Belligerents - support

Turkey should be added as they are supplying drones, etc (Bayraktar). Yes they are part of NATO but so are EU/UK/US/CA but they are listed separatelyAngele201002 (talk) 08:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Pls see infobox and how recent support is being dealt with in a separate article. There are article that specifically deal with the most recent events, rather than overwhelming this article (covering 8 years) with recentism. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but the drones were supplied in 2019 so it’s not something solely relevant to the 2022 invasion Angele201002 (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Add to body if anything. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Has Vladimir Putin threatened the countries which are supplying weapons to the Ukraine even if they are members of NATO? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 07:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The rational for Putin's "wrecking Ukraine"

A friend of mine from the USA, who studied in Kiev in the 1980s, send me this youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4 . I suggest adding the following section about The Cause(s) of the War: In 2015, John Mearsheimer stated, that if NATO tries to admit Ukraine, the only rational choice left to Putin would be to "wreck Ukraine". If Mearsheimer is correct, it means, that Putin is NOT trying to "conquer" Ukraine (i.e. to "rule over it"). Putin is trying to "wreck" Ukraine, so that the NATO would accept his demand not to expand the alliance eastward. It also means, that Putin is willing to stop the bloodshed and start negotiations immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Tau (talk • contribs) 17:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Except NATO has not tried to admit Ukraine, in fact, they have refused to admit it. Also, this is 7 years too late, and out of date. Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

>> to quote Mearsheimer: "I think all the trouble in this case really started in April, 2008, at the NATO Summit in Bucharest, where afterward NATO issued a statement that said Ukraine and Georgia would become part of NATO." https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/why-john-mearsheimer-blames-the-us-for-the-crisis-in-ukraine/amp . As far as " 7 years too late" goes- this is the best part. Mearsheimer predicted it SEVEN YEARS AGO. This makes me wonder, if Putin is bombing Ukraine, because he listened to Mearsheimer.

Mearsheimer’s strict realism is maybe not fringe, but it is outside of mainstream in international relations theory, or at least too focused on one aspect to the willful exclusion of others. I’m no expert, but here’s an expert explanation.Twitter thread.

And it is not bible prophecy. Drawing conclusions about Putin’s potential willingness about anything is WP:CHAT, and not helpful in editing this article. —Michael Z. 19:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

>> I would welcome alternative explanations, but I have not seen any. I'd think of Putin's mental illness, but he has never lost (well, may be once, when he made Medvedev a president) , and he is winning in Ukraine too.

please read wp:or and wp:blp, we cannot offer alternative explanations just ask for RS that actually say this was Putin's reason for this invasion (and not one given 7 years before, and thus nothing to do with this). Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Belarus' involvement

Is Belarus' active (military) participation confirmed anywhere? The country was added to the right in the "Belligerents" table in the sidebar, but one of the two sources –the Politico article– has since been updated to highlight the US says there's still no confirmation of this. 152.171.56.187 (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Belarus should be removed ASAP or added as "supported by", or another source needs to be found. This is sloppy for such an active page, it's been 24 hours since this first comment and it's not fixed. Corn Kernel (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

The article has been updated, it was based on the statement of one Ukranian TO commander. The supposed Belarussian invasion was later denied by both Zelensky and Lukashenko. Since then, as the article is updated to say, US officials also do not believe any Belarussian incursions into Ukraine have occurred. It is very possible the TO commander could have gotten confused in the fog of war and the chaos of the fighting, as both nations use very similar military equipment. Goodposts (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Removed, as there are no objections. The source in the infobox for the claim of B's involvement explicitly states that there is no confirmation of B's involvement. — kwami (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be in the "supported by" wrt recent events per the invasion article with a "since" note put there. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Name correction from "Malofayev" to "Malofeev"

In the "2015-2020 frozen conflict phase" section, the article has a red link to "Konstantin Malofayev": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantin_Malofayev

I believe this needs to be corrected to "Konstantin Malofeev": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantin_Malofeev

I'm not sure why some news sources use one name, and others use the other.

Due to the "Extended Protection", which IIRC, blocks edits from an IP, I'm not able to correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.0.181 (talk) 07:26, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• Done - thanks for the catch. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Infobox: Casualties and losses

Should label which are Ukrainian and which Russian. I expect they're in the same order as in previous sections, but for clarity we should be explicit. — kwami (talk) 08:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Done myself. — kwami (talk) 21:50, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 March 2022

Adithyareddy e (talk) 09:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfZCJok21Yc-LaKibr3E0sw

 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) 13:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 March 2022 (2)

Please remove Belarus from the Russian side of belligerents in the first infobox, the second source denies this is true, and the first one is not strong evidence. See: Talk:Russo-Ukrainian_War#Belarus'_involvement Corn Kernel (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Edited by Kwamikagami https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russo-Ukrainian_War&oldid=1075638976 | Corn Kernel (talk) 07:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Change list of supporting nations/groups

The list of support for Ukraine has NATO & the EU. There's no need to list the US & UK separately, as both are part of NATO.

Either that, or every member nation from those groups should be listed.

And when it comes to actual support during this war, the US hasn't been a major avenue of support compared to other European nations. 2600:6C40:100:D85:8300:28BA:53F6:F69A (talk) 17:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

include Russian AWOL in infobox?

In the infobox, we have "9,268 joined Russian forces after annexation" as a loss for Ukraine. But we also have Russian soldiers abandoning their positions or vehicles (e.g. when they run out of gas). Do we have a number for that to add to the Russian side? — kwami (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

The first step would be to find a WP:reliable source that provides a number. Any idea? --N8 23:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Possibility of war spreading

Have any Russian or Belarus embassies been attacked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 07:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

At least 20,000 foreign nationals from at least 52 countries have enlisted in the Ukrainian army in support of Ukraine to defend democracy. A recruitment website was set up since 05/03/2022. In response, Russia intends to send Chechens and Syrians (veterans from the Syrian civil war) to Ukraine. In effect, the Russo-Ukrainian War has technically turned into the Third World War (even if it is only contained in Ukraine). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 06:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, there is mention that the Polish-owned MiG fighter jets will probably be sent to Ukraine via Germany.

A Ukrainian Foreign Legion has been set up and is currently in Ukraine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 07:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Straightening/evening out particular naming terminology inconsistecies across other military events

So, I guess many might've seen that meme where the west's attack on libiya back under Obama, or other conflicts such as in Syria, Iraq and others~ (not mentioned in particular meme~) are called "military intervention"s in wiki articles/titles while current situation is titled 'invasion'. Seems kinda unequal if not biased~, ah no better term should probably be "inconcistent". I think it's either I'm ignorant about correct terminology, and if so I guess i could also then say that many others too, so I'd appreciate being enlightened~/having the situation clarified and it be mentioned perhaps? So that others would be able to understand too, like for example have a box like those 'this article is incomplete' boxes and have a 'why it's termed "war"/"invasion"/"intervention" ' or whatever specifically, Or if it's indeed inconsistent, have this inconcistency fixed/made consistent across such articles?.. 176.12.239.26 (talk) 11:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

We go with what RS say, and whataboutism is never a good argument. The reason why is this is not the place to discuss the west's attack on Libya back under Obama, or other conflicts such as in Syria, Iraq and others. So it is not the place to discuss and differences between those conflicts. Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 March 2022

Change

  Occupied by Russia and pro-Russian forces

to

  Occupied by Russia and pro-Russian forces, but here the Russian territorial gains are sometimes shown much larger than on liveuamap.com and in the NZZ.

My Annotation: Please send me feedback. Sven71 (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Well large in some places, not as large in others. Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

My apologies, what is the requested change? To update the map or to update the caption? If the last, I don't understand the difference... P1221 (talk) 11:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: as per comment above. Please feel free to reopen the request if necessary. P1221 (talk) 09:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 March 2022 (2)

3rd paragraph of main section:

Change “ He also expressed Russian irredentist views, questioned Ukraine's right to exist, and stated Ukraine was wrongfully created by Soviet Russia. ”

To “ He also expressed Russian irredentist views, questioned Ukraine’s right to exist, and wrongfully stated Ukraine was created by Soviet Russia”

The first sentence implies Soviet Russia created Ukraine but then viewed this as wrong whereas the alteration makes clear that Ukraine was not created by the Soviet Union. 82.23.89.83 (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Just because Putin is wrong doesn't mean that's not what he said. ― Tuna ^No_SurprisesPlease 17:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine NATO cooperation

The background section claims Ukraine deployed the third largest contingent to Iraq in 2004. According to this page it may have been the 4th or 5th largest. Neither is this nor any of the following claims in the same sentence backed by the linked source #35 -- indeed, it does not mention NATO, ISAF, KFOR.

2A02:8109:DC0:BAA4:0:0:0:4D0 (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Russia

Russo-Ukrainian War[21][d] is an ongoing war primarily involving Russia, pro-Russian forces, and Belarus on one side, and Ukraine and its international supporters on the other. Conflict began in February 2014 following the Revolution of Dignity, and focused on the status of Crimea and parts of the Donbas, internationally recognised as part of Ukraine. The conflict includes the Russian annexation of Crimea (2014), the war in Donbas (2014–present), naval incidents, cyberwarfare, and political tensions. 160.238.74.91 (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Don't know what we are supposed to do with this? Cinderella157 (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Or to out it another wat, what are you asking? Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Can it be confirmed whether a Russian army general was assassinated by a sniper during a parade in Russia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 12:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any sources? Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukranians that make war (against) Bulgaria and Bulgarian-Russian people

I think it should be fairly stated that Ukrainians although having supporters in Bulgaria are leading a war here with making war crimes as killing people, taking over companies without any law stoppage and that Poland too is into this, and these too take over communications and computing in either friendly or unfriendly manner, with life or rape threats, and various other feeling protected by EP because EU would not recognize officially that Ukraine is leading a war against Bulgaria.

This, again, started with Rusdo-Polish and later Russo-Ukrainian conflicts that hit even on medical studies, that is the most embracing after all but even continues?

As Polish and Ukrainians tend to interfere wherever medical research is done in Bulgaria even if this is for a while (not state regulated, or thinly state subsidated) or in company (Telenor Bulgaria).

While previous times Ukraine was simply seeking and finding some support here, after some acknowledgement of what this is used for major support was refused but yet, a Ukrainian rep was elected and he without any remouses is leading war in Bulgaria naming it "war against Russia", this includes cars fights, street fights and treats, embeselment of state and private communications (making joke of the pro-medical company Telenor), attempts for humiliating medical researchers, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medupdate (talk • contribs) 15:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, I am gonna be super nice and not delete this as wp:soapboxing, and just tell you that to add anything about this you need wp:rs to say Ukraine is at war with Bulgaria. Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Endgame

Taking into account as to what is currently happening inside Russia, what are the chances of Vladimir Putin and Alexander Lukashenko ending up like Nicolae Ceausescu and/or the Romanovs?

Please read wp:crystal and wp:forum. Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Opening sentence of lead

The opening sentence of the lead is a bit misleading:

The Russo-Ukrainian War is an ongoing war primarily involving Russia, pro-Russian forces, and Belarus on one side, and Ukraine and its international supporters on the other. [emphasis added]

It would imply that Belarus is a belligerent and not just a non-belligerent supporter. It tends to also suggests that the international supporters have a belligerent involvement since while we (WP editors) may know that we don't mean that they are belligerents, our readers don't necessarily know this - that the support is indirect. The sentence needs to be cleaned-up/clarified to remove the ambiguity/lack of clarity. Suggest:

The Russo-Ukrainian War is an ongoing war primarily involving Russia and pro-Russian forces on one side, and Ukraine on the other.

This is simple and accurate. If it is absolutely necessary to add more words than the proposal, then it might be something like: "Many countries have provided various levels of support to Ukraine short of becoming belligerents in the war while Belarus (also not a belligerent) has provided Russian forces territorial access for the 2022 invasion." Cinderella157 (talk) 01:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I've already removed Belarus from that sentence once as I agree there's ambiguity over whether Belarus is a full participant. I didn't notice when/why I was reverted. Jr8825 • Talk 12:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• I've now changed it to "supported by" – thoughts? Jr8825 • Talk 01:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Jr8825, I am still not comfortable with how the unqualified "supported by" is being used for both Belarus and the "international supporters". It does not distinguish that both are non-belligerents. I have added a note using the above text. However, I would be more comfortable with this version or as a second choice, this version. In the second choice, I think the added words break a more natural flow. Thoughts? Cinderella157 (talk) 02:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

addition of "international supporters" is flat out wrong. Take it out. They are not involved in the war, not a single soldier or squadron. Charliestalnaker (talk) 03:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: thanks for removing the supporters from the first sentence, I was also thinking of doing the same as I also wasn't content with my earlier compromise text. I've reworded the sentence further today. Jr8825 • Talk 13:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Jr8825, I think that the main sentence: ... is an ongoing war primarily involving Russia and pro-Russian separatist forces on one side, and Ukraine. is clearer (IMHO) than ... is an ongoing war between Russia, together with pro-Russian separatist forces, and Ukraine. However, we don't need to say "primarily" in the first version. Or perhaps: ... is an ongoing war between Russia (together with pro-Russian separatist forces) and Ukraine. Changes to the note are fine. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Commanders

I think it is not entirely true that Vladimir Putin is main or only commander of Russian armies. Also the war often takes way of Russo-Polish war, or at least started in 2020 like this. Also Putin never took part in Russo-Polish war but true he map overlooked and tried to make some sort of "end celebration of it", that did not succeed because of the Polish-Ukrianian-Russian conflict going under that coundn't really stop and also the strange grayish celebration colors that he desired on, however the conflict stopped to return things in to normal political until the Ukrainians started it all over again especially with having anger on Russo-Bulgarian medical ties that opened the war grounds layer in Ukraine itself, but also is having very bad impact on med computing here.--Medupdate (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I am unsure what you are trying to say. But whatever it is you need wp:rs to say it for us to make changes to our article. Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 8 March 2022

Russo-Ukrainian War → Russia-Ukraine War – The previous title was proposed by a sockpuppet and approved with four votes in the summer of 2020 (see discussion), but the name "Russo-Ukrainian War" is not in use today. We should change the article title to Russia-Ukraine War, which is the WP:COMMONNAME, and which would be consistent with the names of similar articles.

Wikipedia article title policy generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria that guide article title discussions. Below is a list of independent, reliable English-language sources which show an overwhelming preference for "Russia-Ukraine War":

Furthermore, within the conflicts of List of wars: 2003–present that feature two parties to the conflict in their title, only 8 are in adjectival form, whereas 15 articles are in proper noun form. We should make the current title WP:CONSISTENT with the majority of other articles titles by preferring "Russia-Ukraine War" over "Russo-Ukrainian War". Pilaz (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Pilaz, those numbers are all bogus. Please read WP:SET. For example, I follow the second Al Jazeera link (supposedly “69,600”), page to the last page of results, and find I am at page 33 of 330 results. —Michael Z. 23:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Mzajac, They are a very rough estimate, but they certainly help when you're doing comparisons. I'll go through them each. But does it really matter if it's 69,000 hits instead of 331 hits, when it's compared against 0 hits? Google only displays up to 400 links in response to your search. The number you see on the first page is Google's best estimate of the pages it has indexed which fall under the parameters of the search. You can test it for yourself: pick a common English name with millions of results (like "Barack Obama", for example), and go to the last page. I only get 189 results for Barack Obama, almost as if people stopped writing articles about the US president halfway through his first year in office. Pilaz (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

69,600 is not a “rough estimate” of 330. It is bogus. If it doesn’t matter, then why are you showing numbers that are knowingly misleading? Please remove this disinformation until you have something meaningful to post. Please at least conform to WP:SET. —Michael Z. 01:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. What matters is that it shows a clear trend of usage that is consistent among major news publications (for those making that argument), anything is more than virtually zero. Otherwise they are rough estimate just as with any other such tools. --Nilsol2 (talk) 02:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose – This is WP:RECENTISM. The focus should not be on current breaking news coverage (which amounts to headlinese), but on the common name for this conflict in scholarly, reliable sources. We're WP:NOTNEWS. This is an eight-year long conflict, and there are plenty of sources to back up referring to the conflict as it is now, including but not limited to: Google Scholar, or the following books and journal articles: Non-State Actors in the Russo-Ukrainian War, The exploitation of cyber domain as part of warfare: Russo-Ukrainian war, Girls cutting their locks: A book of memories / the Russo-Ukrainian War, Lessons Learned from the Russo-Ukrainian War, and Virtual Warfare: Masculinity, Sexuality, and Propaganda in the Russo-Ukrainian War, In the Ninth Circle: Intellectuals as Traitors in the Russo-Ukrainian War. There are also plenty of sources covering the war now that use this title now, which can easily be seen with a Google News search. It is quite possible that the common name in RS will change once things settle, but it is much too early to make that determination now, in the thick of the conflict. Finally, I strongly object on WP:CONSISTENT grounds. Take a look at all the other wars in Category:Wars involving Russia, such as the 2008 Russo-Georgian War. Why should we suddenly switch to a noun/noun form, when both forms convey the same information? All other wars involving Russia use the present form. Are we going to change all of those too, and on what grounds? All in all, there is no doubt that we must wait before making any change. Now is not the time, per WP:TITLECHANGES. RGloucester — ☎ 18:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

About WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS, this isn't actually true, though. It is an eight-year long conflict, and the overwhelming majority of sources, scholarly or otherwise, referred to the conflict not as it is now, including but not limited to: Google Scholar you used. --Nilsol2 (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

And if Wikipedia wants to go with that title, I am not opposed to it, though it will first have to resolve the WP:CONSISTENT problem. That's not what is being proposed here, however, so it is tangential. RGloucester — ☎ 05:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - tl;dr: Minimal improvement at best; unlikely to be stable

A stronger case could be made if the proposal clearly improved on the naming WP:CRITERIA but I don't see that here. The distinction is technical, not semantic and in my view doesn't violate WP:COMMONNAME any more than an alternate spelling would. Bing, DuckDuckGo, Google, and Yahoo all surface this article first among WP results even when searching for the quoted suggested title. An assessment of WP:RSs to determine common use should probably include the 470+ citations made in the article; it's unclear if the table above covers those. We should also consider that the topic referred to by online sources most WP:RECENTly as "Russia-Ukraine War" might more accurately reflect the content of 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine than this article which would significantly inflate measurements above with instances of the proposed title actually referencing something more narrow than this topic. Cited results in the 1,000s seem to capture pages where the text is used as a navigation aid in a menu specifically for coverage of the recent invasion, not the entire conflict from 2014 forward. Because of that key difference, an alternate title including "2014" for example might improve on the title's precision more than the current proposal. The 8/15 split on choice of grammar in the list of wars indicates a lack of consistency rather than a departure from established convention. (Aside: have those links been checked for piping?) In short, this isn't a compelling case among § Reasons for moving a page. (Also: Previous involvement of sockpuppets, while interesting, has no bearing on the merits of this proposal.) --N8 18:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

PS - Despite having a slightly different read on this matter I sincerely appreciate your dedication to developing this proposal. --N8 18:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful comment, N8wilson. I fully agree regarding the use of keywords/categories/tags called Russia-Ukraine War, and yet I also think it underlines how much momentum that choice of words has. WP:RECENTISM could be demonstrated if there was a proliferation of "Russo-Ukrainian War" wording prior to the current flair-up, but there isn't. It initially seemed to me that a near-total absence from reliable sources at WP:RSP would have been enough, but I'm happy to go through the 470+ sources to further confirm what seems to transpire from my source analysis. I'm probably also going to incorporate an analysis of academic sources on the matter and specialized magazines on this (Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, and thinktanks). Might take a bit. Pilaz (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. See WP:CONSISTENT. The adjectival–adjectival form retains the same clarity as the noun–noun form. Frevangelion (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose to Pilaz. The first sentence refers to "sockpuppet". This is not relevant and calling people names, just like calling someone the N-word. The idea is either sound or unsound. This article should be separated into 2022 Invasion of Ukraine as a separate article and keep others the same. Charliestalnaker (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

*Support per extremely well sourced and researched nomination. Although the large majority of sources do indeed support the nomination, there is a considerable minority of sources that support the existing main title header form. Ultimately, since this is the header of a Wikipedia article, the deciding factor is the nomination's final argument of WP:CONSISTENT. The nominated form is the one that predominates in Wikipedia headers and the inconsistent forms are the ones that should be moved to reflect consistency. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

About WP:CONSISTENT, this isn't actually true, though. See Category:Wars involving Russia. The proposer mentions List of wars: 2003–present, but I don't see any examples of 'Country noun–Country noun war' in that list. RGloucester — ☎ 22:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Category:Wars involving Russia is almost exclusively wars predating the 20th century, at a time when the adjective form was dominant (also helped by influence of the French language, which has always been a strong proponent of "Russo-X"). I used wars List of wars: 2003–present because names evolve. Pilaz (talk) 23:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I think there are two separate issues here that you are conflating. The first is whether we should use adjectival forms to refer to wars, and the second, whether we should use combining forms (like Russo-). Wars between two distinct parties, when their names are used in the war's name, have always been referred to using the adjectival forms. This applies as much to recent wars as to ancient ones, which you will see in that category. Your list does not provide a single example of 'Country noun–Country noun War', and Category:Wars by country confirms that the adjectival form seems to be the dominant standard on Wikipedia. Therefore, your WP:CONSISTENT arguement falls apart.

As for whether we should use combining forms like 'Russo-', 'Franco-', 'Anglo-', that's a separate question alltogether, but in as much as Category:Wars involving Russia is at it stands now, and given the fact that recent Russo-Georgian War seems to be referred to as such, confirmed by Google Ngrams, I cannot agree with your argument that these forms are used for wars 'almost exclusively predating the 20th century'. In any case, I still do not think that now is the time to make this decision, especially given that the potential variants (Russo-Ukrainian War, Russia–Ukraine War, and Russian–Ukrainian War) are all equally clear, and mean the exact same thing. Not to mention, there are also sources using 'Ukraine–Russia war' to refer to current events. Recentism truly is a horrible thing, especially when writing an encyclopaedia. We need to wait for an actual common name to be established before starting an endless cycle of move requests. RGloucester — ☎ 00:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Google Ngrams are full of shortfalls, and the way the graph points is far from conclusive; the fact that the two curves intersected might even be influenced by Wikipedia's change of article denomination - one cannot exclude the normative power of Wikipedia (unfortunately, nobody has taken care to list the RMs on that page). Most [X-Y war] articles in the category you listed do predate the 20th century, and yet language evolves, with some adjectival forms falling out of fashion in favor of more modern ones ("Russian" is nowadays more common than "Russo"), and as we're seeing in this conflict, in favor of the noun version. As for why we prefer the alphabetical "Russian-Ukrainian War" to "Ukrainian-Russian War", the culprit is this section of the Manual of Style. Pilaz (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Again, you don't seem to understand that there are two separate questions here. Can you please read what I wrote? 'Russo-' is not the standard adjectival form, it is a combining form. Are you claiming that the adjective 'Russian' has fallen out of fashion, and that we no longer use adjectives to modify nouns? Please, read what I wrote again. Adjectival forms clearly have not 'fallen out of fashion', whether for naming wars or anything else. What I think you are trying to claim is that combining forms have fallen out fashion, but there is no actual evidence of this presented here, given that we can attest plenty of contemporary sources using them to refer to subjects both ancient and contemporary, including this very conflict. 'Language evolves', but sometimes it doesn't. Putting that aside, I am not opposed to using the standard adjectival form 'Russian–' instead of the combining form 'Russo-' (i.e. Russian–Ukrainian War) if Wikipedia decides to proscribe or otherwise deprecate usage of combining forms. This is something that can be discussed at the WP:MOS. What I must object to, however, is the use of a 'noun–noun' form, which is completely inconsistent with how Wikipedia has named similar wars thus far (i.e. Polish–Soviet War, Soviet–Afghan War, Sino-Vietnamese War &c., &c.) If we're going to make a change, it needs to be across the board per WP:CONSISTENT. But, one way or other there is no good reason to make such a change on this specific article now, in the thick of a conflict, when long-term usage cannot actually be evaluated. RGloucester — ☎ 05:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Neutral. Upon further examination of main title headers under Category:Wars by country, I am striking my above "support" vote and am no longer convinced that the adjectival form is superseded by the proper noun form, but rather that the adjectival form may be predominant, thus eliminating the key argument of WP:CONSISTENT. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support Evidence I think rather conclusive. Even in adjectival form, I expect a lot of sources to be using "Russian-Ukrainian War" rather than "Russo-Ukrainian". "Russo-" is archaic-sounding and probably unfamiliar to many in the general public. Current title is probably the least of all three choices. Walrasiad (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: While there certainly is evidence that the war is moving towards being called the "Russia-Ukraine War," we have not reached the point where it countermands the preceding years' "Russo-Ukrainian War" (or indeed the occasional use of mixed adjectival-noun naming). Should the next few months see a similar consolidation on a different term, I think that a move is the right call. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Moving? I don't know that Russo-Ukranian was ever the common name. I wouldn't be surprised if initially it was chosen on ground of consistency with other war articles from age of nationalism and that we have been waiting for a common name since. Personally, I like the term Russia-Ukraine War since I believe the term Russo or Russian are more likely to be misconstrued as war by Russian people rather than state of Russia, which is a concern given that status of Russian ethnics is narrative in this war.--Nilsol2 (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Use an en dash please, not a hyphen. See MOS:ENBETWEEN, for example. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed. Prefix Russo- takes a hyphen, two nouns take an en dash. —Michael Z. 01:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  Seconded. If this article is ever moved (and I'm not yet convinced that it should be) it should definitely use a dash instead of a hyphen per our MoS rules. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed.--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 02:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment  I’m neutral on the name: both have the exact same meaning. But the rationale for WP:COMMONNAME supporting a move is lacking. News results are relevant, but all of the naming guidelines ask us to use a bunch of reliable sources and references, which are not cited above. Here’s some other evidence (searches per WP:SET; restricted to 2014 and later): Google Books Advanced Search: Russo-Ukrainian war Page 10 of about 1,930 results, Russia–Ukraine war Page 15 of about 999 results; Google Scholar: Russo-Ukrainian war Page 55 of 552 results, “Russia-Ukraine war” -Wikipedia Page 25 of 250 results. —Michael Z. 01:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  Your results will definitely vary. Start with my links above, and page forward or back to the last page of results to see Google’s often-but-not-always-accurate estimate of total results (you may have to click “Tools” to show the estimate). —Michael Z. 01:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  Worth noting that in terms of accuracy, a search term to google tools is as a questions to polling. For example, you searched for the term "Russian-Ukrainian war" which will exclude many mentions like Russian-Ukrainian economic war, maybe a searching for Russian-Ukrainian war OR conflict would be more accurate (same as "Russian-Ukrainian" war OR conflict) --Nilsol2 (talk) 03:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose How it is known in good quality academic sources is of more weight than how it is known in news sources. The evidence provided in support of the proposal is only considering the latter. This n-gram suggest the opposite (ie to retain the present article. Searching Google Scholar, I obtained about 2080 hits for "Russo-Ukrainian War" and about 417 hits for "Russia-Ukraine War", which again tends to support the present title. I sampled a number of news article from the evidence above and many didn't even return a hit for the terms within the article. The results probably have more to do with SEO than with usage in prose (or even in a news article's title). Actual usage (in prose) is the criteria for determining WP:COMMONNAME. I would need to see more "robust" evidence to support a change. There is also the question of whether there is a particular benefit in the change (per others above). Cinderella157 (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Adjectival form is sufficiently common that there is no WP:CONSISTENT argument, particularly as an RFC on a related topic attempting to find a common form was recently closed as "no consensus". Further, I support the current form, per Cinderella157. BilledMammal (talk) 11:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, per this and this. --The Tips of Apmh 15:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The present title is grammatically correct. Besides, this certainly isn't a matter of one physical territory versus another, particularly as Russia counts everyone of its own nationality or heritage as being on their side. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, for reasons cite above.--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 02:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, for all the reasons above. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 05:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. It looks like the google search results suffer from SEO-itis, so I'm not quite sure that we should accept them as reliable indicators of coverage. "Russo-" is a perfectly acceptable prefix and is not archaic; the Russo-Georgian War seems to be a quite recent war that uses the prefix in its title (one might even say that it is more WP:CONSISTENT to title this war's article like that of the only other post-Soviet war directly involving Russia and a second sovereign state). On the other hand, scholarly literature tends to refer to this whole series of events as the Russo-Ukrainian [war/conflict]. Moving this makes little sense in light of the scholarly literature on the topic; the move target is not the natural title and it provides no advantage in terms of recognizability to any English speaker familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area over than the current title. Both titles are precise enough to identify the topic, and are almost equally concise. As a result, applying the WP:CRITERIA leads me to affirmatively support the current title over the proposed title. — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose both names are readily recognizable, so the WP:UCRN-based proposal doesn't make a strong argument to move. GHITS aren't relevant here. VQuakr (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. The present title is grammatically correct. Plus for other reasons stated above. 24.150.136.254 (talk) 01:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

References

References

Shouldn't the title's hyphen be an en dash?

Since Russia and Ukraine are different entities, shouldn't it be an en dash instead of a hyphen (see MOS:HYPHEN, WP:DASH, and Russia–Ukraine relations)? It's also been a topic mentioned by User:BarrelProof above and User:Mzajac in the talk's archive. —Wei4Earth (talk, contribs) 15:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

No. See MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES. 'Russo-' is a combining form, and these take a hyphen, not a dash. RGloucester — ☎ 15:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I see, learned something new today. So "Russo-" can't be independent on its own. —Wei4Earth (talk, contribs) 15:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Unless it were to change to Russia–Ukrainian War right? waddie96 ★ (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Russia–Ukrainian War is not a possibility. Russian–Ukrainian War, on the other hand, would take a dash, yes. RGloucester — ☎ 16:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The dash is used to show a relationship between two nouns, and common in from–to constructions like London–Paris train). Not sure how to parse Russian-Ukrainian War, but if it’s a compound adjective then I think it would take a hyphen. Let’s not use it. —Michael Z. 17:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

No, please read MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES. If 'Russian–' were used, a dash is required. Not that I prefer or endorse that potential title, just saying, from an MoS perspective. RGloucester — ☎ 17:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I think we may need to review that part of the MOS. BilledMammal (talk) 00:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Please correct a lie in the first sentence.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The Russo-Ukrainian War[21][e] is an ongoing war primarily involving Russia and pro-Russian separatist forces on one side, and Ukraine and its international supporters on the other.

---

International supporters are not involved in the war. End of story. Stop these lies. They may like Ukraine but nobody is sending troops. Otherwise, add that North Korea is supporting Russia like The Russo-Ukrainian War[21][e] is an ongoing war primarily involving Russia and pro-Russian separatist forces, North Korea, Eritrea, China, Syria, and Belarus on one side, and Ukraine and its international supporters on the other.

Charliestalnaker (talk) 00:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anonymous's involvement

Anonymous declared a war on russia and were able to perform a series of a successful cyber attacks.. they should be listed on the Ukrainian side in the article as they are directly involved in the war — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kreyren (talk • contribs) 03:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

This topic is mentioned in Anonymous (hacker group) and briefly in 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine as well. It's worth noting that even if they "declared war" it might be difficult to characterize them as a party to the conflict — i.e. as taking sides. In my limited understanding, the key obstacles to that claim are 1.) the group is a decentralized collective (per WP) which means they have no verifiable command structure (who speaks on their behalf?) and 2.) cyber-warfare probably limits their actions to those of a non-belligerent. Despite all that, claims put forth by wp:reliablesources that say otherwise are fair game for incorporation. --N8 14:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 March 2022

Change links of reference 35 to:

https://nato.mfa.gov.ua/en/ukraine-and-nato/nato-ukraine-cooperation-peace-support-operations

and

https://web.archive.org/web/20210815082914/https://nato.mfa.gov.ua/en/ukraine-and-nato/nato-ukraine-cooperation-peace-support-operations 2.247.245.179 (talk) 12:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

In progress: An editor is implementing the requested edit. Caveat: for now, I'm adding this as additional reference as I'm not seeing a portions of the claim in either source. --N8 12:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done I'm seeing now that all the ref metadata except the URL seems to line up with that URL so implemented as requested. --N8 12:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

We should add more military generals

Here is a list of some generals I believe we should add.

Russia Ukraine Valery Gerasimov Oleksii Reznikov

                    Valerii Zaluzhnyi
                    Oleksandr Syrskyi  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kraut Romanov (talk • contribs) 19:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC) 

Why? Slatersteven (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Because the “Commanders and leaders” subheading lists no commanders nor military leaders. —Michael Z. 19:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is a summary of the article. We would only add commanders if they receive more than a passing reference in the prose of the body of the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)