Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War

Bad References for Russian involvement in early protests

I'm having some issues verifying claims made in a large section under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War#Pro-Russian_unrest

Here are the paragraphs in question:

The initial protests across southern and eastern Ukraine were largely native expressions of discontent with the new Ukrainian government. Russian involvement at this stage was limited to voicing support for the demonstrations, and the emergence of the separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk began as a small fringe group of protesters, independent of Russian control. Russia would go on to take advantage of this, however, to launch a co-ordinated political and military campaign against Ukraine, as part of the broader Russo-Ukrainian War. Putin gave legitimacy to the nascent separatist movement when he described the Donbas as part of the historic "New Russia" (Novorossiya) region, and issued a statement of bewilderment as how the region had ever become part of Ukraine in 1922 with the foundation of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.

When the Ukrainian authorities cracked down on the pro-Russian protests and arrested local separatist leaders in early March, these were replaced by people with ties to the Russian security services and interests in Russian businesses, probably by order of Russian intelligence. By April 2014, Russians citizens had taken control of the separatist movement, and were supported by volunteers and materiel from Russia, including Chechen and Cossack militants. According to DPR insurgent commander Igor Girkin, without this support in April, the movement would have fizzled out, as in it did in Kharkiv and Odessa.

The first reference is a US-Military sponsored document that contains no evidence itself. It has many references, but they are all opinion articles; yet it is being treated as fact, in many places throughout the page

The second reference is appropriate and less biased, and should probably be used instead, where appropriate

The third reference is alongside a claim that "Russia would go on to take advantage of this, however, to launch a co-ordinated political and military campaign against Ukraine, as part of the broader Russo-Ukrainian War". However, the summary of the article alone is that "Putin's power play in Ukraine was impulsive and improvised, without any clear sense of the desired end state. After many months of effort, Russia has achieved limited gains, but at high cost". I feel it's disingenuous to use that as a reference implying that the campaign was co-ordinated, when the article seems to imply the opposite, but I suppose at that point it's just semantics.

The next problem is the first one again. It is a reference for the claim "When the Ukrainian authorities cracked down on the pro-Russian protests and arrested local separatist leaders in early March, these were replaced by people with ties to the Russian security services and interests in Russian businesses, probably by order of Russian intelligence" - which seems like an unnecessary opinion in the entry with that 'probably'.

Additionally, only two names are mentioned during this change of leadership, and Igor Strelkov did indeed have ties with Russian Security Services, but Aleskandr Boroday did not. There are no sources listed when the reference claims, generically, "Ukrainian authorities removed the local political figureheads of the protest movement but, as a consequence, they were replaced by individuals with ties to Russian security services, military experience, and associations with business interests in Russia". While those claims are technically all true for Strelkov alone, it doesn't seem appropriate to imply they are true for others without evidence

Then we have the same reference, among three others, claiming "By April 2014, Russians citizens had taken control of the separatist movement, and were supported by volunteers and materiel from Russia, including Chechen and Cossack militants".

Additionally, none of the references mention Chechens at all, and only this questionable reference mentions Cossacks, and only as part of the baseline history - and with a source that is no longer valid.

They also mention only one Russian in a command position; of the four non-Ukrainians taking positions in the DPR, 3 were Moldovan/Transnistrian, not Russian - only Vladimir Antyufeyev is natively Russian, and the only former soviet officer among them

But most importantly, Vladimir Zakharchenko was still considered the 'Prime Minister' and 'commander-in-chief' - a locally born Donetsk resident. These articles imply that it is incorrect to claim that Russian citizens had taken control of the movement at that point

And finally, we have the last reference, same as the second, referring to the previous statement about Chechen/Cossack/Russian volunteers, paired with "According to DPR insurgent commander Igor Girkin, without this support in April, the movement would have fizzled out, as in it did in Kharkiv and Odessa"

However, the actual claim in the article is that "the storming of local SBU (security service) buildings that began on 6 April was inconclusive until Igor Girkin arrived with 52 fighters in Slov”ians’k in the north west of the Donbas on 12 April. Girkin (aka Strelkov) himself later stated that ‘I was the one who pulled the trigger of the war. … If our unit hadn’t crossed the border, everything would have fizzled out—like in Kharkiv, like in Odesa’"

The reference claims they entered Donbas from the north-west, near Sloviansk, implying that the soldiers he recruited were not Russian volunteers but came from within Ukraine. It is disingenuous to suggest the aforementioned Russian volunteers had anything to do with it, when Igor was referring to himself and his unit, and not any Russian support. (Also the grammar is bad, either way)

As a whole, I feel that anything based solely on the first reference should be removed; it's an opinion piece, which cites only opinion articles, and contains no actual evidence. The US Military also has a vested interest in the conflict, resulting in significant potential bias or propaganda, especially if this is the only source that supports a claim. At the least, the statements made about it should be corrected to agree with the contents of the reference

The other references are mostly fine, but the claims they are paired with do not match those in the references, and there are many opinions within the page; I was only checking one very small section, but I suspect the page needs a lot of re-examining for the validity of references

I think it's very important to avoid definitive statements on the inconclusive topic of whether or not the protests were initially spurred by Russia; US and UE claims they were, Russia claims they were not, and there's no evidence of Russian national involvement (other than Crimea) until August 2014 - long after the protests. The context of everything else is dramatically different, depending on whether or not the protests were legitimate and done by Ukrainians due to dissatisfaction with the new regime, or if they were instigated by Russia as part of a bigger takeover

Obviously, if you do find good references, just add those and call it a day; I haven't been able to, but I'm no expert. Just trying to dig out some real info, and was quite disappointed that none of these statements were really provably factual

Dimencia (talk) 08:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Aha, already found something - while this isn't definitive proof, the abundance of pictures and videos seems good, though the only thing it collaborates is that there were indeed some Chechens among the otherwise primarily Russian volunteers. https://el-murid.livejournal.com/1901358.html

Dimencia (talk) 09:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The “analysis” above looks like biased WP:original research. Because a politically ordered effort was “impulsive and improvised” doesn’t mean that the resulting actions were not a coordinated campaign. A research report is not an “opinion piece.” Words like “probably” are used in analyses all the time, and they have specific meaning. Etcetera. —Michael Z. 15:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Nothing is 'inconclusive'. This attempt to obscure the facts of Russian involvement may have worked in 2014, when we didn't have reliable academic sources on the matter, but it won't work now. Wikipedia abides the academic consensus, we don't create a WP:FALSEBALANCE to legitimise Russian views that have no basis in RS. And certainly, we don't indulge in our own WP:OR. There is plenty of evidence of Russian involvement before August 2014. In fact, that is the primary premise of Wilson's article. If you need further evidence about this, or a specific source for 'Cossacks' or 'Chechens', look no further than Mitrokhin's article. RGloucester — ☎ 15:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, I feel the obscuring of facts comes from publications that do not have independently verifiable sources, even if there are three of them that quote eachother, and portraying them as fact. Wilson's article is great, my favorite of the bunch for being extremely objective - but the sources for most of the important claims are no longer valid links, or available anywhere that I can find. If you have anything definitive, please share, I'm just trying to get peace of mind on what's even going on here - but can't find so much as a single government official, from anyone other than Ukraine, who has made a statement even claiming they have evidence of Russian involvement before August (despite the claims about John Kerry and a wire tap, which I have been unable to find, and the link is broken). Mitrokhin's article is also great, but once more fails to provide any sources for the claims, and those that are provided are inconclusive toward the actual question - did the Kremlin orchestrate events, or is it just an influx of volunteers that sympathize with the situation, and happen to also be from Russia, the nearest neighboring country?

The crux of the problem is that the US, Ukraine, and Russia all love propaganda, and I feel that due to their close involvement and obvious bias in this conflict, sources that can't be verified from nations other than those are unreliable.

But anyway. None of that was the point; half of my complaints on the two paragraphs in question weren't about a source being bad, but about the page itself misrepresenting sources. I spent just... way, way too many hours, researching and double and triple checking, because I was sure the academics of Wikipedia would care about verifiable sources, and yet nobody even read past the second paragraph. Very disappointing. I'll just keep looking, I guess Dimencia (talk) 03:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works. It is not our job to determine whether a secondary source, such as a journal article, has 'independently verifiable sources', and it isn't our job to do that kind of 'independent verification', which would be prohibited WP:OR primary source analysis. What we do is very simple: we determine whether an article's publisher is reliable, largely through discussions at WP:RS/N. In this case, we are talking about the RAND Corporation, Europe-Asia Studies, and the Journal of Soviet and Post-Soviet Politics and Society. If, for instance, RAND and these journals are known to be reliable, and have a peer-review process, then articles published in them are also considered reliable. We presume that, if a reliable publisher of information would decide to publish a given article, then clearly whatever form of verification of facts that was undertaken meets a certain academic standard. So, while you may not consider whatever sources are used in these articles as sufficient, if reliable secondary sources, like RAND or these journals do, that's enough for Wikipedia. Your personal opinion, unfortunately, is irrelevant. If you can find a reliable secondary source that contests the reliability of any of these sources, then, perhaps, we might have something to discuss. RGloucester — ☎ 13:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I am indeed new here and didn't realize that's how it works. But you must understand the irony. I read up on some stuff, Ukraine says Russia was involved early, Russia says they weren't, I want to know what really happened. I dig a little, the US says they were - and points to the Ukrainian statement as 'proof'. I check wikipedia to get the unbiased answer, and they say of course they were, and point at the US statement, which points at the Ukrainian statement - and because that guy pointed at it, that means it's definitely true

But I don't care that much about the source, fine, we'll assume it's trustworthy because I'm apparently required to. What bothers me is that contested statements are presented as fact, with few sources collaborating it, just because there are no sources that dispute it. I don't know if wiki guidelines support this, but when something is contested by involved parties and no proof is available, qualifiers like "RAND Corporation suggests that..." are preferable to quoting the article as fact, for the sake of appearing unbiased. How many articles have to come to the same conclusion, with independent evidence, before it is accepted as 'fact'? Because I see 1-3, but I don't feel three is enough even if they weren't quoting eachother. How many articles have to directly disagree with the premise before a qualifier is added?

Because, regarding a later statement of 'fact' in the article: "Economic and material circumstances in Donbas had generated neither necessary nor sufficient conditions for a locally rooted, internally driven armed conflict. The role of the Kremlin's military intervention was paramount for the commencement of hostilities."

But I've got two articles here that disagree before I got bored of looking: https://www.academia.edu/8349751/Domestic_Sources_of_the_Donbas_Insurgency https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10611940.2015.1160707 Dimencia (talk) 04:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Editorial consensus determines what position represents the overall consensus in WP:RS. Would you quote specific parts of these articles that you think 'disagree' with the existing text? RGloucester — ☎ 15:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Historical Context

Is the current Russo Ukrainian War a continuation of the Soviet-Ukrainian War (1917-1921)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 12:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Not unless RS say so, do they? Slatersteven (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Preludic Incident

Just weeks before ordering the invasion of Ukraine, Vladimir Putin survived at assassination attempt. Shaken to the core, Putin ordered that anybody remotely suspected to be involved in the plot (eg military officials/bureaucrats/oligarchs/etc) to be secretly executed in a "Stalinist-style" purge said an expert linked to American espionage services. However, the mastermind behind the assassination plan - believed to be a multibillionaire businessman - slipped through Putin's net and is now somewhere in western Europe under the protection of the French foreign spy service, the DGSE.

The motive was that this "cabal" weren't happy with the state of the Russian economy even before the invasion. According to the expert, the Kremlin conspirators attempted to assassinate Putin by coating a sleeve of his judo jacket with the nerve agent Novichok, but the assassination attempt collapsed when Putin's judo partner put on the poison-laced jacket by mistake.

Putin was so shaken that he now won't let anyone close which is why one sees those images of him sitting at one end of a 40-foot table and his "visitors" sitting at the other end. Western intelligence services still don't know the extent of Putin's purges. It is said that Putin often rewatches (in a continuous loop) the 2011 assassination of Libyan dictator, Muammar Gaddafi.

Putin has walled himself off from the outside world and only speaks with those who don't dare tell him anything other than what he wants to hear. He's living in a delusional shell of fear and suspicion. He's bet everything on success in Ukraine. If Putin loses the war, he's finished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 10:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 March 2022

2601:985:801:2070:459:5E35:483E:EF0 (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian casualties 498

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

World War 3 claims

Should the claims about this being the start of WW3 be added https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/world-war-iii-may-already-started-russian-invasion-zelenskyy-says-rcna19967 https://thehill.com/policy/international/598459-zelensky-world-war-iii-may-have-already-started https://www.foxnews.com/world/ukraine-president-zelenskyy-warns-ww-iii-may-have-already-started https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10620665/Zelensky-says-World-War-Three-started.html https://www.businessinsider.com/zelenskyy-russian-invasion-could-lead-to-start-of-wwiii-2022-3 Persesus (talk) 04:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

No, because then every article about every large-scale war since 1945 would have to include a passage similar to this. This is an outcry for support, not a prophetic statement. Icepunchies (talk) 09:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Causalities

Should we add the total number of causalities with the totes number causalities of the Invasion of Ukraine? BigRed606 (talk) 07:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

There is too much uncertainty about casualties from the present invasion and the status is also constantly changing. I think that this article should maintain a degree of stability and openly defer to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine for the current events. It is arguably more sensible to have one article stable up to a certain point in history and one article unstable after that than two unstable articles. The article (and particularly the casualties) is reflecting this approach to date. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine supporters in infobox

Why are non-EU/NATO countries that have materially supplied Ukraine not listed in the infobox? --Ugly Ketchup (talk) 18:29, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Are you talking about matters during the present invasion or prior to that? Cinderella157 (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Google Scholar showing more hits for Ukraine War over Russo-Ukrainian War

Now, argue over this all you want but here are the links

Russo-Ukrainian War, since the start of 2022

"Ukraine War", since the start of 2022

and here are my points

DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT SUGGESTING TO RENAME OR MOVE THIS ARTICLE WITHOUT FIRST ANALYZING THESE RS

·None of the RS naming this war are newer than 2018 when the conflict was in a different stage. Claim WP:RECENTISM if you wish, but the on-wiki nomenclature of the city of Kyiv itself is based upon a movement that was started in 2018 and completed in 2020, so I think it's fair to start looking for more recent articles naming this conflict.

·This article's handling of who is at play in this war is inconsistent and I think it's fair to say that it is no longer simply an affair between Russia and Ukraine, and that is most definitely a recent change, which would be made clearer if this war were either compartmentalized with the Crimea-Donbas portion of the war in one part and the Invasion in another, or if this entire war is renamed and focus on the ongoing conflict continues in the infobox.

·This source draws comparison to the Russo-Georgian War and draws attention to the fact that Georgia's conflict with Russian proxies began well before the 2008 invasion, much like Ukraine's conflict with Russian proxies began well before the 2022 invasion, BUT Wikipedia currently holds that the Russo-Georgian War only lasted 10 days, post-invasion, where as the Russo-Ukrainian War includes 8 years of pre-invasion conflict. Holding the current name in context with other conflicts of the same type appears to cause an interruption in consistency.

·The term "Russo-Ukrainian War" is just not that widely used by the press, it's being preferred for "Russia-Ukraine War" or other more popular titles, while I know this is not how WP naming conventions work, I think that it's possible that we could re-evaluate this title, which was given in 2014 and only supported by articles prior to 2018.

I AM AWARE THAT MY FINDINGS AREN'T CONCRETE and I can see that a lot of the results in my second link are from a single journal, as well as the mix-in of some articles which include the term "Russia-Ukraine War". But as it stands, it would appear more recent articles appearing use the term "Ukraine War" in place of "Russo-Ukrainian War". So I'm not trying to mislead anyone, just give some feedback that may help keep this article from spiraling into a mess lest this escalate once more into an even wider conflict. It's already affecting this country I live in.

Icepunchies (talk) 10:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The problem is this will search for instances of the use of those words. For example "Ukraine War" brings up pages titled "Russia-Ukraine war", because "Russia-Ukraine war" contained the term "Ukraine war". So it might be best to just leave it. Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

This is a war now spanning 8 years but the searches are limited to 2022. It is using an unreasonably narrowed sample set. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC) If the assertion pivots about a 2018 date, then why wasn't that date chosen for the search data? (but even that is probably a small set) As to the Russia-Ukraine angle ... Didn't we just have this discussion? Cinderella157 (talk) 11:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree this article is about the whole eight-year war, and a search restricted to the last year represents recentism. When I change the search date in the links above to 2014—, then on the first page of results for “Ukraine war,” seven of the ten are actually partial matches for the full names “Russia-Ukraine war” or “Russian-Ukraine war.” So let’s not read to much into the (overly) specific search evidence. —Michael Z. 14:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Since 2018 for "Russo-Ukrainian War"

Since 2018 for "Ukraine War" NOT "Russia-Ukraine War"

There, an attempt at an improvement, but booleans unfortunately do not work on Google Scholar for whatever reason. You all make good points and my numbers changed because of it. It was perhaps too misleading to use the smaller time window. I think more looks at scholarly consensus could be made still? But RS seems to hold up.

@RGloucester I know we had this discussion before and you're probably tired of all the heated opinions coming to this article but WP:GF, I'm attempting to provide an argument against the title and organization and I don't think it's ridiculous for people to suggest this, especially considering this is an ongoing, escalating conflict with changing foreign relations surrounding it. I don't see the point in a moratorium for moving this page. If something happens, a major event that escalates the conflict to a larger scale, directly affected by the 24 February invasion, there would be plenty reason to do so, regardless of what scholarly RS are saying. They simply won't be published quickly enough.

May I remind you that this current article rename initially came not much more than 6 months post-Crimea, and during the early stages of Donbas. This is inaccurate

Icepunchies (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• 'Ukraine war' is headlinese, just like 'Ukraine crisis' and other similar permutations. Such terms may make sense for use in news reporting about an ongoing event, but are too vague and imprecise to be used as titles for an encyclopaedia article. 'Ukraine war' could refer to any war involving Ukraine. Putting aside other matters regarding the title, which have been discussed at length recently, referring to '8 years of pre-invasion conflict' is a nonsense. This most recent invasion is not the first during this conflict. The fact that you are making such a comment seems to imply you have not sufficiently familiarised yourself with the topic to make these kind of determinations. In any case, I think it is time we consider a moratorium on page moves for six months. Now is not the time to be making these arguments, and this is getting incredibly tiresome and circular. RGloucester — ☎ 15:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: six-month moratorium on page moves

Following a succession of unproductive discussions about the page title, which have been circular wastes of time, I would like to propose a six-month moratorium on moving this page. Right now, in the thick of the conflict, any discussion about this page's title is unlikely to be productive or reach a satisfactory conclusion. We are awash with WP:BREAKING news coverage and laden with WP:RECENTISM, making any attempt to determine what the common name for the whole conflict an impossible task. Therefore, to avoid continuous disruption, and to give us some distance from these events before reconsidering the matter, I propose this six-month moratorium, similar to what has been done other ongoing conflict pages. Hopefully, in the intervening period, academic sources will come into play, and the historiography of this conflict, as carried out by RS, will become more apparent. RGloucester — ☎ 16:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why you think it's disruptive, this is a discussion page, does it really matter whether the discussion is continued or not? It's not like the war is just going to stop, so naturally people will question this page which has existed in various forms since 2014. The fact that this article makes the topic so broad is arguably why many new editors are coming in here without knowledge of the full topic. I don't think that all of a sudden adding a 6 month wait period for discussing it will be very productive or do much for this article after those 6 months. Like, is this purely for your own personal gain to do this, because I don't see why discussion of page moves should just stop for any reason.

I know my previous arguments were flawed and acknowledged that, that's the point of a talk page? To yea or nix editing ideas? The defense of Wikipedia:Recentism and headlinese will run dry once the terms are accepted (or rejected) by scholars. That is likely to happen way before six months time.

The reason I even raised the question was due to the infobox fluctuating, at one point it includes all NATO members, at one point it includes Belarus, gets rid of it and returns it, estimates change sources from the US to Ukraine to Russia to the UN, it's not really clear which conflict this article is highlighting, it really seems like there is little focus. Of course Wikipedia:Recentism is going to be a thing, there was a major shift in power and intent made by the Russian Presidency, and a sudden involvement of many nations of NATO, and it's just not clear what the infobox is trying to sum up, surely it will change again. I thought maybe the article spanning 8 years of events and the new developments occuring being so different from events that have been occurring in the last 8 years may have caused confusion in this article's direction. It's not an unproductive conversation until it's shut down by the same logic over and over without any consideration otherwise. My intention was to spark conversation about re-focusing this article's title to better suit its content, or to help to narrow the topic. Not to cause the shutdown of discussion altogether. Icepunchies (talk) 21:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

   There’s no need for that. I’m curious why you feel the need to shut down discussion. It has seemed like there has been a growing consensus on a move which you have seemed singularly opposed to.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.124.33.16 (talk) 17:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC) 

A true moratorium on page moves would require us to predict the future. We can't say for sure what terminology RS will be using three days from now, let alone three months. However, I could see myself supporting something like "Any new RM must succeed an informal discussion in which at least three users have spoken in support of the proposed name." -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 18:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

What terminology RS are using in three days from now has very little consequence in determining any Wikipedia article title, let alone the title of an article on an eight-year war. This isn't how Wikipedia works. We are WP:NOTNEWS. When naming articles about historical events, academic sources are required, and updated ones dealing with the full breadth of this war simply won't be available for at least a few months. If six months is too long, then three months is another option. In as much as the community completely rejected a recent proposal for a move, something must be done to prevent us from having to make the same arguments again and again. RGloucester — ☎ 18:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Yep, seems to me a 6-month wait is a good idea. By then the war may be over and we might see what it is being called (in hindsight). Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea in principal. Is there a specific example we can reference to see how this has been done in practice? --N8_wilson 21:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

An example I am familiar with is that of ISIL. Essentially, the community comes to a consensus on the talk page, and then a moratorium is introduced. RGloucester — ☎ 21:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for digging that up. Looks like editors also added it to the "history of page move requests" at the top for visibility. I'm in favor. --N8_wilson 22:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support There have been several formal and informal discussions recently to change the article name with no consensus for a move at each discussion. It is becoming a time-sink and a distraction from more significant issues. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose because there is a strong possibility that new RS will start to show changes in terminology before 6 months is up. This, and I feel 6 months is a tough sell anyways. Icepunchies (talk) 08:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Related issues question

Should the Russophobia page be link in the related issues page since of what’s been going on? Persesus (talk) 04:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Massive edits Done to Casualty section, insane edits actually.

Someone removed all the massive captured Russian soldiers from the casualty section, and has some outrageous edits claiming of 9,000+ joined Russian forces as though this was done willingly or that counts as a casualty, and also, source?

This is really not an accurate Wiki page with these edits in there, and the Russian Casualty counts are outlandishly low. Wiki Editors please wake up.