Jump to content

Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 142.184.180.208 (talk) at 06:31, 7 May 2022 (→‎Ukraine all alone: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 heading above is a link to the archived RFC as it is significant and I'm assuming this will be discussed more while not cluttering the talk page with a 29 page discussion Phiarc (talk) 08:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Same link: Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox? --N8wilson 12:19, 20 March 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.

Why is Chechnya not listed under the belligerents?

They were sent to Ukraine by order of their president, so they clearly should be listed. 87.50.178.158 (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chechnya isn't an independent state or breakaway region like the DPR and LPR; the Chechen Republic is a constituent part of the Russian Federation. Guettarda (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As per Guettarda, also discussed once more before. EkoGraf (talk) 22:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Chechnya is not an independent state. It would be like complaining that Texas is not listed as a belligerent in a US war. Ahm1453 (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or Canada. EEng 16:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
bad joke Elinruby (talk) 07:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on "Supported by" in the infobox for Ukraine

Should we add "Supported by" for Ukraine in the infobox to list the countries providing military aid? --Mindaur (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment WP:RFCNEUTRAL is a requirement, and it is not met here. Please reformat your opening statement to actually ask a question (and only that), not justify your position. BSMRD (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:RFCNEUTRAL. The RFC needs to specify if the support is military aid, financial aid, humanitarian aid, etc, by type of aid. The most basic type of relation between friendly nations is the military alliance, followed by prior treaties and agreements, followed by favored nation status for trade. The RFC needs to specify if it is only interested in "Western military aid" or the other types of aid as well. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support' Why not, it shows just how isolated Russia is. It shows that even previously neutral nations now condemn them. Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Mzajac, in a thread above, you stated: No. Allowing a state to use your territory for a war of aggression is an illegal act of international aggression, according to the UN’s definition. Allowing weapons transfers by commercial sale or donation is not, whether a party is at war or not. Could you please provide your sourcing for this statement as it would seem very pertinent to this RfC. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cinderella157: Allowing the aggressor state to use your territory (i.e. be a "proxy") is illegal per United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314; it also defined as aggression by the Rome Statute. Meanwhile, Article 51 of the UN Charter enshrines the right to self-defense, explicitly including the collective self-defence.
    However, I do not think these legal aspects are relevant to the RfC question. Mindaur (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    UNGA Res. 29/3314, Definition of Aggression, Article 3:[1] “Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of article 2, qualify as an act of aggression: . . . (f) The action of a State in allowing its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State.” —Michael Z. 14:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This illegal act of aggression goes beyond “supporting” aggression. Belarus ought to be listed as a belligerent. —Michael Z. 14:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. Mindaur (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Follow-up Question: And what (if anything) is said as to countries supplying lethal military hardware specifically and more generally various other types of "support" (non lethal equipment, humanitarian aid or sanctions etc)? Cinderella157 (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      What is said where? In the UN’s Definition of Aggression? Maybe you should read it over, but I don’t think it defines what belongs in “supported by” for the purpose of Wikipedia conflict infoboxes. It doesn’t even define who is a belligerent, only who is an aggressor, which I believe is self-evidently also a belligerent. —Michael Z. 01:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support adding "Supported by" for Ukraine in the infobox to list those providing military aid as per template established in other Wikipedia infoboxes on conflicts throughout history where arms were provided to a belligerent even though the providing country did not engage in the conflict directly, but was for the benefit of defeating the other belligerent. But do not list all 30 countries listed at List of foreign aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War, because that list includes those who have "pledged" to provide aid, but haven't actually yet provided it. Only those who have already been confirmed to have provided should be listed under "Supported by". EkoGraf (talk) 12:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but don't add NATO and the EU, add the individual countries confirmed to have delivered weapons instead. Super Ψ Dro 13:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for three reasons. (a) They only provide hardware. Of course they could provide more, like modern aircraft staffed by contractors or volunteers, but they did not do even that. (b) That would be 40+ countries, they would clog the infobox. (c) That would be an implicit misinformation along the line of Russian propaganda, i.e. the false claim about "proxy conflict". My very best wishes (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @My very best wishes: A few counter-points:
    • Regarding (a) and "only hardware": Ukrainian Armed Forces demonstrated incredible will to fight, resilience and professionalism. However, it is evident that the initial supply of weapons (and intelligence) by the West played a significant role in enabling the resistance. It is now entering another phase, where the West have begun supplying heavy weapons (US organized conference at the Ramstein Air Base with 40 countries participating signifies that) and that will have a major implications in Ukraine's ability to not only resist but potentially launch counter-offensives.
    • Re (b): We don't need to list all countries; I propose to include only the main contributors, including the EU and NATO and then add an interlink for other states.
    • Re (c): It doesn't matter; we make decisions based on WP:RS, WP:DUE, WP:N, etc. Russian disinformation is already beyond delusional anyway.
    -- Mindaur (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (a) yes, sure, the delivery of weapons makes a lot of difference in all wars, but it does not warrant including the suppliers as "supporting countries" of field "belligerents". (b) OK, this is a good solution, but that should not appear in the field of "belligerents"; (c) I am saying that our infobox would be POV and as such would misled the reader in context of the currently happening misinformation. My very best wishes (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not POV, it's just stating the obvious reality. Some people lock themselves on the fact that Ukraine doesn't have formal allies (a binding treaty) or that NATO doesn't send troops to defend it. However, in that case these countries would unequivocally be belligerent. We are talking about support here (specifically, the porposal is about military aid): over 100 pieces of heavy artillery, tanks, missiles, etc -- it's exactly that, it's material, it's substantial, it's major. Why ignore that? -- Mindaur (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We are not ignoring it; there is a section about it on the page. However, such assistance is difficult to properly summarize in the lead, see comments just below. Do we include Turkey? This is a slippery slope. Should we include France and Germany as suppliers for Russia [2]? My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is My very best wishes stating that it would be better to include the explanation just provided about 'only provide hardware' as a separate section in the article. That Ukraine has no formal allies since Ukraine is not a part of NATO or the EU? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's false to say only hardware is provided. The US military itself has begun training Ukrainian troops.[1][2] Its intelligence service has also provided location information that has helped kill a dozen or so Russian senior officers.[3][4] CurryCity (talk) 05:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is a wide range of things that could be considered support, the distinctions carry significant political weight, and have determined whether they cross certain parties’ red lines. For example:
    1. Belarus has committed aggression against Ukraine, according to the UN definition, by allowing aggression against Ukraine from its territory, including missile attacks and military incursion. (It should be listed as a belligerent, not a supporter.)
    2. Before the open invasion on February 22/24, there was a distinction between defensive and other lethal aid. This seems to be no longer discussed since.
    3. There is a distinction between lethal and non-lethal military aid, e.g., weapons versus body armour, military hospitals, training, intelligence.
    4. There is a distinction between military aid, that is gifts or grants, and commercial sales. Even in peacetime commercial sales of arms normally require political approval.
    5. Relevant to that, there is the question of permission by originating states in weapons transfers. E.g., Germany prevented the transfer by Czechia and the Netherlands of armoured vehicles to Ukraine because they had historically come from Germany, citing the principal of not providing weapons to a conflict. Germany has dropped this restriction, and now looks to be ready to start sending its own armoured vehicles and weapons.
    6. There is a distinction between military aid and humanitarian aid.
    7. There are states participating in sanctions against one side or the other.
    8. There are states, organizations, and individuals respecting sanctions out of fear of getting hit by secondary sanctions, e.g., some Chinese banks and businesses refusing to do business in the Russian Federation for fear of getting sanctioned for supporting sanctioned entities, because they value their business in the West.
    We need to set a threshold as to what constitutes “support.” I am not sure if, for example, Turkey is a military supporter because it sells Ukraine the dramatically useful Bayraktar TB2 drones, because politically has tried to play the role of mediator. Similarly, France, Germany, and other EU states seem to have provided more military technology to the Russian Federation than to Ukraine up to this point (at least to 2020).[3] —Michael Z. 15:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd stick with what we did for the "Prelude to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" article, primarily focusing on lethal military aid; the label can be "Arms suppliers". Mindaur (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mean giving Ukraine lethal weapons as aid, including only defensive lethal weapons, but not selling Ukraine lethal weapons commercially? So, not giving Ukraine unarmed armoured vehicles, not giving it spare parts to bring jet fighters back into service, not giving it counterbattery radar, night-vision devices, reconnaissance drones, training, or military intelligence (which may include enemy plans and locations of enemy units, enabling their destruction).
    Seems reasonable. But then the article should make clear how “supported by” is defined. Then that is “arms donators” or equivalent? —Michael Z. 01:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For all the reasons offered by My very best wishes. It is also not clear what is proposed, but regardless, various kinds of aid, including sanctions, financial, humanitarian and commercial and 'gifted/lend-lease' harware, so it would be difficult to regulate this in a coherent fashion. I believe a considerable amount of Ukr hardware is actually inherited from Soviet Union days, so we would thus have the absurdity of Ukr being aided by Russia (and vice versa?). The whole subject is better handled in text or in a related article. Pincrete (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In response to arguments by editors that arms suppliers do not qualify as support for Ukraine, but Belarus should be listed as in support of Russia by aiding the "aggression" against Ukraine... I would quote the president of the United States who himself said just today that they are aiding Ukraine in its defense or the UK ministers from the past few days that the intent is to even push out Russia out of Crimea and diminish its military. So, I think the intent is quite clear. Belarus in support of Russia by providing the staging ground, most NATO/EU countries in support of Ukraine by providing arms and heavy equipment since the start of the invasion. Further, even though I don't object to listing Belarus in support of Russia in the infobox, there is more of an argument to list Western support of Ukraine, which is quite notable. And I would once again remind that we have added "Supported by" countries who provided arms only in various conflicts throughout the last century in our articles. Finally, any previous arms provided by France, Germany etc to Russia or Ukraine before the invasion is unrelated to why they are providing it NOW (intent). EkoGraf (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The weapons provided to Ukraine during the invasion still play a negligible role in the conflict. For example, the recent supply of 155mm artillery only adds 1% more to Ukraine's current artillery inventory. Furthermore adding countries such as the U.S. U.K. and other European nations to the infobox would play into the Kremlin rhetoric that Russia is fighting with the west, instead of with Ukraine. Viewsridge (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The weapons provided to Ukraine during the invasion still play a negligible role in the conflict." In the expressed opinion of the US President their arms support was what made the Russian military withdraw from Kyiv. EkoGraf (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Negligible role in the conflict" - that is simply not true. I could write an essay on this (incl. why 155 mm is significant in several ways and "1% more" is nonsense), but we would be delving deep into off-topic and discussions on military capabilities. Let's stick with WP:RS on WP:DUE/WP:N judgement; I already provided multiple sources: [4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. Mindaur (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t think the magnitude of the effect is key at all. Whether the USA supports with $33B in aid or a tiny postage-stamp country supports with the $6.99 and a box of first aid kits that it can scrounge up, it is still a concrete commitment to support (however we define it).
    But you are right that the wording must give the right impression about and define exactly what “supported by” really means (regardless of the number of states listed). —Michael Z. 18:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for same reasons as last time, which include content problems, MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE issues, and mobile accessibility issues. I'm amenable to a German Wikipedia-like solution, where we add "(supported with foreign aid from other states)". ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment US Congress passed the Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act of 2022: [11] [12]. It again illustrates the increasing scale of support for Ukraine. The revival of Lend-Lease is historic. --Mindaur (talk) 10:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support
I rely on past Wikipedia articles as historical precedent on how things are normally done on Wikipedia without political motives changing.
Wikipedia articles that show weapon and other forms of suppliers under "supported by" Iran–Iraq War, Yom Kippur War, Nigerian Civil War, Vietnam War, Soviet–Afghan War
NATO is not only providing weapons but also electronic, recon and intelligence support. [5] [6] [7]
ELINT is electronic intelligence and the US claimed they were doing it when the Moskva was sunk: https://www.nsa.gov/portals/75/documents/about/cryptologic-heritage/historical-figures-publications/publications/misc/elint.pdf
I think that we shouldn't make an exception to this article because it might not align with our political agendas or point of view. Ahm1453 (talk) 11:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Mainly per U|My very best wishes. There is clearly a big distinction between the support offered by Belarus which crosses a clear line and the assistance provided by countries to assist Ukraine or oppose Russia. There is also nuance to the type of assistance that cannot be simply captured in an infobox. An abbreviated listing would be misleading and a detailed listing would be contrary to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, which is to be a summary of key points - detail ≠ summary. The infobox is an adjunct to the lead, not a replacement and the article should not be written in the infobox. In consequence, WP:NOTEVERYTHING therefore particularly applies to an infobox. A bloated infobox also causes WP:ACCESSIBILITY issues - particularly for mobile users. The necessary detail is summarised in the lead and presented in the body of the article. That is sufficient and best meets our obligations under WP:P&G (IMO). There are some arguments here, that we need to show the support for Ukraine. While well intended, these are not NEAUTRAL. WP needs to be dispassionate and apartisan - writing at arm's length from the subject. There are also arguments the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a mandate. The argument does not consider the individual cases and why it may or why it may not be appropriate in one case but not another - it is a broad-brush assertion. More particularly, it does not consider whether this "otherstuff is "best practice". Few parent articles for modern-era conflicts since World War II have reached GA status or better (to my knowledge) - certainly neither the Korean War nor the Vietnam War. But ultimately, "best practice" goes back to conformity with WP:P&G (such as WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE). Unless one can show that this "otherstuff" is "best practice" (and in my observation it isn't) and the circumstances are similar, then an argument that appeals to "otherstuff" is unsound. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current Events. There is an emerging consensus in news sources currently in motion that the correct reference might be to the USA with its 40 Allied nations forming a coalition to provide economic support along with military supplies and refitting to Ukraine for its battle with Russia here in "US and allies gather at Ramstein to discuss how to help Ukraine defeat Russia’s ‘unjust invasion’". The link to one of the latest articles is in "Stars and Stripes" under the title I have just quoted, BY JOHN VANDIVER AND JENNIFER H. SVAN • STARS AND STRIPES • APRIL 26, 2022. Link here: [13]. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with using the German Wikipedia solution of adding "(supported with foreign aid from other states)".
- I get that adding NATO etc. as belligerents is the Russian narrative, and I'm as pro-Ukraine as anyone, but realistically, the West is supporting Ukraine, and IMO it's WP:ADVOCACY not to have something about the West's support in the infobox. A link to List of foreign aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War is the solution IMO. Shimbo (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support' but only to list those states that provide direct lethal military aid. No political support and such things. Also avoid using supranational bodies like EU or NATO since support for Ukraine differ in scope and type from state and state.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The EU as an organization has also provided military support directly.[14] I don’t think NATO has to date. —Michael Z. 18:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per My very best wishes. Belligerents should only list belligerents; there's far too many fine gradations of what 'support' can mean that will be flattened by a list of countries. --RaiderAspect (talk) 07:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Agree with Ahm1453 and Mindaur in general, also specifically because "the United States military" is now training "Ukrainian troops"[1] and there's been "a stark shift from Western support for Ukraine [...] focused now on delivering heavy weaponry and not only defensive system."[2] If on the off-chance listing becomes too long, we can partially shorten or link. CurryCity (talk) 04:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC) NYT reports that direct assistance from US and Western intelligence services helped Ukraine successfully attack senior Russian officers, whose heavy losses astonished analysts. US goal has shifted to weakening and deterring Russia for the long term per statement by Def Sec Lloyd Austin.[3][4] Even though I voted against in a previous RfC, events have since escalated. updated 07:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support List the individual countries who have provided lethal military support to Ukraine. That would maintain a neutral point of view--Waters.Justin (talk) 02:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per My very best wishes. While there is a somewhat dubious tendency to add increasingly long "supported by" lists to infoboxes, there is no rule requiring to do so, and managing such list with huge number of supporters this conflict has would create whole a lot of issues for minimal benefit.--Staberinde (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - Per My very best wishes. Only list belligerents who have made a formal declaration of war. Also as Cinderella157 noted, there is clearly a big distinction between the support offered by Belarus which crosses a clear line and the assistance provided by countries to assist Ukraine or oppose Russia. FobTown (talk) 02:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b "US starts training of some Ukrainian troops on howitzer artillery". Reuters. 20 April 2022.
  2. ^ a b "US begins training Ukrainians on howitzer artillery: Official". www.aljazeera.com.
  3. ^ a b "US intelligence helped Ukraine target Russian generals — report". Times of Israel. AFP. 5 May 2022.
  4. ^ a b Barnes, Julian E.; Cooper, Helene; Schmitt, Eric (4 May 2022). "U.S. Intelligence Is Helping Ukraine Kill Russian Generals, Officials Say". The New York Times.
  5. ^ Schwartz, Felicia; Foy, Henry; Reed, John (2022-04-14). "US sends Ukraine more weapons and intelligence to repel Russian offensive". Financial Times. Retrieved 2022-04-29.
  6. ^ Klippenstein, Ken KlippensteinSara SirotaKen; SirotaMarch 17 2022, Sara; P.m, 10:48. "U.S. Quietly Assists Ukraine With Intelligence, Avoiding Direct Confrontation With Russia". The Intercept. Retrieved 2022-04-29. {{cite web}}: |first3= has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  7. ^ Strout, Nathan (2022-04-25). "How one US intelligence agency is supporting Ukraine". C4ISRNet. Retrieved 2022-04-29.

War/invasion

Change invasion to war 2A01:E0A:A7E:E860:584A:2A5F:88EF:7F2C (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on the wider war, this is about this specific operation/invasion. Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That article is a large bunch of OR and an issue of design-by-committee, where it gradually morphed from an article on the 2014 annexation of Crimea, to an article basically on Ukraine and Russia's interactions since 2014. It's most obvious in the lead, which focuses on 2014 events, then jumps to 2019 providing just one sentence on current status, and then discusses the 2022 invasion. It labels 2015-2022 as a "frozen conflict phase (2015-2022)". In reality, it is talking about two disparate issues that occurred in 2014 and then in 2022, and decided to pop them all into one article under an OR heading of "Russo-Ukrainian War", solidified by a low-participation no-sources RM. That article has no clear scope.
I don't have strong feelings either way about whether this article should be called "invasion" or "war", but I do want to point out that there are a LOT of sources that call 2014 to 2022 a frozen conflict, including the monitors of the Minsk agreement. It is however true that the article clearly hasn't been worked on much since about 2015. But that could be remedied. Elinruby (talk) 00:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The “frozen conflict” stage of the war didn’t begin until February 2015, but I think you’ll find many sources that say the Russians were trying to establish a frozen conflict during this “trench warfare” period. In fact, more than half of the pre-February 2022 casualties were incurred after the end of the 2014-15 “hot war” or “active” phase. —Michael Z. 03:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The IP editor's suggestion is fair. I think the COMMONNAME is still invasion, but where sources refer to a war, they're referring to this 2022 event. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We have eight years of sources referring to the war before that.  —Michael Z. 03:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC) —Michael Z. 03:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think invasion is fair to use because it really is in every way an invasion. Wikipedia lists United States invasion of Afghanistan and 2003 invasion of Iraq as invasions, not Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Ahm1453 (talk) 11:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The map should respect that Transnistria= Moldovan territory illegally occupied by Russia

The neutral point of view is clearly violated because in truth Transnistria is Moldovan territory illegally occupied by Russia. This is a fact, not an opinion. The map does not respect this, therefore I suggest changing this so that the neutral point of view is not violated. 2A02:810C:4CBF:E144:396C:BBA9:BB1F:9851 (talk) 08:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In what way? Slatersteven (talk) 08:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to wikipedia's page on Transnistria conflict. Ahm1453 (talk) 11:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. If the map shows something else, this needs to be addressed Elinruby (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Size split

At 85kb of readable prose, this article is already in "probably should be split" territory, and heading towards "almost certainly should be split". We should start a discussion to see in what manner this article should be split, since as time goes on, and the war goes on, it's likely to continue getting bigger. One possibility is the sections "First phase..." and "Casualties...", each of which is around 45kb (raw), and which could be summarized, with content moved into a new article. See WP:SIZESPLIT. Mathglot (talk) 08:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases, sections of the article already have child articles that align to the sections (more or less). It is more a case of now being ruthless in culling and more effectively summarising detail best covered in the child articles. In the case of War crimes and crimes against humanity, that subsection was culled by replacing it with the lead at War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. There was a discussion leading to this which was pretty smooth and the lead from the child article dovetailed very neatly into this article. Reasonably, the whole section, 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Legal implications could have been replaced except that: War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine did not cover all of the content in the man section (even though it might reasonably do so; and, there are other daughter articles (such as Legality of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine that don't follow a clear hierarchy. I think that this experience indicates a course of action, addressing sections or subsections here as a concerted plan for each section or subsection. It should draw on why that experience worked and how it could be improved upon. It would require a mutually aligned concerted effort between an identified section/subsection and the primary child page. It would require cross-alignment from here to there; a good succinct lead; and, sourcing in that lead, even though that is not a normal requirement of a lead. My thoughts, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The other approach for that section would be to first move or split the material to the sibling pages which you mention. Then you would have more room to bulk down that section to a short summary alone, with all redirects moved to the top of the section similar to what Boud and elinruby did for the Media section and other sections previously. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If people were happy with what I did with the media section, I am willing to do another move in a day or two. Right now I am re-reading the article and doing a cautious copy-edit, reducing size where this seems like an improvement anyway. I am not removing any content at this time, just tightening up the language a bit. (and documenting kinda precisely) Elinruby (talk) 09:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting on this. Time frame you mention is also good. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

War crimes, lead section and article. Informal request for comments

As this article's section on war crimes used to be identical to the lead section of War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, I'd welcome if all interested editors could help us reach a consensus (or at least an orderly discussion) on that article's talk page. We are reaching the brink of another edit war there. The main controversial changes recently made to the lead section of that article are the following ones:

  • Removed from the lead any references to mistreatment of marauders and pro-Russian supporters: The Monitoring Mission has also expressed concern about reports and videos of ill-treatment, torture, and public humiliation of civilians and prisoners of war in territory controlled by the Government of Ukraine: alleged marauders, bootleggers, pro-Russian supporters and curfew violators have been publicly humiliated by police officers and members of the territorial defence...; plus, removed this section on the same topic from the article.
  • Removed from the lead any references to torture and killing of Russian prisoners of war (POW) (... and Russian prisoners of war have allegedly been abused, exposed to public curiosity, tortured, and subjected to summary execution.) and replaced them with references to allegations of ill-treatment of Russian POW (The Monitoring Mission has also expressed concern about videos and allegations of ill-treatment of Russian prisoners of war in territory controlled by the Government of Ukraine.).
  • Added to the lead Ukrainian prisoners of war have also been abused, exposed to public curiosity, tortured, and subjected to summary execution.
  • Added to the lead Human rights organizations have also accused Russian troops of using mass rape as a "weapon of war", possibly with tacit approval from their superiors. In March 2022 the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine stressed the heightened risks of sexual violence and the risk of under-reporting by victims in the country. After Russian withdrawal from areas north of Kyiv, according to The Guardian, there was a "mounting body of evidence" of rape, torture and summary killings by Russian forces inflicted upon Ukrainian civilians, including gang-rapes committed at gunpoint and rapes committed in front of children
  • Removed from the article any references to allegations by Russia over Ukraine using citizens as human shields.

You can confront this old version (11:19, 26 April 2022) with this more recent one (00:43, 30 April 2022). This is the diff between the two versions. These changes were made by User:Volunteer Marek and User:Shadybabs against the opposition of User:Ilenart626 and myself. As the latter editors have been repeatedly accused of misrepresenting facts to push a POV, I disengage and leave it to all interested editors to restore the balance or find a new one on the article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are still listed by Wikitools as #9 for authorship of this article out of over 1000 editors of the page. What do you state by using the word 'disengage'? Does it mean no more editing on the main page or no more editing on the Talk page here? User:Cinderella in the section directly above seems to have some similar comments on the article. Is that a 'disengage' in the narrow sense or the broad sense of the phase? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By "disengage" I only meant that I'm abandoning an editorial conflict that has become unpleasant to me. I've invited you to join that discussion but I haven't implied anything about my future editing - although perhaps the time has come for me to take a break from War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Broader participation is necessary: 2 editors against 2 editors is not a majority, let alone a consensus, and that article is too important to be neglected (apart from the fact that, as User:Cindarella157 rightly pointed out here above, we'd achieved some sort of coordination between the main article's and that article's editing processes). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Much bias?
I notice that everything that happened to Russians is "alleged" according to you. While everything that happened to Ukrainians is fact. Despite the fact that there are video and photographic evidence that prove Ukrainian guilty and also Russian guilt atleast prima facie. Ahm1453 (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Much bias? 2.0
Removal of Russian allegations, removal of any evidence suggesting that Ukraine is also committing war crimes. Remember Wikipedia is NOT a PROPAGANDA source for Ukraine. Ahm1453 (talk) 23:55, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
or Russia. We should do our best not to repeat any propaganda. But as well. just because there is video, doesn't make it so Elinruby (talk) 00:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus is a belligerent, continued

The previous discussion (#Belarus is a belligerent) was closed after a brief period with reference to an unnamed dictionary, and with a suggestion to start a new discussion with sources. So below are some articles by legal scholars. @Seryo93, ErnestKrause, EkoGraf, ProcrastinatingReader, Ahm1453, My very best wishes, and Cinderella157:

As pointed out above, the OSCE’s legal advice determined that by not sending forces into Ukraine Belarus is not a direct party to the international armed conflict, and therefore is not liable for Russian violations of international human-rights law in Ukraine.[15][16] The OSCE’s report also included Ukraine’s response which points to the UN’s definition of aggression.

But at the same time, by facilitating Russia’s war and allowing unlawful invasion and direct attacks into Ukraine directly from its territory and airspace it bears state responsibility by violating the UN Charter’s Ch. I, Art. 2(4) prohibition on the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state,[17][18] and is also guilty of aggression, according to the UN’s definition (and Ukraine’s response on the latter point was valid).[19][20]

I’ll reiterate Oxford dictionaries’ definition of a “belligerent,” verbatim: “Engaged in a war or conflict, as recognized by international law.”[21] There is no more definitive legal source on war than the UN Charter’s article 2(4).

Belarus is guilty of unlawful use of force or threat of force and international aggression in this war against Ukraine. If we want to clarify what acts it did and did not commit, that is fine and right. But it should be listed as a belligerent for its illegal participation in use of force and aggression. —Michael Z. 18:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What dictionaries and UN documents define as being a "belligerent" is entirely irrelevant, per WP:SYNTH, if there is no source specifically saying "Belarus meets this definition". The only sources above which are not dictionaries or legal definitions are [22] (which states that "However, the lack of neutrality does not mean participation in an armed conflict."), [23] (which is a summary of the previous) and [24] (which is one person's opinion, and which does not use the term "belligerent" anyways). So these sources are very far from sufficient to support such an inclusion, no matter what the Oxford dictionary might say. Basing an assertion on whether something meets a given dictionary definition, without a reliable source explicitly saying it does meet such a definition, is a textbook example of WP:SYNTH, and matches very closely with the final example of that section. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. The term “belligerent” comes to us from a conventional label in a Wikipedia infobox. Its meaning to the editors and readers can only be determined by the template’s documentation, by broad consensus recorded in a discussion, or, failing that, by a dictionary definition.
By the way, if that is a hard requirement, I don’t see any sources that use the precise term “belligerent” for the Russian Federation, Donetsk People’s Republic, Luhansk People’s Republic, and Ukraine: so far their inclusion is also SYNTH. The OSCE source[25] that some are relying on and cited above states that the D/LNR are “proxies” and “are under overall control of Russia,” and, passim, implies they are not co-belligerents of Russia (direct quotation is “this would anyway also be the case if those ‘republics’ were actually independent States, as Russia claims, and simply co-belligerents of Russia”), as part of the same legal argument used to exclude Belarus. —Michael Z. 19:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Template documentation is not policy. WP:OR is. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you made the substantially the same argument in the previous discussion and the consensus was pretty clear. I don't think there's anything here that would change it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Furthermore, on non-belligerency: A non-belligerent State is allowed to deviate from the duties of abstention, prevention and impartiality and, this notwithstanding, is not regarded as a party to the conflict. For instance, a non-belligerent State can help a party to the conflict by channelling to it war material and other strategic supplies. It may also furnish logistic support, such as warship refuelling or repair, beyond the limits set forth by the 1907 Hague Convention No. XIII, or allowing belligerent aircraft to land on and take off from its territory, contrary to the rules of neutrality which require their internment. A formula encapsulating non-belligerency is that the non-belligerent is entitled to aid the belligerent, bar armed intervention at its side (emphasis mine). Pretty much the situation with Belarusian involvement in this conflict: it allows its territory to be used by the Russian military units involved in the hostilities, but doesn't send its own military in support of the Russian effort. Bests, Seryo93 (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per RandomCanadian, ProcrastinatingReader and Seryo93, everything has already been said. Unless you can provide a source explicitly stating Belarus is directly participating in the conflict, anything else is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Also I don't think reopening the discussion one day after it was closed is really per WP guidelines. EkoGraf (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that is pretty specific, including resupply and landing. Excellent. But the quotation doesn’t include allowing direct cross-border invasion and cross-border firing attacks, both of which Belarus has facilitated. Does it get explicit about that? (Unfortunately, Google Books is not letting me view the content of that source.) —Michael Z. 21:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do see that citations provide for aerial attack from a non-belligerent territory (essentially, "or allowing belligerent aircraft to <...> take off from its territory" is not much different from Belarusian allowance for Russia to send its forces to Ukraine from Belarusian territory), which, after all, is still an attack by belligerent force. Furthermore, "the non-belligerent is entitled to aid the belligerent, bar armed intervention at its side " still applies fully to Belarus. It avoids direct intervention by its own military, but assists Russia in other ways, including territorially. Seryo93 (talk) 22:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen any quotations that say that a state can allow cross-border invasion or shelling from its own territory by a belligerent and still remain a non-belligerent. This is still not covered by the sources mentioned. —Michael Z. 22:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not covered by the sources, then it fails WP:V, and doesn't get included. As simple as that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:54, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Infobox military conflict
Quote:
No need for a note, Wikipedia's guideline has been clearly defined Template:Infobox military conflict for well over a decade and Seryo93, ProcrastinatingReader and Ahm1453 have all said it quite well. EkoGraf (talk) 12:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The topic was closed because there is really nothing to argue. The article is already Ukrainian biased in my opinion. It does not even mention any western nations as Supporting states.
I can under that this is an on going issue and people are personally affected by this conflict so I do not want to harm their feelings, but it is important to remember that Wikipedia is not a propaganda source.
Ahm1453 (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, according to Lukashenko, the Belarus army plays an active role by preventing any attack on Russian forces from the rear [26]. Furthermore, he claimed to intercept missiles sent by Ukrainian forces [27]. I think that does constitutes a direct involvement to the military campaign. So yes, a belligerent. I am not sure if Lukashenko was telling the truth. However, if that was true (the Ukrainian forces do seem to strike already Russian territory [28]), i.e. the Ukrainian forces were sending missiles, and Belorussian forces intercepted them, that immediately makes Belarus a belligerent. My very best wishes (talk) 01:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Referring to my previous and the reasons given for the close. That we are arguing semanitics of definitions here clearly makes the assertion a matter of WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. It is clearly contentious and not a matter of WP:BLUE. Per WP:BURDEN we need WP:RSs to support such a claim. However, it can (given the contention) be viewed as a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that would require exceptional sources. Sources would need to specifically state that Belarus is a belligerent. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE (and the template documentation), we would require a clear consensus of sources before we might add such a claim to the infobox as a summary of the article and WP:DUE. We are far from anywhere near this. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mzajac has just added the narrative form of his Belarus edit into the Legality section of this article. At the same time, User:Cinderella is discussing size issues of this article in the new section above on this Talk page, and the possibility of moving those sections into their already existing sibling articles on Wikipedia. Would that work for all the editors involved here? ErnestKrause (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it; because it appears UNDUE in that specific section (there are plenty of sources discussing the issue of Russia's crime of aggression and of further war crimes; however including Belarus in that would be unwarranted in an article which is supposed to be a summary of the topic - of course, outside of the specific legal issues, mention of Belarus is appropriate in other places and in other contexts). No objection to this kind of content being split out to appropriate sub-pages where it can be discussed with sufficient depth and detail to allow for proper emphasis of the more significant elements. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RandomCanadian:, so you reverted my verbatim inclusion of conclusions from sources due to reasons: “A single opinion post, even by a PhD, is not enough to justify this kind of content in a Wikipedia article; per the WP:OR issues already explained at sufficient depth on talk page and also per WP:UNDUE,” which I do not understand. Other editors disputed the application of the term “belligerent,” which this does not address, and you closed the discussion as an uninvolved editor, asking for sources. So I found sources, and now you dispute these sources, including the ones previously used by advocates of opposing views, without any sources that contradict them. This is not right.

What I included is balanced and broadly and accurately represents sources without contradicting those that argued against labelling Belarus as a “belligerent” in the infobox.

Also, when reverting, please do the courtesy of using the “revert” function or pinging us in your edit summary. —Michael Z. 21:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are well aware of the issues with the sources, as I've explained to you very clearly above (19:15, 1 May 2022), and in the edit summary (opinion posts by a PhD are still opinion posts and should not be used to make claims in Wiki-voice). The point about UNDUE is self-explanatory (it brings undue weight to focus on Belarus in that particular section) and similarly also explained (21:21, 1 May 2022). The WP:ONUS is for you to get consensus for inclusion (or, as others have suggested, to include this material in sub-pages which can afford to cover the topic with more details). Me being previously uninvolved does not mean I have to stay uninvolved forever. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

War crimes and human rights violations

Evidence of Russian war atrocities and human rights violations, from forced removals of Ukrainians to Russia, to executions and tortures of Ukrainians in Bucha, Irpin and numerous other locations, to mass graves in Mariupol, Bucha and other locations, must be included. I am appalled that they are not and that they don't have their own section. 2604:2D80:A782:BC00:978:8BCA:17A1:1FFC (talk) 04:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They have better than their own section, they have their own article. BSMRD (talk) 05:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
War crimes? What war crimes? Where are your sources, IP? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine not Anti-Semetic

Russia falsely accused Ukraine of being na*i. I just wanted someone to use this source, according to pew research statistically in 2019 only 11% of Ukrainians had negative views on Jews, while 83% had positive views. That is higher than most European countries.[1] I added this help combat misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahm1453 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/10/14/minority-groups/

Mearsheimer

Not a word about Mearsheimer's take on the conflict? 2001:B07:646B:4D36:FDE4:1A7B:6912:9FA0 (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We do not mention all kinds of peoples take on it, why should we include his? Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's opposite to most ad it has had quite a wide resonance.
That probably belongs to page Disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis, not to this page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, good idea. Put it there. 93.45.56.11 (talk) 16:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
View that PDF and scroll down to the chart that shows most experts disagree with Mearsheimer. Maybe that’s why. Although he is an important scholar, his views on Ukraine do not represent the academic consensus. Russian propaganda has really been pushing Mearsheimer videos and interviews on social media because they serve its purposes when sound bites are presented without context. (But it counts on you not reading very much of that PDF, because Mearsheimer keeps repeating that the Russian Federation is a declining power that will keep getting weaker.)
Here’s a couple of critiques of Mearsheimer: [29][30]  —Michael Z. 16:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, just as they say, the article by Mearsheimer is full of contradictions, and he just repeats some "arguments" by Putin. Of course one could criticize Western countries (and especially Germany), but that would be not for expanding NATO, but for supporting in many ways the regime in Russia before the invasion. Putin is exactly same man as he was in 2000, and he was preparing this invasion since 2014 or possibly earlier. My very best wishes (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Potential NATO enlargement as a reaction/impact

One of the knock-on effects has been that NATO enlargement is on the agenda in a very big way in Finland and Sweden (see Finland–NATO relations for Finnish sources to choose from with some in English, and there's incidental stuff for Sweden there too, but probably better Swedish sources exist). Specifically, there's been a _massive_ shift in public opinion, and it's now being worked through in parliament in Finland, and, though neither country's officially come out and said as much yet, it looks like both countries will be submitting applications. I'm pretty sure this should be mentioned somewhere in the article-plex covering the war, but I can't quite figure out the best place to put it. Main article? Maybe marginally not noteworthy enough - but a short sentence might be a good amount of weight; even if it does go in to the main article, it should also go into one of the specific reactions articles. Government and intergovernmental reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine? Well, it's not governmental yet! Non-government reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine? Maybe - but I can't see any other examples of big public opinion shifts mentioned in there, and it's likely to become governmental in a few weeks. I also slightly quibble about this being a 'reaction' - if NATO does expand due to the war, it seems pretty impactful! Ideas, anyone? FrankSpheres (talk) 01:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lets leave it until it enlarges. Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's probably fair to not touch the top-level article until there's some kind of official movement. But I do also think that waiting until NATO officially expands will be way too late: the best guess is it's six to eighteen months away, depending on diplomacy and just how much of a hurry everyone's in but that they'll be accepted, and will have NATO-equivalent security guarantees in the meantime. This is a significant consequence even while it's in progress and readers will want to know about it, and we'd be doing them a disservice by leaving it out until the final accession is agreed months later. Maybe when they formally apply and begin negotiations will be the right moment to warrant a mention in the top-level article? (Still not sure whether it ultimately belongs in the 'Sanctions and ramifications' section or the 'Reactions' section, but, upon further reflection, I'm not sure that that division is very natural anyway. But that's a different discussion!)
I've gone and added a little description of the polling to Non-government reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine in a new section as a bold edit - the polling shift has already happened so there's not even a technical element of speculation there and, even after there's an official application to go in the governmental reactions article, that'll make sense. Like I said, even with a mention in the top-level article, this should be mentioned in the specific reactions article(s) because of summary style. FrankSpheres (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NATO membership application, or an official confirmation of intent to apply, would be an appropriate point for addition here.--Staberinde (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that Putin cites growing NATO membership as a reason for thinking that Russia's security interests are in play, I agree. Elinruby (talk) 09:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Putin ill

Vladimir Putin has been diagnosed with cancer and will soon be undergoing an operation.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 07:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a reliable source. In fact it's not even a source at all, just an unconfirmable broadcast on a news channel we don't even know exists Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 08:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Immanuelle: Please change the colours of your signature, it's nigh unreadable on a white background (which is what almost everyone has)
Googling yields a few reliable sources, ex. [31] or [32]; however both of these seem to cite rumours or unsubstantiated claims by a "former Russian intelligence officer"; so this would fall squarely under WP:NOTNEWS (being unconfirmed speculation). It doesn't help that the other sources I could find reporting this include the ever reliable Daily Fail or its cousin the Sun... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian do you feel this is better? I'll definitely change it more to make it prettier though Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 20:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Immanuelle: Yes, although the talk page link will need the same correction :) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whether this information should be included is also being discussed at Talk:Vladimir Putin. I would suggest trying to get consensus there before discussing whether it is appropriate for this article. QueenofBithynia (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Putin appears to be due for oncological surgery with 2-3 days recovery time in hospital according to multiple sources with his security council advisor Patrushev to tamporarily take office during the recovery time. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Spanish television channel Cuatro (TV channel); 02/05/2022

2022 Perm factory explosion and fire

An article has been made for the 2022 Perm factory explosion and fire. The sources I can access allege that this might be sabotage, but since newsweek is pretty dubious, I don't want to put anything that isn't directly stated as fact into the article. I'd like some help in building the article. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 17:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the scope could be expanded to cover all sabotage attacks in Russia. I've heard a lot in the news, and in cities like St. Petersburg and even Moscow. Not sure if that event alone is notable by itself. Super Ψ Dro 17:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would, but I really have no idea where to start, especially since the Perm explosion isn't stated to be sabotage by any source I can find. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 17:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Super Dromaeosaurus There is now a draft page for Draft:Sabotage during the 2022 Invasion of Ukraine. Hopefully this blooms into another good page shooting off from the main article. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 17:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fear with sabotage like this is suddenly everything that goes wrong in Russia is because of sabotage. Fire? Sabotage. Explosion? Sabotage. Bridge collapse? Sabotage. Methanol instead of ethanol in the cleaning product killing scores? Sabotage. I'm not saying that it's not occurring but I think stuff like this has the ability to quickly become a bit paranoid especially in a country that has had something of a reputation for strange and bizarre events. Alcibiades979 (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
reminder that the TP's are NOT a forum - your post is 100% discussing the topic instead of bringing a RS to improve the article 50.111.30.135 (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Append it to April 2022 Belgorod and Bryansk attacks, which looks like it’s being expanded and renamed (see its talk page) to include all suspicious attacks, fires, and explosions in the Russian Federation. —Michael Z. 23:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
just FYI, if you struggle to find sources but find one that DOES state something as fact, best bet is to use WP:INLINE attribution such as "According to (whoever),.... blah blah blah". See also WP:WIKIVOICE NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

information that could be added

As for war crimes go Russia has been seen and filmed using cluster bombs which are illegal to use against civilians, and even placed many many land mines around bridges. Another incident is the train station bombing that killed 50-100 people or the mass graves found. lastly jailed 15-20K protesters banned Facebook IG and news stations for calling it a war/invasion and anyone could be jailed for calling it so for 15 years. 47.157.236.115 (talk) 09:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done This article is a summary of the invasion as a whole. The section on war crimes herein is the lead of the main article on this specific topic - War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. The lead of that aricle is a summary of that article. Specific details should be added to that article if not already there. Cluster munitions are already mentioned in this article, as is deliberate killing of civilians and censorship is dealt with in another section of this article. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slovakia does not operate any SU-25s

In the "Foreign military sales and aid" section, there is a mention of Slovakia having SU-25s with which it could supply Ukraine. However, that source is incorrect, Slovakia does not operate any SU-25s since ~2002 and sold most of them to Armenia in ~2004. Here's a wiki page detailing every Slovak SU-25s and what happened to them (though it is only in Slovak). There's also a List of Sukhoi Su-25 operators Standa-SK (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

er. I don't suppose you have handy a reference for the sale? I did notice this mention earlier, and didn't question it to go look at the reference, but if you're right this should be fixed. Elinruby (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source for the mention of SU-25s is "Weber, Peter (28 February 2022). "EU nations intend to supply Ukraine with fighter jets, foreign policy chief says". The Week. Archived from the original on 1 March 2022. Retrieved 28 February 2022."; The Week is a decent source but I am waaay outside my scope of knowledge. Is there somebody who speaks Slovak that could look at this? Standa-SK, is the statement on the Slovak Wikipedia referenced? And if so by whom? 11:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Best I could find is this article from the Slovak Ministry of Defense or this article from SME. At least one of the SU-25s sold to Armenia was shot down during the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war. As for the statements in the Slovak Wikipedia article, they are all sourced to valka.cz. Standa-SK (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with strength figures in infobox

There is a fairly obvious issue with infobox strength figures. Russian army is shown only as its initial force, and separatist armies are shown at their peacetime size. On other hand for Ukraine both standing army and reservists are shown. Basically Russia + separatists are shown at their initial frontline strength, while Ukraine is shown at full theoretical potential. This is highly misleading, while Ukraine is mobilizing, this is not an instant process. Additionally separatist republics are also mobilizing and in fact started mobilizing earlier than Ukraine. Also, while Russia itself is not officially mobilizing, it has sent additional reinforcements from other regions to Ukraine.--Staberinde (talk) 19:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Staberinde, the only "reliable" figures we have for a particular point in time (or there abouts) is at the start of the invasion. The infobox specifically notes it is as at the start. Do you have a particular suggestion and sources to support same? Cinderella157 (talk) 09:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cinderella157 Ukraine definitely didn't have 900,000 reservists under arms at the start of invasion, so quite clearly those should be removed from infobox.--Staberinde (talk) 12:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 900,000 appears to be reliably sourced to International Institute for Strategic Studies. Do you have a source that states otherwise? Alcibiades979 (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
International Institute for Strategic Studies does not claim 900,000 Ukrainian reservists were mobilized and combat ready on 24 February 2022. Do you have source stating that they were?--Staberinde (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing the opposite is true in regard to Russian troop numbers which are down not up: "Russia is beginning this offensive with a depleted army. American officials say that it retains only 75% of the combat power, across ground and air forces, that it had at the start of the war. Russia originally amassed 120 or so battalion tactical groups (BTGs), formations of around 700 soldiers. Dozens of these are no longer battle-worthy after suffering heavy losses of men and equipment. The Pentagon reckons that there are 78 BTGs in Ukraine presently; Ukrainian officials put the figure at 87."[33] Furthermore monitoring and tallying troop movements from various sources would be WP:OR, so we have initial numbers, and have left them. That they are initial is clearly marked in the text. Plus that all aside it's an infobox not a scoreboard. Alcibiades979 (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notes on English-language idiom

A lot of editors here and on other Ukrainian pages seem to have English as a second or third language. Nothing wrong with that of course, but a couple of points that I keep correcting over and over again:

  • An "amount" is for fungible things, that you might weigh, for example. If it is something you can count (even if you haven't) you probably mean "many" rather than "a large amount", or perhaps "a large number". "Some" is acceptable both for number and amount, btw.
  • I keep seeing language that somebody "began to" do something when the meaning seems to clearly be that they "did" something. I suspect this is idiom from some language that I don't speak, but in English this really emphasizes the "begin" part, and unless the point really is that this is a change and this is when it happened, you're just eating up bandwidth to add in extra words that make your sentence confusing.

Thank you everybody for your attention to these matters. Elinruby (talk) 00:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another point I keep seeing that isn't *wrong* but isn't quite English somehow: In constructions like "Kristalina Georgieva, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund", that "the" is not normally used in the first mention. If you are going to mention her again after a fairly long intervening text, and the reader might have forgotten who she is, however, the proper format would be "Georgieva, the IMF managing director". In this case you are reminding the reader; don't ask me to explain why this is not done in first mentions, but it isn't. This is also my notification to the group that I am making these copyedits, btw. Feel free to object that I am imposing my own dialect or whatever if that seems appropriate ;) Elinruby (talk) 07:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also a hold-out is the person or thing that holds out. The hyphenated word is a noun not a verb. This one comes up quite a bit also. If we could stop reproducing it this would make me happy Thanks 08:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Content issue for discussion

The Background section says "During the election campaign, the pro-European integration opposition candidate Viktor Yushchenko was poisoned by TCDD dioxin; he later implicated Russian involvement." I believe the intended meaning of "implicated" here is "accused" but that fails verification also, since what he actually does, according to the source at the end of the sentence, is accuse Russia of refusing to make witnesses (suspects?) available. Needs a better source and possibly a rewrite Elinruby (talk) 08:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

well. let me amend that. The source is fine but doesn't support the text in front of it, so one or the other should change.Elinruby (talk) 09:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leaders in infobox

I recall that in the early days of the war, the 'leaders' portion of the infobox included more than just Putin and Zelenskyy. Somewhere in March other figures like Mishustin, Shoigu etc were removed. Obviously not every general of politician should be included, but why the change? I haven't seen any infobox show just the heads of state before Rousillon (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is a summary of key points of the article - ie it is supported by text in the body of the article. Any commanders with no mention or only a passing mention in the body of the article are not prominent in the context of the article and are not included for that reason. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not they're discussed at length in the articles, they're still prominent in the context of the invasion. I am not saying this infobox should include the unimportant low-ranking politicians or commanders, but it should include the figures who do have important roles in this war (like Shoigu, Gerasimov, Dvornikov, Kadyrov, Zaluzhniy, Reznikov). As is standard in most other infoboxes such as this. It just seems odd to only list Putin and Zelenskyy (and even if it's only supposed to be heads of state, it ignores Pushilin and Pasechnik)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rousillon (talk • contribs) 12:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resistance in the lead

Hi! It seems to me that the article lacks a mention to the role of the Ukrainian resistance in the lead and focuses almost exclusively on the Russian action. If I well remember it once said something like "Russian troops met stiff resistance and logistical problems that hampered their progress," is there a reason behind its removal? FilBenLeafBoy (Let's talk!) 00:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

International press has been covering this as a Russian invasion with Ukraine applying a strategy of bunker defenses, siege defenses, and trench warfare defensive tactics to impede Russian advances. The Russian actions are usually documented first since they are the ones determining where the invasion is expanding the military front of Russia's attacks. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

US assessment of nuclear weapons

The US stated last week that it does not believe Russia will use nuclear weapons or attack NATO territory, in spite of Russian statements. https://www.reuters.com/world/us-sees-no-threat-russia-using-nuclear-weapons-despite-rhetoric-official-2022-04-29/ Possibly applicable to the nuclear weapons use section. Overlasting Peace (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article section seems to have moved forward to May references rather than the April reference which you link. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine all alone

The fact that this page still does not show that Ukraine is supported by other countries is so fricking ridiculous. It serves no purpose other than to push an agenda. I mean it is not even a matter of denial of support, Ukraine is openly supported by western allies with weapons, training, and intelligence. Why is it even up for debate whether they should be shown as supporting or not? It is plainly misleading and dishonest to show it as it is. 142.184.180.208 (talk) 06:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&oldid=1086607790"