Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine

Link to closed and archived RfC: Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox?

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))

Same link: Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox? --N8_wilson 12:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

  @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)

  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)

  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)

  Agree. Mindaur (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  agree 208.114.154.7 (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

  • 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)

    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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

  @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)

  (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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  It's false to say only hardware is provided. The US military itself has begun training Ukrainian troops. Its intelligence service has also provided location information that has helped kill a dozen or so Russian senior officers. CurryCity (talk) 05:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

  If you look at the Vietnam War Wikipedia page, you'll see that there is a dedicated section for explaining aid/positions of countries which supported each side. I think it would be appropriate to do the same; no matter how you spin it - you can't say that the western countries supplying lethal weapons to Ukraine isn't support. Jacob H (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
  • "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)

  "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)

  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)

• 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)
  • Would accept the German-like solution. EkoGraf (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
• 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)

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.

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

  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)

• 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)
• Support Agree with Ahm1453 and Mindaur in general, also specifically because "the United States military" is now training "Ukrainian troops" and there's been "a stark shift from Western support for Ukraine [...] focused now on delivering heavy weaponry and not only defensive system." 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. Even though I voted against in a previous RfC, events have since escalated. updated 07:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)

  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)

  Nobody has made a formal declaration of war. EkoGraf (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. For those unaware, Belligerent, Co-belligerent and Non-belligerent each have brief WP articles. In my reading of them, many of the countries supporting Ukr fit most appropriately in the "Non-belligerent" categorization because the nature of their support most closely matches the examples provided in that article. If that reading is correct, naming these countries under the "Belligerent" section of the IB would be misleading and inaccurate and should be avoided. The "German-like" solution creatively finds a way to detach named nations from the belligerent label however and it might be acceptable. --N8_wilson 18:00, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Basically, vague, POV and inappropriate for infobox. Volunteer Marek 18:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose The list is quite large, and it would clog the infobox. CheeseInTea (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)CheeseInTea
• Support If providing intelligence, training, money, military equipment and sanctions against Russia is not support, I don't know what is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:1A3F:C906:438F:6037:998B:43DF (talk) 12:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Comment the above comment by an Ip geolocated in Germany sounds a bit dubious to me, said IP never edited Wiki before, and their first ever edit is here ...---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose The West is only providing money and some light weapons.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm concerned about the vagueness of the word "supported" - this could imply they are sending in troops, which they aren't. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose because "support" is a vague term that could mean a lot of different things, and has a POV problem too. Iraniangal777 (talk) 04:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Support - we should be consistent with how we treat other wars. Vietnam War lists many supporters of both sides that did not send troops directly. Similar lists of supporters exist for Iran-Iraq War, Korean War, and the majority of other major conflicts I can find except for WW2, presumably because the number of total belligerents is just too large. World War I, a featured article, individually lists 9 different British colonies/dominions in the infobox that aided the war effort, so an argument that we will 'clog' the infobox by including countries that supply lethal aid seems hard to sustain. It seems pretty clear that if military aid is being supplied to either party in the conflict, that should be included. Are we really going to act like the intelligence provided by the US being used to sink Russian ships doesn't count as support? TocMan (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

  A lot of these articles don't have a lot of editor attention. The infobox here was subject to 2 RfCs, which is probably more than the number of RfCs on supporters in the infoboxes of these 20th/21st century war infoboxes, combined. I raised the issue of IBs of 20th/21st century wars on WP:MILHIST and I think editors did agree there are some problems. Many of those articles are a mess of indiscriminate information anyway.

  Consider a more visible, GA-level article of a 20th century war, World War II. Commanders and leaders is significantly trimmed, the value of participants params is a single word "Allies" or "Axis" with a hyperlink. There is a high-level list of casualties, with a hyperlink for more info, but nothing insane. No equipment figures or other silliness like on the IB here or on these other 20th century wars. It's a tight infobox in line with MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. (nb: WW1 has not been a featured article since 2006, when it was delisted. The infobox, at the time it was an FA, looked like this).

  Your argument is that most infoboxes of recent wars are bad. I agree. That doesn't mean we proliferate more bad infoboxes across the encyclopaedia, but instead we should put effort into cleaning more of these articles up (their infoboxes, and their content too tbh). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for the correction on WWI, not sure why I had thought it was featured. Would you be able to link to the discussion you had on WP:MILHIST? My argument is not that existing infoboxes are bad, and I'm still not sure how including direct financial/material/intelligence support in the infobox is out of line with MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. It seems like it's both true and salient information that the Soviets and USA were both helping arm Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war, and that the US is arming Ukraine in the current war, etc. These things can have a massive impact on the source, ultimate outcome, and historical significance of each conflict. --TocMan (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Another data point I just found - we include Russian support for the Taliban in War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) even though it was only financial 'bounties' and Russia claims that it wasn't involved at all. Meanwhile US is providing weapons, funds, and intelligence to Ukraine and admitting as much. TocMan (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

TocMan, my reasons to oppose are much like those of ProcrastinatingReader. That WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not of itself a justification. It is only a valid argument if it represents "best practice" - and it doesn't. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE tells us not to write the article in the infobox - we have prose in both the lead section and the body of the article on this. The article is not omitting this detail. It is following WP:NPOV and WP:P&G more broadly in this respect. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Cinderella157 Thanks for your perspective. As you point out, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is fine if it represents best practice, and I remain unconvinced that this is not best practice. There are myriad military articles that include arms suppliers as supporters in the infobox, including featured articles about post-Soviet conflicts. This is a very different state of affairs than if only a few low quality articles existed that use the practice, which might have just never received good editorial attention. In any conflict but especially one with global implications, knowing at a glance the nature of support for each side is both useful and important. I am not sure what NPOV issue you think is resolved by keeping a slim list of supporters; but I think including more supporters quickly resolves any NPOV issue. If we include Belarus as a Russian supporter for letting Russia use its territory but not the United States for providing intelligence that was used to destroy a Russian ship, that may be a defensible line to draw, but it is inherently trickier than just showing all supporters - as we already do in other high quality articles. --TocMan (talk) 02:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

TocMan, You cite First Nagorno-Karabakh War as a FA and representative of "best practice". That article was promoted 25 February 2007 per this version. Since then, the article has undergone over 3,000 edits and doubled in size. Furthermore, the infobox now bares little resemblance to that in the promoted version. FA status only specifically attaches to the version promoted. Substantial variation in the article is reason to consider a review and whether it continues to FA criteria. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

That's fine, but doesn't do anything to address my overall argument. --TocMan (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Even before you identified the First Nagorno-Karabakh War, there was this discussion (Talk:First Nagorno-Karabakh War#FA criteria) about taking the article to FAR. In its present form, it does not represent "best practice". Cinderella157 (talk) 01:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support: Technical objections, such as a long infobox, are minor complaints and have been addressed already. Opposers do not seem to have read the Rfc, but are repeating obsolete arguments. Linking to a list, for example, is a very doable workaround. If "supported by" is not the most apt terminology, there are plenty of other great descriptors, such as "arms supplier", "lethal aid", "military training", etc. As a digital, web based, cooperative medium, Wikipedia should take advantage of its inherent flexibilities, and not be bound by dogmatic reasonings and self-imposed limitations. I find TocMan's argument,supported by sources, more substantive and consistent than the naysayer's. Additionally, even though the U.S. government has yet to openly target Russia, public attitude is shifting. One U.S. official, elected at the federal level, even said they're "fundamentally at war, although somewhat through a proxy, with Russia." The combination of lethal weaponry, direct training military to military, and rhetoric from its own politican, makes that country unique among supporters of Ukraine.Fantasix6 (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

This account has 9 edits to their name. Volunteer Marek 08:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

And? New editors do not start with 10,000 edits, they start with 0. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

But most legit new editors don’t immediately jump into controversial RfCs. Make a couple hundred normal edits, then show up to these things. Otherwise these RfCs become a brigaded, SPA, sock infested joke. Volunteer Marek 17:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support. I may be wrong on this technical note, but I believe if we included just the United States, and/or a link to the full list, it wouldn't even make the infobox bigger, since the Russian-allied forces + supporting Belarus take up more than that amount of space already. This would just be filling in blank space with text. At the very least, I think the US should be shown due to the extent of its support. With the revelations that America helped to target and sink the Moskva, and provided intelligence help in killing Russian generals, it's approaching actual engagement, per Fantasix6. I don't have a particularly strong opinion as to how the other supporting countries should be represented (as a linked list, listing each one out individually, as a collapsed list, not at all), but to not include any of the supporting countries doesn't make sense to me. --HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support. This is not a special case. There is a long-standing precedent for including at least the major supporters of each belligerent in infoboxes, as several others have listed examples of. Lightspecs (talk) 01:54, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose  This is infobox creep: adding some stuff just to add more stuff, without a basis supported by WP:RS. Factually, non-belligerent supporters of Ukraine against the Russian Federation and Belarus are the 141 states that voted to pass UNGA Resolution ES-11/1, condemning illegal “Aggression against Ukraine.” Military aid (donations), and military commercial sales, are routine transactions between states. When a state is in a war, such transfers don’t suddenly make the donor a belligerent or some kind of quasi-belligerent. And it would certainly violate WP:NPOV to label such states “supporters” and thereby equate their actions to those of illegal aggressor Belarus.[15] —Michael Z. 20:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

  There's a very clear difference between a vote at the UN, and providing military intelligence that was directly used to blow up a war ship, or $50bn in direct aid - that is not a "routine transaction" or ordinary "commercial sales". Re: Belarus it's bizarre to think that someone is only a 'supporter' if they support the bad guys, but supporters of the good guys don't count for some reason. TocMan (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, there is a difference, but those things don’t define belligerent status in a war, these actions aren’t participation in conflict, they’re not illegal, they’re not aggression. I don’t make these rules. The amount of fifty billion is not routine, but you are not arguing that 50B constitutes support but 10M does not, is it? UN members, including every state we’re talking about, are parties to treaties that define international conflicts and participation in them.

  On the other hand, the Russian Federation and Belarus both agreed to the definitions, promised to respect international laws, and then intentionally violated them. Bad-guy status follows from conducting a war of aggression.

  Ukraine is a belligerent because it is the victim of their continuing aggression into its territory for eight years.

  I don’t believe mine is the bizarre argument here. —Michael Z. 19:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  As others have pointed out, Germany and France, for example, have recently sold dual-use and military equipment, including weapons components like thermal fire-control systems for AFVs, to the Russian Federation. That doesn’t make them RF supporters in this war either. —Michael Z. 22:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  Has Germany and France continued to deliver these systems? Has Germany and France shared intelligence about Ukrainian military positions to Russia? Has Germany and France passed laws since the invasion to allocate massive amounts of financial and military assistance to Russia? Your argument is very bizarre. Jacob H (talk) 00:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support - In the future, we can argue about how to list the support, but reliable sources are consistently attributing the material lethal aid from the United States, EU, and others towards Ukraine's success, and to remove that information from the infobox would severely harm the usefulness of the infobox as a summarizing "at a glance" tool. This is vital information. The most effective argument against that I can see is that it would make the infobox larger and thus less useful, but this is countered by the fact that the Russian side already has multiple entries which extend empty space on the Ukraine side, which can be filled without increasing the size of the infobox. As for "equipment sales and transfers being routine" in response to Michael above, I think we can agree that the United States, at the very least, is providing a lot more than just equipment and money, in the form of military intelligence, which reliable sources have also attributed to Ukraine's success thus far. This is on top of high end equipment, and the response to the now famous quote "I need ammo, not a ride." Ukraine said they needed aid to survive, they got the aid, they've survived... all this looks like extremely notable information that people want to find in the infobox. Fieari (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  If intelligence makes the difference, let’s identify and list the states that are doing so as intelligence providers. However, many states share intelligence routinely in peacetime, so this does not make one a belligerent. If it’s provision of weapons, then do we list the EU, France, and Germany as supporters of the RF too, since they sold weapons components until March?[16] —Michael Z. 14:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

  States share intelligence all the time, especially if they are in alliances such as NATO. Ukraine is not in such alliances. Jacob H (talk) 00:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

  Jacob H, You're mistaken. As a member of the Open Skies Treaty Ukraine is, in fact, in an alliance to get intel from other countries. And, speaking of the "Open Skies Treaty," Russia withdrew from that treaty in December 2021, and, at the exact same time Russia began its massive military buildup on Ukraine border. 2 months later waged their illegal war on Ukraine. Strange timing, huh. BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

  The United States withdrew from the alliance before Russia, so your point doesn't make as much sense, but this isn't about whether the invasion was illegal or not: it is about, it is simply about we should be staying true to what is happening, and that is the United States and European countries are actively supporting Ukraine in the following ways: Financial, Militarily, Intelligence, Foreign Sanctions. Furthermore, the surveillance gathered by the U.S. and others goes way outside the scope of the Open Skies Treaty. The Open Skies treaty was signed to increase trust to prevent misunderstandings. The United States is not a member of this treaty, and it is the one that conducts the most of the surveillance flights, specifically over the black-sea and Poland (NATO). The Americans have admitted themselves that they provide intelligence directly to Ukraine, not through any partner like the U.K. which is a member of the treaty.

  By not adding the supporting countries, it seriously undermines the credibility of Wikipedia. You cannot reasonably argue that at least the U.S. & some other NATO member states are not supporting Ukraine militarily and by other means. Jacob H (talk) 02:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

• The lead section presently states: Many countries imposed new sanctions, which have affected the economies of Russia and the world, and provided humanitarian and military aid to Ukraine. There is a prominant section in the article 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Foreign military support and a daughter article linked from that section: See also: List of foreign aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War. How could it be reasonably argued that we are not already openly reporting the nature and extent of legal 'support' being provided by other countries to Ukraine and in a way that best conforms to WP:ACCESSIBILITY, WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and any other relevant WP:P&G. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

  The information is provided in the article, but it's my understanding that the info-box is used to summarize events, belligerents e.t.c… This has not been done, and from my understanding the only reason is that it would make the infobox too long, and this is answered in point 3 of the response to the RfC by @Levivch Jacob H (talk) 04:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  Typo in user reference, correction: @Levivich Jacob H (talk) 04:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry, but I'm not seeing that Levivich has contributed to this discussion? Cinderella157 (talk) 09:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  See the following: Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 7#RfC: Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox? Jacob H (talk) 06:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

  Levivich observes at point 3 in respect to technical limitations and accessibility: that's something we could change as a community if we wanted to. But such a change has not happened?. Levivich makes a number of closing observations on what a new RfC might propose (as a more refined question) such that it might lead to a consensus. This RfC has failed to head such advice and is likely to produce the same outcome as previous precisely because it has failed to head their advice. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Support The United States and the EU are providing lethal weapons to Ukraine, along with reports of logistical assistance. To try to understand this, think of Ukraine and Russia fighting without the assistance of other nations. Then, think of all the weapons flowing into Ukraine, possibly tens of billions of dollars' worth of weapons. While not fighting directly on Ukraine's side, these nations are apparently supporting Ukraine's side with powerful, expensive equipment. Nythar (talk) 03:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Thinking about it further, we have List of foreign aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War, but there isn't a link to it in the infobox. Nythar (talk) 03:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Think about the Russian weapons that would not exist without foreign support. France delivered bombs, rockets, missiles, and guns. Russian drones and combat aircraft have imported GPS units. Russian command posts, cruise missiles, radars, helicopters, and air-defence systems are full of US electronics. Russian airborne fighting vehicles and tanks have French sights and fire control. The Russian tank factory is shutting down production for lack of foreign components. Russian special forces were modernized in high-tech training camps built by Germany. Russian artillery is corrected using Chinese drones. (I can find the references for all of the above, if necessary.)

So sure, if we define “support” as providing military gear, then let’s list it all on both sides. —Michael Z. 17:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Support It makes sense, considering how many nations (even the Taliban) are rushing to support Ukraine, however you better also include Japan. Great Mercian (talk) 08:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Support There are many other articles that include the major supporters of each belligerent in infoboxes, and several examples have been cited previously. The reasons to not support this do not overcome precedence. Jurisdicta (talk) 03:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Request to close by participant agreement. A summary of this discussion so far could be written with striking similarity to the closure notes provided in the previous RfC Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox?. Most notably, On the strength of arguments, there is no global consensus to be applied that would give one side or the other sufficient weight to overcome the numerical split of opinion. In light of that, I recommend we mutually agree to close this RfC as "no consensus" in accordance with item #2 at Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Ending RfCs. I don't see any reason to tie up the time and effort of an uninvolved editor if we can agree that we haven't reached a consensus here. --N8_wilson 18:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

​​​​​​​​​Pinging OP and some early supporters. Can we agree to tie this up as "no consensus" and move to other proposals? If not, it seems like we've reached WP:WHENCLOSE and so a closure request by an uninvolved editor might be appropriate. --N8_wilson 15:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

​​​​​​​Ping remaining supporters. --N8_wilson 13:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Stop bothering Great Mercian (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Close It doesn't look like we've reached consensus here. Nythar (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

It might be worthwhile to have a formal non-involved editor close, but I highly suspect anyone can see that the result is no consensus. There are well reasoned editors on both sides of the issue, and the valid points on both side don't seem to be clearly and plainly answered by their opposition in a definitive manner. I don't see how we can say anything but no consensus, much as I'd personally and strongly prefer otherwise. Fieari (talk) 07:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support: it's consistent with other conflicts to include nation state donors of military equipment as a "supported by" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finbee (talk • contribs) 14:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

References

South Ossetia participates

https://eurasianet.org/south-ossetian-troops-fighting-for-russia-in-ukraine

https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/05/25/russia-ukraine-war-putin-caucasus-ossetia-minorities-opposition/

Xx236 (talk) 09:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

This is an issue that has already been discussed at length (see here). The first source states: The soldiers are part of Russian military units based in South Ossetia but which also include some local contract soldiers. The second source is not sufficiently specific that it would contradict the first source or other sources offered in the previous discussion. Bottom line, the previous consensus is that South Ossetia is not participating as a "soverign state" and these sources don't show otherwise. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

https://www.instagram.com/p/Cbj8ZH8gIDV/?utm_source=ig_embed&ig_rid=f10de68f-afbd-41bb-b470-c8a86aa9643e

President Bibilov to the soldiers - Вперед! 'Go ahead.' едут защищать и Осетию 'They go to defend Ossetia, too'. Words mean.Xx236 (talk) 11:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

SO soldiers are Russian soldiers. Do People's Republic soldiers fight in separate PR units? This article does not inform. The reference 14 is from February. What is the difference between the PR and SO?Xx236 (talk) 05:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

DPR 105th People’s Militia Rifle Regiment https://theins.ru/en/news/251541 Xx236 (talk) 06:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

You have given the answer to your own question. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC) This was intended as a response to the post above plus one (SO soldiers are Russian soldiers. I apologise for any confusion. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Where are the 'forces' described in this Wikipedia?Xx236 (talk) 06:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The infobox states: Strength estimates are as of the start of the invasion. See also: Order of battle for the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

SO has an agreement with Russia. Russia defends SO, SO gives soldiers to Russia. I do not know details, but such agreement probably does not preserve neutrality of SO.Xx236 (talk) 06:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

SO citizens are not enlisted in units of SO but in the Russian armed forces (whether they are also Russian citizens is another issue too). This does not constitute an overt act by SO, in the same way that any other republic in the Russian Federation is not acting independently or that because Gurkhas fought in the Falkland Islands, Nepal was a belligerent in that war. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Once more - the SO has sold its cannon fodder to Russia to be defended by Russia. Has Nepal sold the Gurkhas to obtain British warranty?Xx236 (talk) 07:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Send 100 Australian soldiers to join Ukrainian Army. Will Russia accept such decision?Xx236 (talk) 07:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

This is not a WP:FORUM. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I understand that the problem od SO participation is complicated, but it does not make SO neutral. https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/03/26/georgias-breakaway-region-sends-troops-to-ukraine-a77094 Xx236 (talk) 10:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Dates for Battle of Bakhmut 2022

I need the dates for the Battle of Bakhmut, which was recently deleted. Can someone send it? Xurum Shatou (talk) 23:59, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

See Draft:Battle of Bakhmut (2022). ErnestKrause (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Wtf is Battle of Bakhmut? Russian occupation forces didn't get closer than 30 km to the city DakeFasso (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah agree, the number of these “Battle of” articles, about every small town and village is getting pretty ridiculous. Volunteer Marek 18:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Error on Soviet Origin?

"Putin ... incorrectly described the country as having been created by Soviet Russia,[25]"

But Ukraine has no legal history as a state prior to the Bolshevik revolution? Lenin's support for devolving the Russian Empire to give such legal power and affirmation to various National Minorities was hotly debated by other communists of the time.

From Wiki on Ukraine:

"The 19th century saw the growth of Ukrainian nationalism, particularly in Galicia, then part of Austria-Hungary. In the aftermath of the Russian Revolution a Ukrainian national movement re-emerged, and the Ukrainian People's Republic was formed in 1917. This short-lived state was forcibly reconstituted into the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, which became a founding member of the Soviet Union (USSR) in 1922" 73.191.41.112 (talk) 12:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

And the point is ... ? Cinderella157 (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

exactly, it existed briefly before being forcibly integrated into the soviet union. Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Putin is wrong because he’s trying to deny the existence of a Ukrainian nation by referring to a state, and by labelling the country “Russian land.” The anon comment above adds the straw man of “1917.” In fact, Ukraine established a state in 1917, Lenin’s Bolshevik Russia (an unrecognized state with no continuity from previous states) legally recognized Ukraine’s sovereignty and borders in 1918, and only conquered it in 1920, on the third attempt. —Michael Z. 14:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

There are many countries that gained independence as empires declined but that's not to say that the former empire is responsible for creating said countries, in fact quite the opposite is true. An equivalent argument that India was created by the UK, or that Korea was created by Japan show cases how preposterous a notion it is. As a person living in a former colony the idea that our former imperial overlords somehow created our country is insulting to put it mildly. This is why we talk of countries gaining independence, not being created. Alcibiades979 (talk) 20:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Repiblic won the ukrainian civil war in 1921 and was admited in USSR in late 1922 not was conquered by Soviet Union in 1920 on the third attempt. DrYisus (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

User:DrYisus, I guess you’re responding to me? You’re inaccurately rewriting my sentences. The Russian Bolsheviks invaded Ukraine in December 1917, were forced to recognize the Ukrainian People’s Republic (UNR) in 1918 then invaded again in January 1919, created the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1919 and invaded again in May 1920 to defeat the UNR, although partisan actions continued into 1921. The UkrSSR was a Russian puppet state without independence, sovereignty, or its own army, and the Bolsheviks underlined this when they abandoned the pretence of Ukrainian statehood and joined Ukraine to the USSR in December 1922. They redrew Ukrainian borders by assigning some Ukrainian-inhabited territories to the RSFSR. —Michael Z. 22:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

~ Sorry Michael Z I am new on WP and I dont know how insert the answers from mobile or make calls (the @). I am not arguing anything of that. I only said that UkrSSR (puppet or not) won the civil war in 1921 (not 1920) and later joined USSR. And by the way, is true that some part of Ukraine origins (Ukraine People's Republic) are based on soviet/bolsevisk actions, in fact the Ukrainian People's Republic of Soviets was stablished nearly at the same time that UPR, the bolsevisk uprising in kiev drove out the white forces leting the Rada (which suported bolseviks during the uprising) increasing the autonomy that months after lead to independence. I wouldn't say that Ukraine have full soviet origin like Vlad said, but has partial. DrYisus (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Three puppet states were established for the three Russian Bolshevik invasions conducted by an army under Moscow and mainly from Russia. The first two were governments consisted only of Russians, and were liquidated by the Bolsheviks due to their failure, because Ukrainians didn’t trust foreign armies that invaded their country and shot on sight anyone speaking Ukrainian. The third incorporated some token Ukrainians in non-power cabinet positions.

• Ukrainian People's Republic of Soviets 1917–1918
• Ukrainian Soviet Republic 1918
• Ukrainian Socialist Soviet Republic 1919–1991 (renamed 1936)

 —Michael Z. 18:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Bulking down the article size: Article back over 400Kb

The article size is back over 400Kb which can be daunting to readers of the article, and the article has been template tagged for length issues. One suggestion might be to note that there is a great deal of duplication with the Russo-Ukrainian war article as to both of them covering a 'deep history' version of the events leading to the 2022 Russian Invasion. There is no reason for maintaining two versions of this 'deep history' going back 30-35 years, and it seems a useful endeavor to merge the two subsections of the Background section into the Russo-Ukrainian war article, along with perhaps 2-3 subsections of the Prelude section as well. A very short summary and link can be left in this Invasion article after that merge is done. The other suggestion might similarly note that the Peace efforts section lower in the TOC also has a sibling article already written for it at 2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations, and to merge it from this Invasion article into the sibling article (leaving a link to that page from this Invasion article). The read time for the article is currently 40-50 minutes which is over Wikipedia policy guidelines and this makes a large demand upon new readers who are going through the article from top-to-bottom for the first time. Suggesting here that both of these merge-to-sibling article measures be done to deal with the bulking down of this long article. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

It's currently at 94 kB readable prose, which is on the large side but not just absurd. It's an active topic; see WP:HASTE. We can figure out how/if to trim it in a few years when things have settled down. Feel free to boldly edit now, though, if there's stuff that's clearly misplaced. VQuakr (talk) 19:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Did some trimming up near the top in the lede and background sections. Based on the number of references some of it has apparently been argued about somewhere, so I used a light hand; waiting a bit to see if anybody has any objections. Elinruby (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Both VQuakr and myself are supporting bold edits on the bulking down. Possibly you can extend your edits to think about fully merging the Background section into the Russo-Ukrainian war article, and then boldly removing that section from this article. You can add a short paragraph summary at the start of the Prelude section to include links and maybe 2-3 sentences to briefly describe the complicated deep history which goes back 3 decades. Supporting the bold edits version of bulking down the article which is now over 400Kb in size. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Currently 93kB, not 400. We certainly agree with WP:BOLD but there's no urgency here. VQuakr (talk) 18:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree on WP:Bold. Your number on readable prose is correct; the last full size of the Wikipedia article storage as shown in the edit history is given for the last edit as "20:23, 2 June 2022‎ EkoGraf talk contribs‎ 403,885 bytes +7‎", which reads as 403Kb with about 93Kb readable prose. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm generally in favour of keeping the Background section largely as it is (admittedly I'm biased as I wrote the majority of it). I agree it's moderately long, although it has been through heavy copy-editing so there's very little non-valuable information that can be readily trimmed. If you compare its size to the other sections, you'll see it's actually reasonably lean (there's a section size table at the top of this talk page, click "show" on "Other talk page banners"). The Background section is 30k bytes in size, compared to 56k for the Prelude section, 124k for the Invasion and resistance section and 58k for the Casualties and humanitarian impact section. It's comparable in size to the Media depictions section, which is 22k bytes. Any cuts will necessarily involve simplification, so there'll be difficult editorial decisions about what is and isn't crucial for readers. If cuts are to be made, I would suggest trimming some of the content about the Orange Revolution which is more distant from current events, although it'll be tricky to do while maintaining overall flow. I think what's currently in the section provides valuable context for readers. The Prelude section (particularly "Escalation (21–23 February 2022)") is probably a better candidate for cuts, as is the main section on the invasion (particularly "First phase – Southern front"). The invasion summary is frequently added to, but hasn't been as heavily reworked as earlier sections so has greater potential for cuts. Also, bear in mind that much of the page size is from citations. There are likely still cases of WP:OVERCITE that can be reduced to lower page loading times, as the total prose size itself, at 94kB, is just about within the acceptable limit (see WP:SIZERULE). I'm wary of moving content to the Russo-Ukrainian war article, as there are problems with its scope (was there really a larger war between Russia and Ukraine from 2014, outside of the War in Donbas? I'm sceptical sources actually say this). Jr8825 • Talk 19:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

As I'm a fellow contributor to the Background section, then my concern is still that it duplicates material already covered in the Russo-Ukrainian war article. Is there a useful purpose to keeping these duplicate versions? That said, if you feel that there are certain passages in the Invasion article Background section which are better than what is currently in the Russo-Ukrainian version, then I would support you to merge the Background material here as more up to date than the other version, and that the Background version should replace the redundant material in the Russo-Ukrainian war article. The point seems to be that Wikipedia policy is not to duplicate redundant material covering the same subject matter. That said, I'm also supporting your other ideas for trimming the article's multiple sections. The size issues of the article at 403KB with 93Kb of readable prose needs attention and the article should be shortened. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I see your point about repetition. Most of the shared content was written here then copied to Russo-Ukrainian war in this diff, which produced this situation. The scope of this article and the war article have since become clearer, although I've previously been sceptical about whether the approach we've taken so far is the best (see the current discussion on that article here, and my past thoughts on this here; I'm currently unsure what my view is). It's important to note that this remains by far the most trafficked of the two articles, with approximately 4 million readers in the past 30 days compared to 900k – it therefore makes sense to have a strong background section here to aid most readers looking to understand the historical context of the current war. Any removals from the Background section here should be accompanied by a cross-check with the text there to ensure the best version of the text is kept, and I think further cuts should be limited, at least in the short-term, to non-essential information while the scope of the two articles overlaps so closely. Jr8825 • Talk 02:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Am willing to go with consensus. The edits I did today were largely largely focused on what words I could remove and still say the same thing. I considered removing the whole paragraph about why Putin might be right about Nazis, and just saying that experts agree he is wrong, but that is definitely a meaning change, whereas I don't think I did much of that this morning in those first three sections. But yeah, I have done spinning down to daughter articles and can do that if desired, but figured I should ask first. I will check back on this thread in 12-24 hours and see what people think, or again later if there is still a discussion.

Re 2014: yes, frozen conflict with ongoing violations of Minsk and Minsk II. In my previous trimmings, it is true I have not looked very hard at the Invasion section. Fine with looking at that if people agree, +1 on overcite Elinruby (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

All sections of the article need to be updated and enhanced as the edit history moves forward. It would be a significant move forward if the sections for Background and Peace negotiations could be merged into their sibling articles; there's no reason to maintain two versions of these sections on Wikipedia which can readily be linked from this article to its sibling article. A reduction of a 403Kb article with about 93Kb readable prose which is over Wikipedia policy recommendations should move forward with bold edits on some of these sections. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I've merged the Peace negotiations section with the main article for about 15Kb of total size reduction to article. Should the sections for Background and Prelude be merged to their sibling Main articles in a similar way for bulking down the article? ErnestKrause (talk) 23:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Elinruby: which paragraph are you referring to? Is it the third one in the Prelude section, and if so, were the any specific changes you had in mind? The main offending bit in my view is "Ukraine, like pro-Russian separatists in Donbas, has a far-right fringe, including the neo-Nazi-linked Azov Battalion and Right Sector,", although others may disagree, so it might be worth discussing on talk first or expecting WP:BRD. Jr8825 • Talk 02:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Right, I personally don’t think that that is at all the most important thing about this war, assuming if’s even true, and that’s been to the reliable sources noticeboard a few times. Why is it in the lede? But I am aware that there are editors who will passionately disagree, so no, I will not BRD on that, as I have had that argument and it is exhausting. I’d be delighted if there was a consensus to remove it however. Just checking, were there any issues with what I did cut this morning? A couple of possibilities for trimming occur to me — the first couple of times I went through the article, I skipped the invasion section as it struck me as the meat of the article and I was looking for fat. There are probably some cuts possible there just by converting to active voice from passive. Some long quotes could be cut further down the article probably, but I looked pretty carefully at Putin’s quotes in the early sections, and I think it is important to report the full context there. There are places where there are two and three references further down though, on rather uncontroversial statements, and if I go through these I can probably cut total length somewhat without hurting anything, and now that I have been through a lot of the child articles I could probably make some weight suggestions in the invasion section. How is this for a proposal? I will do a pure copyedit on the invasion section, and make suggestions/ask questions on any due weight questions I think might be controversial? Also keep edits small and specific and easy to undo. But I don’t think I can get much more out of the early sections on wording alone Elinruby (talk) 04:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Your cuts from earlier today looked good, thanks for your work. I don't have any strong feelings about removing the sentence about Azov and Right Sector. I don't oppose removing it, although I can see the argument for retaining it, as Azov has played a key role in Russian propaganda, so it makes sense to note it. Unless there's a particular change you're not sure about yourself, I'd say go ahead boldly with other cuts to the invasion section, we can always come back here and discuss if someone raises an objection. Jr8825 • Talk 14:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Both Elinruby and Jr8825 have positive ideas for continuing with the trims to the article. Regarding the opening subsections on Background, my perspective is a little changed now that I've seen Jr8825's links in his comments above. At present, I'm counting a total of 9-10 paragraphs in the two sections of the current Background section which seems a little too much since alot of it can be merged into the Russo-Ukrainian war article (which is in need of improvement anyway). Can the two subsections of 9-10 paragraphs there be condensed into a single section of 4-5 paragraphs instead? When I looked at some approaches to doing this, they looked fairly promising; also all the material after the condensing would still be on Wikipedia albeit on the linked article in Russo-Ukrainian war to where it can be merged. Is it possible to try this? For the other material, I'm supporting both Elinruby and Jr8825 as having significant ideas for moving the article forward and dealing with this issue of bulking down such a large article still approaching 400Kb in total size. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Took a quick look at the Invasion section. Nowhere near done, but some comments:

• The referencing in the part of Invasion I looked at was really very precisely on point. For example, “dismissed as absurd” had a really good source for a European politician using that exact word. But I know when I trimmed the Legal and Media sections I mostly left the sources, so there is that, and most of Media Depictions is uncontroversial, with some attention to diversity. I think that is important, but perhaps not to the point of duplicating solid English-language sources that say exactly the same thing. There are also some sources I do not recognize, which is another thing.
• Are constructions like “putative spearhead front” some sort of term of art? I know what a spearhead is, but in the English I speak a front is a line of control between opposing forces, and there seems to be a lot of this verbiage that could be eliminated by paring down to verbs, if these nouns aren’t conveying any additional information
• I am being somewhat tentative because my writing style has sometimes been criticized as overly “newsy”. Since this is indeed in my background I plead “probably guilty” and personally think this is a good thing, but collaboration, etc, and this is an important article.
• Re Azov Battalion and Right Sector, I agree that it is crucial that Putin has been talking about Nazis. But then we have several sentences talking about what might possibly have given him that idea — whereas I suspect it came from him in the first place — before we refute the statements. Just saying, why give it oxygen before dousing it with facts? I have not looked at the references for this, in this particular article, mind you, but what I have seen elsewhere makes me skeptical. I see however that Xx236 (talk · contribs) has started a section about this, and pending that discussion at a minimum, I am going to leave this part alone. Elinruby (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

That all sounds on point, and generally Wikipedia does not have issues with using journalistic prose. Let me know if this is brought up here as a situation. The original wording was "probative spearhead front" (not 'putative') which denoted that Russia did not know if that front would succeed. For example, the probative spearhead front on Kiev failed in Phase One of the Russian Invasion. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

you’re right, probative. Still a bit early on the left coast here. Elinruby (talk) 16:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 June 2022

Add the countries supplying Ukraine with military aid in the supporting belligerents section Bigfifa (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: This is actually a controversial edit, so you'll need to discuss first with other editors. Please open a new section here and start a discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

RfC is open in the section above already. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Wrong figures on strength?

On 2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Popular_resistance, we have already described that 700,000 Ukrainian forces are fighting in this war, and Zelensky said that too.[17] Why the figure of Ukrainian strength amounts to only 298,600 in infobox? >>> Extorc.talk 17:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Full conscription of male citizens does not equal the number of soldiers in the field. The latest pressing issue appears to be Zelenskyy saying that Ukrainian artillery and short range missiles are significantly outclassed by Russian artillery and missile strength. Biden in now promising to provide M142 HIMARS weapons possibly within weeks. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The infobox explicitly reports the strengths "at the start" since this is the only point in time for which there is a reliable comparison of strengths. An argument was made that, because reservists were not mobilised "at the start", they did not contribute to the Ukraine strength at that point in time. For myself, I am not convinced by the argument, even if the reservist strength might need to be qualified by a note. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Right Sector

Does the Right Sector participate in the 2022 war? The references are not unequivocal. The ABC text is biased, it quotes Donbas people only. Putin's opinions belong to pre-invasion period.Xx236 (talk) 08:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• To my best knowledge somewhere in 2016 Ukraine defense ministry put the ultimatum to all the militias (dobrobats) to either became a regular unit of the Army (or National Guard) or disarm. Most decided to became regular army units (e.g. Azov battalion joined National Guard and became a regular battalion, later regiment there). Right Sector chose to disarm and became just a not very popular political organization. Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• Well apparently I am not completely correct. They are armed again and fight under the name of Ukrainian Volunteer Corps Ukrainian_Volunteer_Corps#2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I mean the three references, do they support participation of the 'Right Sector' and its "far-right fringe"?Xx236 (talk) 09:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The Financial Times is paywalled but the first two do not, at all. The Washington Post article is a debunking of the claim and the ABC.au article extensively quotes a Russian citizen who moved to Donbas because she drank the koolaid. The article does get around to saying that that isn’t really right, and it’s by no means a validation of what Putin said. This is exhausting Elinruby (talk)

It still seems that the references are unequivocal, so something should be corrected. Xx236 (talk) 07:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The latest update on Ukrainian losses according to the Russian ministry of defence was posted on 25th April

The Russian ministry of defence has posted their latest update on Ukrainian losses on the 26th of April. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AyazKader (talk • contribs) 11:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Stray reference needs home

The material in front of it was completely unrelated. Putting here for now, discussion of an aspect of military aid from Germany Elinruby (talk) 04:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

References

mobilisation

In the Prelude section, would “mobilization” be the correct spelling for moving troops and equipment to engage in war? 174.251.64.117 (talk) 03:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a matter of WP:ENGVAR and this article is written in British English so the "is" form is used. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing question

“On 14 March, the Russian source RT reported that the Russian Armed Forces had captured about a dozen Ukrainian ships in Berdiansk, including the Polnocny-class landing ship Yuri Olefirenko.“

Anybody know this source? The archives at WP:RSN have nothing on it, but quite a few other articles use it as a source on military hardware. The wikilinked article about the ship uses the same source, plus another one I don’t know. Elinruby (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC) “On 14 March, the Russian source RT reported that the Russian Armed Forces had captured about a dozen Ukrainian ships in Berdiansk, including the Polnocny-class landing ship Yuri Olefirenko.“

There are multiple articles about this ship on mulltiple sources including the Nation Interest and others here: [18]. Also on Navy Recognition website here: [19]. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Talk:Battle of Donbas (2022)#Are we putting commanders or not?

In accordance with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, I have removed commanders/leaders from the infobox in the subject article because save one, none of the commanders listed in the article had any mention in the article that would support their inclusion and the one that did had only a single passing mention. An editor has reinstated these. There is a discussion on this at Talk:Battle of Donbas (2022)#Are we putting commanders or not?. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Commanders of the operation for Russia have now changed 3 times, the second one, Dvornikov, was apparently replaced about a week ago. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

See also, the discussion at Talk:Siege of Mariupol#Commanders in infobox. Please comment there. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

'Russian accusations and demands'

There is such section, but no 'Rejection of Russian accusations and demands', 'Critics'. Xx236 (talk) 07:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

We seem to include rejections in that section. Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

You are right, so perhaps the title should be changed?Xx236 (talk) 10:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Why? we do not say they are true, and it does reflect accurately what it is about. Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

A sign 'We sell cars' does not warn that we buy stolen bicycles instead. 'Russian accusations and demands' means exactly what is written. Xx236 (talk) 12:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Anonymous and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

The article Anonymous and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has recently been created. Any help improving it would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The line about protests in Russia violates NPOV and should be modified.

The following line in the lead regarding protests in Russia should be removed or modified; "those in Russia were met with mass arrests and increased media censorship, including a ban on the words "war" and "invasion"."

To highlight the Russian government's censorship of war opposition while failing to mention the Ukrainian government's censorship of their war opposition violates WP:NPOV. As has been reported by reliable sources, the Ukrainian government has banned opposition parties sympathetic to Russia and has, in general, heavily censored dissent. The Azov regiment has also been credibly accused of abduction, torture, and killing of pro-Russia Ukrainian citizens. Because of these facts, this page should either highlight the censorship from both sides, or neither. DayTime99 (talk) 14:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Censorship during war is nothing new. US and UK have practiced it many times before. I would say it is a normal situation for countries during war. But not being allowed to say that your own country is at war is something wholly new. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

False equivalence and whataboutism isn't NPOV. VQuakr (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Neither of those terms apply here. Russia censors its dissidents, so does Ukraine. Ukrainian paramilitaries are even documented by reliable sources as committing "ISIS-Style war crimes" to intimidate opposition to the government. Highlighting only Russia's censorship is not neutral. DayTime99 (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, they really do. VQuakr (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

They all censor the press and the opposition, the difference is that the Russian ban upon the word "war" is Orwellian. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Please don't respond in that shallow manner. How it is a "false equivalence"? Please note that "Whataboutism" can be used both ways: could also be used to only mention the Ukrainian censorship and dissident imprisonment and not the Russian one under penalty of Whataboutism. 179.26.210.5 (talk) 04:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

that hrw report is from 2016 and is hardy applicable to the current situation. Cononsense (talk) 20:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Specifically, User:DayTime99 is misrepresenting the source regarding Azov. The report they cite doesn’t say anything about Azov members “killing pro-Russia Ukrainian citizens,” and that old report has minimal relevance because it refers to abuses by a volunteer battalion in 2014–15, and states that “by spring 2015, most volunteer battalions had been formally integrated into the official chains of command in the Ministry of Defense or the National Guard of Ukraine,” and this is the case with former Azov Battalion, now Azov Regiment.

More broadly: are you effing kidding me? What others have stated above: the level of human-rights abuses by the RF is far worse than problems in Ukraine (that only occurred as a result of the Russians invading and starting a war in 2014 in the first place). For one thing, Ukraine is in a state of martial law, and dealing with foreign invasion forces and collaborators trying to destroy its state and nation. Meanwhile the RF considers itself in peacetime, yet restricts its own citizens legal rights more egregiously, and has illegally denied rights in a sovereign state. The Russians have caused hundreds of billions of dollars in damage, illegally displaced millions, and forcibly deported, forcibly conscripted, abducted, tortured, raped, and killed tens of thousands, without any provocation.

So yeah, we could improve WP:NPOV, but DayTime99 ain’t gonna like it. —Michael Z. 20:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

For one thing, the article mentions the Kremlin’s false accusations of genocide against Ukraine in four places, but omits that a report by 30 experts says it is likely that the Russian Federation has violated provisions of the Genocide Convention, there is a possibility of genocide being committed, and there is an obligation for 150+ parties to the convention to take action to prevent it.[20] This is worthy of inclusion in the lead. —Michael Z. 20:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

First of all, the report I cited clearly says; "the Ukrainian authorities and pro-Kyiv paramilitary groups detained civilians suspected of involvement with or supporting Russia-backed separatists". Meaning I actually undersold the affair, it isn't limited to just the Azov Regiment (or as you put it, "volunteer battalions"). The report also discusses "enforced disappearances" in illegal "unacknowledged detention". The Ukrainian government has been directly ordering widespread censorship and squashing of dissent for years.

As for the war itself, let's recall this all started when the Ukrainian government that was pro-Russia was violently and illegally overthrown. Russia only acted militarily in the wake of that coup - hardly "unprovoked". But regardless of how/why the war started, it doesn't suddenly justify everything the Ukrainian government does. Who is committing "worse" censorship is up to reliable sources to decide, and right now they report both sides have been pretty censorious. If you want to be a partisan for Ukraine you should start a personal blog, not be editing an encyclopedia that's supposed to be neutral. DayTime99 (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

You're just quoting the Russian line. The government was voted out; no one except Russia thinks it was illegal. This is an obvious non-starter. Suggest moving on. VQuakr (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Violent rioting and trying to a kill a sitting president isn't legal. One doesn't have to be Russian to see that. DayTime99 (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The Verkhovna Rada did not riot nor try to kill anyone. They voted to remove a president from office after his government escalated violence and killed protestors, rammed through unconstitutional laws to grab authoritarian power, all under direct pressure by a hostile foreign power that he invited to invade his own country, and fled justice. The largest block of voting MPs was from his own party representing the constituency of Russian-speaking eastern Ukrainians.

VQuakr is right. You are trying to inject undue emphasis on certain peripherally related events to reflect a non-WP:neutral POV equating both sides, right in line with the illegal aggressor’s propaganda. —Michael Z. 02:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The Rada voted to do that under duress after Western-backed rioters brought the country to the brink of anarchy. And there's no false balance pointing out how Ukraine has been as censorious of its opposition as any authoritarian regime in the last 50 years. Focusing solely on one side's issues and ignoring the other's is how you get some of the worst war crimes in history. Don't go down that road. DayTime99 (talk) 03:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Characterizing Ukraine’s elected government as an “authoritarian regime” is an anti-Ukrainian, pro-war fringe POV. There is no consensus for your proposed edit and this is devolving into WP:chat. Time to put it to rest. —Michael Z. 04:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

You have failed to address the points my original post made, and all your arguments are essentially "Ukraine good, so their censorship good, Russia bad so their censorship bad". If this is the state of attempting to form consensus, that's a real shame. DayTime99 (talk) 04:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The fact their arguments have actually been "Ukrainian censorship and Russian censorship are on entirely different levels" and you choose to characterise them as that instead says a lot about how this is not going to reach the consensus you want it to. --110.141.161.200 (talk) 04:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

User:DayTime99, your “Russophobia screed” comment is an unacceptable accusation per WP:no personal attacks. Please strike or remove it. —Michael Z. 21:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Shouldn't the Heads of State of DPR and LPR also be listed in the "Commanders and Leaders" section of the infobox under Vladimir Putin?

Considering that DPR and LPR are listed as belligerents, not merely support (as with Belarus), shouldn't their heads of state be included with Putin in the "Commanders and Leaders" section? I think Denis Pushilin (DPR) and Leonid Pasechnik (LPR) should be included. Seems inconsistent to list them in belligerents but not commanders and leaders. --2601:644:8501:3FF0:ACD5:F6:ABFE:50AF (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is to summarise "key points" of "the article" - ie the infobox must be supported by what is written in the article. The article as written does not show that they have a "key" role. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

There is no consensus in WP:reliable sources that these entities are sovereign states or legal belligerents, that they are legally or de facto independent, that their nominal political leaders direct their supposed forces. They are puppets, and the 1st Donetsk and 2nd Luhansk Army Corps are under the command of Russian officers and subordinate to the Russian 8th Combined Arms Army. The Russians are putting up Russian flags over cities they capture in Ukraine, including in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, and Russian government figures are talking about their plans to annex these territories that their president called “Russian land.” —Michael Z. 02:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)