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

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I'm not going to write the full novella that Levivich provided closing the last one of these RFCs, but the result is broadly the same. Numerically, the sides are fairly close, with no landslide in one direction or another, and the policy based arguments are not any more overwhelming for supporting or opposing. To, I'm sure, no one's surprise, there is No Consensus to include those providing military aid as supporters in the infobox. I will note that among support !voters there was some stipulations for who should be listed as providing support, lending some more weight to the oppose argument that it is a complex situation, and better explained in the article prose. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

---

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)

Withdrawn. Given the trickle of comments posted after this suggestion it seems WP:Closure requests is more appropriate. --N8_wilson 17:13, 8 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

• Support - the arguments and evidence presented by Mindaur and Fieari are convincing. It's beyond argument that the assistance (i.e. the support) of the US, EU and NATO nations, are a substantial contributor to Ukraine's success in the war. Thus this should be listed as support in the infobox. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support - Adding military support is consistent with other infoboxes. It is also logical to include as it impacts the abilities of belligerent(s) to succeed on the battlefield. LandyYecla (talk) 10:25, 8 June 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.

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.[17] 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)

"the Ukrainian authorities and pro-Kyiv paramilitary groups detained civilians suspected of involvement with or supporting Russia-backed separatists" Just to be clear you're arguing that it's censorship that it's illegal to aid a foreign military in conquering one's own country? Benedict Arnold would certainly be sympathetic, that said I'm pretty sure in most countries aiding and abetting the enemy is considered treason. Anyhow I agree with Michael Z this has clearly devolved in to WP:chat and WP:SOAP and the edits obviously lack consensus. Alcibiades979 (talk) 12:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to just quickly respond to this since you seem ignorant of the situation. Their interpretation of "supporting Russia-backed separatists" includes moral support. Meaning even voicing an opinion in favor of letting them separate. This is censorship of acts far beyond people directly aiding Russia. I again point to how Zelensky literally banned many opposition parties. DayTime99 (talk) 05:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Who exactly is “they”? Was actor and producer Zelenskyy a member of the Ukrainian volunteer battalions when they still existed in 2014–15 or in cahoots with them? Or are your sources ascribing this to the entire Ukrainian nation as a rule? Please include specific quotations in your response, because the sources you’ve cited above do not support your assertions so far. —Michael Z. 22:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Censorship, banning left wing parties, kidnapping opposition politicians, shutting down opposition media (even before the war!) and murdering politicans that collaborate with russian troops (as Gerashchenko boasted) are all just whataboutism, forget about it jake! slava ukraina and long live the azov battalion (proudly part of the ukranian national army) 2803:9800:9504:7B33:4B6C:CC1A:D8EF:BD67 (talk) 21:13, 10 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)

Total Casualty figures

There is a discrepancy - looking at total Casualty figures in the Siege of Mariupol - it is given as 22,000+ deaths. The wide range given here takes one yahoo source that states 6000 deaths for Mariupol. Isn't this undue weight given the fact that no other source gives the 6000 number? I suggest using 22,000 for Mariupol and add the casualties for other areas on top. Please advise. mezil (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The 22,000+ deaths reported in Siege of Mariupol are civilian deaths. I'm not certain where it is in this article that you are referring to 6000 deaths being reported at Mariupol? Cinderella157 (talk) 08:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

It is given in the breakdown : Mariupol: 6000-2200 deaths. Please look at article Casualties of Russo-Ukrainian war for breakdown. mezil (talk) 10:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

It is given in the breakdown : Mariupol: 6000-2200 deaths mezil (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Please look at article Casualties of Russo-Ukrainian war for breakdown. mezil (talk) 09:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss issues with another article or articles when there is no problem with a figure reported here. It confuses people. It would also be a lot easier if there was a link to where the issue was - Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War#Civilian deaths. There was no issue of WP:WEIGHT. Both figures were sourced and both figures were attribute to the Ukraine (one the deputy mayor and one the mayor. The issue was "when" these figures were reported and there is a significant difference in the dates on which these figures were reported. The former figure is low and reported at a much earlier time (no surprise). The lower figure does not represent deaths as at 25 May. I have removed the lower figure from the table at Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War#Civilian deaths. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Now the table doesn't make sense. You have one city with over 22,000 casualties and yet the total is 11,000 - 27,000. The lower figure is still confusing. I think it's best to remove the 11000 figure as it just doesn't add up. mezil (talk) 11:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Done, but you do know that you could have fixed that? Cinderella157 (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Kraken unit

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/06/03/ukraine-kraken-volunteer-military-unit/

https://www.lefigaro.fr/international/avec-les-volontaires-des-forces-speciales-d-azov-et-de-kraken-qui-liberent-la-region-de-kharkiv-20220606 Xx236 (talk) 11:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

And the point is? Cinderella157 (talk) 11:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

To mention it in the text?Xx236 (talk) 12:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should make this as an edit request in the form: "change X to Y" where X (ie a passage of text would be where you would think it should be added and Y is the added text plus the passage of text. You could do this in your sandbox and link to that. Cinderella157 (talk)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 June 2022

Senomo Drines (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The heading “revision and resistance” video’s caption “June 2” should be updated to “June 6”

 Done ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me • contribs) 12:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Page move?

Would it make sense to suggest a page move, to perhaps "2022 Russo-Ukrainian War" or sorts? The term "invasion" suggests only the opening phase of a conflict; it is now more than three months and the conflict is a full-scale war involving multiple parties, with wide global repercussions (economic/fuel crises etc.). Hence I think the term "invasion" in the title doesn't merit the scale or significance of the topic covered in the article; having it describe the first phase of the war in February is sufficient. The broader "Russo-Ukrainian War" describing the overall conflict can still remain as it is without going into details of the 2022 war.

I haven't been active on this topic, so perhaps active editors can voice opinions here? NoNews! 16:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think "invasion" suggests this is only the opening phase. The specific proposed title "2022 Russo-Ukrainian War" is too easily confused with "Russo-Ukrainian War", but I don't see a need to wordsmith a different alternative title at this time. VQuakr (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Support for VQuakr here. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

+1 Cinderella157 (talk) 00:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Pruning the lede down to appropriate size

I have removed the following, excessively detailed content from the lede. Full details can be provided in the article or sub-articles. The lede should be a concise summary. By necessity, many important facts will not fit in the lede. Jehochman ^Talk 12:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I reinserted the final sentence about the ICC; hopefully that's non-controversial, but I think it provides critical context to the article. The crimes against humanity/war crimes/ICC investigations collectively constitute an entire subsection of the article, which itself is split off into several subpages on the topic, so clearly it's non-trivial, substantial information; and it gives vital added context to the article about the scope of the atrocities being committed. Since it's only a single sentence, I don't think this harms the need for brevity/concision; the cost-benefit tradeoff is clearly positive here. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Extracted content

Putin also alleged that eastward expansion by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) threatens Russia's national security, which it has disputed. Russia demanded NATO stop expanding and permanently bar Ukraine from ever joining the alliance. Multiple nations accused Russia of planning to attack or invade Ukraine, which Russian officials repeatedly denied as late as 23 February 2022.

On 8 April, Russia announced that its forces in southern and eastern Ukraine would be placed under the command of General Aleksandr Dvornikov, and some units withdrawn from northern Ukraine were subsequently redeployed to the Donbas.

By 13 May, Russian forces near Kharkiv had withdrawn following a Ukrainian counter-offensive. By 20 May, Mariupol fell to Russian troops following a prolonged siege of the Azovstal steel works.

Numerous companies withdrew their products and services from Russia and Belarus, and Russian state-funded media were banned from broadcasting and removed from online platforms. The International Criminal Court has opened an investigation into crimes against humanity in Ukraine since 2013, as well as war crimes in the 2022 invasion.

References

Interactive Map

Can anyone include Institute for the Study of War's interactive map of Russian invasion of Ukraine as a link/source or embed it into the article? Here is the map https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/36a7f6a6f5a9448496de641cf64bd375 which updates daily.50.64.136.84 (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Source for “When a group of researchers commissioned a survey on Russians' attitudes to the war in Ukraine

The current source links to https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/why-do-so-many-russians-say-they-support-the-war-in-ukraine, but there is no mention of those numbers there. Can someone point to the correct source or add [citation needed] or remove it if misleading? VZakharov (talk) 06:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The issue of censorship in Putin's Russia has been taken up several times in the international press. Censorship and repercussions for speaking out is discussed in the international press as being subject to police arrest in Russia at this time, and fines in court against journalists speaking out. See the Media depiction section in this article and its main links if this subject is of interest to you. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

"Earlier this month, Maxim Katz, an opposition-minded politician in Moscow, and a team of researchers commissioned a poll on public attitudes toward the war; Katz reported that, out of the thirty-one thousand people who were called, twenty-nine thousand and four hundred ended the conversation as soon as they heard the topic."[18] Passes verification. Alcibiades979 (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

If verified, then it might be useful for either of the Main articles at Disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis or Media portrayal of the Ukrainian crisis. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I can verify it, I have a New Yorker subscription. I think VZakharov searched 29,000 but the article actually writes the number which is why he didn't find the relevant section. I've been really busy lately so other than minor things I don't have the time at the moment to really edit articles. If you'd like to add it to those pages those articles though I can send you the article. Alcibiades979 (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Dagestan and Buryatia people overrepresented in Russian army in Ukraine

The problem of ethnic composition of the Russian army, especially in Ukraine, exists. I do not know if official numbers are available. But some informations exist.

https://therussianreader.com/2022/05/23/buryats-russian-world/ Xx236 (talk) 07:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

https://spravdi.gov.ua/en/minor-indigenous-peoples-of-dagestan-dying-for-russian-world-in-ukraine/ Xx236 (talk) 07:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/north-caucasus-ukrainian-war-only-cemeteries-rear Xx236 (talk) 07:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

• Ethnic composition of a country's military personnel would normally be discussed under the heading of the country's military policy. In this case, for example, possibly in Domestic policy of Vladimir Putin with reference to enlistment policy or conscription policy, or, one of the sibling articles. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine supported by Colombia

Can someone explain how is it that Colombia (a country that isn't mentioned once otherwise in the whole article) is in the info box as supporting Ukraine because it's "allegedly" sending a demining team (the sources being some unknown Russian-language websites) while countries sending millions of weapons, money and providing military intelligence aren't?

189.193.65.250 (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

The invasion of Ukraine by Russia in 2022 has received widespread international criticism and direct critique from the United Nations. In addition to Colombia, for example, Japan and other nations far from the Black Sea have voiced support for Ukraine and sent various forms of aid to assist Ukraine. The links added in the infobox for Columbia in Russian state that Columbia has offered to send boots on the ground to support Ukraine on Ukrainian soil; neither NATO nor the USA have supported Ukraine with boots on the ground or planes in the air. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I have removed this, which was added an hour ago. Reliable sources (not shady Russian ones) have reported that the Colombian team will train Ukrainians in a NATO country but not cross the border. https://www.reuters.com/world/colombia-train-ukrainian-military-landmine-removal-2022-05-23/ https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/russia-ukraine-war-news-05-24-22/h_355cdc3e40d92353955b31ecf2c4bfca GordonGlottal (talk) 16:14, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Demining belongs to humanitarian aid or reconstruction, anyway. If it was general military engineering then it might be classified as military support. —Michael Z. 16:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I mean, in a broader sense I think that the UR-77 and M58 MICLIC would disagree with that categorization of demining (the former of which has been actively used by Russian forces in an offensive capacity as well), but it's unlikely that's what Colombia was purportedly contributing, so in the context of this article I agree it shouldn't be in the infobox. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:14, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

If there are no boots on the ground in Ukraine from Colombia, then it does not belong in the Infobox. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Wording in one cell of the Causalities table is incorrect

It is currently 00:09:30 UTC. In the "Casualties" column, for the "Russian and allied forces" row, it states that 15,000–20,000 wounded: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Casualties_and_humanitarian_impact . However, the source says that number were killed. The claim of wounded is inconsistent with the provided source. I am not yet extended confirmed and cannot update this error. Could someone else?

Brom20110101 (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Linked article says 15,000–20,000 dead. Updated. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for making a change Brom20110101 (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Potential Russian use of Tactical Nuclear Weapons

There is a section on the invasion, and a subsection (three good-sized paragraphs): 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Potential Russian use of tactical nuclear weapons

1. This seems out of place - as the larger section is about what has happened. The reader expects a summary of events. But this is speculative. 2. Given that this is speculative, the size of the subsection would seem to violate the wikipedia policy against giving things undue weight.

I would recommend 1. Condensing the subsection 2. Moving it out of the main invasion section.

(It is reliably source - it belongs in the article. I am addressing the size and and the position only). Jd2718 (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

This was recently discussed last month with the comment that international leaders of state are still responsing and reacting to Russia's use of nuclear strategy in the context of Ukraine. I'm adding a phrase today by Japan's prime minister that further int'l discussion is needed about Russia at the current nuclear non-proliferation meeting taking place. Still, if you have thoughts to shorten the material in that section, maybe add your thoughts here for other editors to comment as needed. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the length is more subjective - I will take a careful look and see if I can find a suggestion to condense, at least a bit. The position of the section in the article I think is more important - perhaps a separate section further down - but Prelude... Invasion... Support... Casualties... all describe what has happened rather than what might happen. This seems quite misplaced. Jd2718 (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

This was the comment from another editor last month on this issue: They have used nukes though. Nuclear weapons have two uses, one is destruction, and the other use is the threat of destruction. Every time Russia threatens to go nuclear it is using the weapons, this is one of their main uses. It also has fundamentally re-calibrated the conflict, western nations are obsessed with the threat and go to pain staking lengths to avoid escalation; such caution was in short supply when NATO helped end the Serbian genocide in Bosnia. I also disagree with the idea that this will be a footnote, Russia's using of nuclear weapons to create an umbrella around the Ukrainian conflict is noticed world wide and has smashed nuclear non-proliferation. 2804:14C:8781:8673:DF9D:44EE:7D88:C1A8 (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC). ErnestKrause (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I found that discussion, thank you. (May 8, archived May 10). I understand the editor's point, though I think they have stretched it very far, and I do not agree that the shadow of nuclear weapons is the same as their use, which is what I think they have implied. There is a bright line. In any case, I am not proposing removing this from the article. I will take some time and find what I believe is a more appropriate position (not as a subsection of the Invasion section) and bring it there. That was the more important of my two points. I'll wait and see if consensus forms (or if there is disinterest) and not address, at this time, the length of the section. Jd2718 (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Is the Kyiv Independent reliable?

Is the Kyiv Independent reliable enough for use in a featured article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemanth Nalluri 11 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

You can always check here at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources to see if it is red coded (do not use) or green coded (good to use). If its not on the list, then it might be usable. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

It is not on the list. Hemanth Nalluri 11 (talk) 01:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

It may be "reliable" but it is not "independent". Further, it is a news source. Per WP:NEWSORG, it is unsuitable for opinion. Of course these limitations do not just apply to the Kyiv Independent. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Problem with Ukraine War Animation

The Ukraine war animation has now reached the size limit allowing it to be displayed in thumbnail form. If the number of frames exceeds 104 (June 6th) the animation will no longer be able to be viewed in thumbnail form, as it would no longer make the following equation true, (length of image in pixels) x (width of image in pixels) x (number of animation frames) < 100,000,000. There are a few possible fixes, including lowering the the gifs resolution, dropping some frames, converting it to some other file format, or if we don't want to change anything about the gif itself, a subtext could be added underneath the image saying something like "please click to view the animation". I would like to get everyone's thoughts on what the best solution is before I change anything.
PS: I was told that some people can't even view the gif in its regular form when I added frames for June 7th through 10th, which is above the limit. I'm not experiencing that issue, and I don't know what could be causing it, if it is happening at all. Please see if that version of the Ukraine animation plays for you, and tell me the result. Thanks! Physeters^✉ 19:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

The current Invasion section is in phase one and phase two outline format. If you could break the animated file into two files, one for phase one (24 Feb to 7 April) and another one for phase two (7 April to present), then that should cut the size of the file nearly by half. Then the two new animated maps can be brought into the phase one section and the phase two section respectively to update the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

That could definitely be a solution, though I can't edit the article myself, so someone else would have to format it on the page. Physeters^✉ 20:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

You could add those 2 new files in on this Talk page, and then one of the article editors can place them into the needed sections. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

There is one problem that I just thought of. This just pushes the problem further down the road. Unless another phase is created, the same problem will happen once the animation goes past July 19th. If you still think this is the best choice, I will upload the already divided gifs. Physeters^✉ 21:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, downloads will work. I'll suggest that in mid July, when the time comes, just to do a third file for a break on or about July 18 and one of the editors will place in the article in the best chronological order possible at that time. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Here are the files. (Files now merged into main article and removed from Talk page; see article for merged new maps. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC)) Physeters^✉ 21:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Those maps look well done for the article. I've resized a little and added titles. I think it looks ok. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Very good, Thanks! Physeters^✉ 22:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 June 2022

Remove the second comma directly before "in" in the first sentence of the article. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 20:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Did copy edit. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

The background section has been cut too severely

Regarding the cuts made in this diff. Key contextual events such as the Euromaidan are missing, and the text refers to things that are no longer mentioned (e.g. "Russia's annexation of Crimea followed in March 2014", which originally came after a mention of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest). I raised my objection to making severe cuts to the background in the discussion that took place beforehand and I'm disappointed to notice that ErnestKrause went ahead regardless without raising specific proposals (edit: without specifically discussing what information should be removed; I missed your suggestion regarding the number of paragraphs you'd like to cut it down to, but was expecting a discussion about which content should/shouldn't be cut) on the talk, as I don't believe there was a consensus for such a drastic reduction. While I'm definitely open to the idea of a significant shortening, I'd like to discuss specific changes first as I think such a massive cut is a significant loss for this article, the most visited article related to the current war.

I'd like to hear more opinions on the proposed cut (the current version). @ErnestKrause: could you please urgently fix the missing references to events so the text flows properly. I'll hold off reverting per WP:BRD for now until others have had their say (in case I'm the only editor who sees things this way), although WP:FAITACCOMPLI indicates that if there isn't a consensus for such a large removal, then the correct course of action is to restore the previous text and start cuts again from there, even if this seems like more work. Jr8825 • Talk 21:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Those edits were done a week ago when it looked ok to do those edits. Could you add in a sentence for Euromaidan and another sentence for Crimea annexation if you feel they are important. The general bulking down of the article was an important issue, and when you were not adding comments to my proposal from last week, I then went ahead with the shortening of the text. The readers of the article appear to have been ok with it, and if you want to bring in the 2 sentences which you mention are missing then you should add them in. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I apologise for not noticing your changes earlier, I'd presumed you'd bring your suggested text to the talk page first and have been busy IRL so haven't been tracking article changes closely. The problem is that regardless of whether readers are paying attention, the text as it stands has some pretty serious non-sequiturs (the annexation of Crimea is mentioned, but our text reads that it occurred "following" [something], but it doesn't say what; the text jumps from 1999 (the previous para.) to March/April 2014). More broadly, I don't agree that it was necessary or positive to lose the majority of that content, which was already tightly focused on useful information for readers. Why remove the history which helps readers understand how the invasion occurred? Jr8825 • Talk 22:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• Hi, I have read both versions. I would thank ErnestKrause for what is a pretty good first iteration of reviewing the background section. However, I would agree with Jr8825 that there is a bit of a leap from the second to the third paragraphs. It appears to me that Ernest has culled or retained sentences en bloc and this is a reasonable initial strategy. However, I can see that refinement of the remaining prose might reasonably lead to further economy. See for example my edit. I suggest that a brief paragraph to fill the gap and some judicious editing would leave the section at about its present size and IMHO this would be a good outcome. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
• @Cinderella157 and ErnestKrause: I've spent some time working on restoring what I think is the minimum necessary to retain an acceptably broad overview of the main events preceding the invasion. I've restored just over a third of what was cut on 6 June, and made some other cuts to duplicated cites or overly long wording. (Another example of the non-sequiturs the cuts produced: the section had an image of the Orange Revolution, but all references to it had been removed). The new section is more chronological and still significantly shorter than what we had before. If you can see places where wording can be simplified/shortened, please go ahead. In a number of places relatively important details have already been lost in favour of simplification/brevity, so I'd prefer to discuss further substantive shortening case-by-case. Your thoughts? Jr8825 • Talk 12:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry Jr8825 but I don't think this is an improvement. You have roughly doubled the size of the section when the improvement indicated should have no net change in size. I can easily see way too much intricate detail in this change. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The current readable prose size of the section is 4180 B (623 words). That's very reasonable for the background section of a complex event, and easily proportionate to the rest of the article (there are much flabbier sections). I don't agree the restored detail is too intricate, I believe it's all key historical context -- but if you could point out which bits you think are unimportant that might be a good way to move the discussion forward. Jr8825 • Talk 12:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Cinderella157 The comments from both editors are useful and if Cinderella would like to take a second look at either further trims or adaptations then it would be nice to see them. Its a little on the long side now, though Cinderella can do edits which seem reasonable. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Archive discussion

The discussion that is dominating this talk page should be replaced with a link to the discussion just like how we did it to the first one on this page. Hemanth Nalluri (Talk) 22:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

If you're referring to the long discussion about "supported by" in the infobox, it will eventually be archived automatically as will most discussions. Right now, that's setup to happen about 5 days after the last comments - so approx. June 14th depending on your timezone. --N8_wilson 05:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

That was what I was referring to. Hemanth Nalluri 11 (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Article too long?

The size of the article is a little more than 350 KB. The readable prose size is more than 100 KB as per [[19]]. So, can someone please remove trivial information from this article? That would help! Hemanth Nalluri (Talk) 22:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

The prose size is actually only 81 KB. Rousillon (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

How did you calculate that? Hemanth Nalluri 11 (talk) 02:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

With this. Rousillon (talk) 03:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

It would be better if the article was so long. Patachonica (talk) 02:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

What size limits are being suggested? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

'controlled by pro-Russian separatists'

Any sources conforming independence of the 'separatists' from Russia?

The Kremlin and the separatist proxies have drawn on a conception of the region dating from the 19th century when it was part of an area known as "New Russia.", the puppet governments, https://abcnews.go.com/International/ukraine-separatist-regions-crux-russian-invasion/story?id=83084803

So rather 'controlled by Russia', 'controlled by proxies, puppets'.Xx236 (talk) 10:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Theft

household appliances, watches, bicycles.

Art, eg. Scythian gold. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/12/specialist-gang-targeting-ukrainian-treasures-for-removal-to-russia

Xx236 (talk) 10:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Right Sector - fringe?

"Right Sector ... is a right-wing to far-right". Even if there exist sources supporting 'fringe', there are different ones, so no.Xx236 (talk) 13:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)