Jump to content

Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 203.219.83.10 (talk) at 03:30, 1 August 2022 (→‎Sponsored by: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

The heading above is a link to the archived RfC: Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_9#RfC on "Supported by" in the infobox for Ukraine, closed 9 June 2022.

See also earlier RfC: Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox?: closed 6 March 2022.

Both RfCs were closed with "no consensus". Cinderella157 (talk) 08:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Illegal to say "war" in Russia

ErnestKrause, since you were using the nomenclature of Russian Wikipedia to argue that saying war is not illegal in Russia, see this Reuter's article [1]. Russian Wikimedia is being fined in Russia for "propaganda," and Reuters says as of yesterday Russia does not call what is happening a "war" or an "invasion", criminalising the use of either word.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ermenrich Your citation from Reuters is better than the NPR one currently in use, and I think I would support you to replace the NPR cite with your Reuters citation in the lead section. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Russian Wikipedia is international, it is not Russian. Xx236 (talk) 07:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Russia has blocked Wikipedia within its borders - this site is edited by people outside of the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.57.70 (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not blocked in Russia, but for some reason it still has a pro-Ukrainian subtext. 213.87.102.249 (talk) 15:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was forbidden to specifically call the special operation a war, for example: "6 months ago, Russia started a war." However, after checking one of the Russian media, I note that they say only "special operation" and not a single word "war".
Perhaps they are afraid even to be able to get under the article, it is quite possible to call it a war and a special operation at the same time. 213.87.102.249 (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, it is unclear why this should be called a war when the countries have not declared it to each other. 213.87.102.249 (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of wars since 1945 have not been officially declared. Declaring war is illegal according to the Convention for the Definition of Aggression (penned by a Soviet diplomat), and declared or undeclared acts of aggression are illegal according to the United Nations. Defending a country against aggression doesn’t require making any declaration, either.
Obviously, the Kremlin lies to its own citizenry, using a euphemism for its eight-year-old war of aggression. —Michael Z. 20:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology section

Can we add the “Terminology” section to the article? The terms used in Ukraine are “ Russian invasion of Ukraine”, “ resistance against full-scale Russian aggression”, etc while Russia uses the term “special military operation”, etc.. Neutral terms are “Russo-Ukrainian war”, “Russo-Ukrainian conflict”, “War in Ukraine”… -76.68.77.13 (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

most of those are not names, they are descriptions. I am dubious that this would really add anything of value. Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That’s a false balance. Russian invasion of Ukraine is objectively accurate and neutral. —Michael Z. 17:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any neutrality problems with "Russian invasion of Ukraine" and "resistance against full-scale Russian aggression". Super Ψ Dro 08:50, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not full-scale anyway. You can look at size of Russian army and compare it to forces in Ukraine. And you will not find terminology like USA invasion to Korea, Belgrade or Vietnam. It's up to you, anyway. Also neither Ukraine, nor Russia officially declared a war. Which is quite strange and confusing in this situation. The best term, imho, Russo-Ukranian conflict. Because here is Russia, here is Ukraine, and here is the conflict. No war declared. And officially the Russian army has been taking part in this only since February 2022. There is no evidence otherwise, except for propaganda from either side, as I understand it. TheRatProphet (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"And officially the Russian army has been taking part in this only since February 2022" is not true: [2]. Kleinpecan (talk) 13:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
“Full-scale” is relative: the war reached its full scale after February 23. The RF is estimated to have committed 85% of its fighting force[3] and is stripping units away from border defence elsewhere. Sounds pretty full-scale by any measure, to me.
States generally do not declare war these days. A declaration by an invading power would just be evidence of the crime of aggression. But a thousand reliable sources point out that Putin’s “special military operation” is a lame euphemism for the biggest war in Europe since WWII.
Russian army invaded Ukraine in February 2014. —Michael Z. 18:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These were mercenaries, not russian army. I think this is clear from the attention to the war in Ukraine in 2014 and in 2022. 213.87.102.249 (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or not https://www.vox.com/2014/9/3/18088560/ukraine-everything-you-need-to-know. Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, Russian soldiers were there too, but they were not active. Please note that for 8 years of the presence of the "Russian army" only in the last 6 months everyone started talking about war and invasion, although before it was just a "fight against separatists and terrorists"? Russian soldiers and the Russian army have a huge difference.
8 years ago, if Russia had introduced an army, I suspect that Ukraine's allies would have been able to strangle us with sanctions, which is why the active army did not join until recently. 213.87.102.249 (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As it was not Russian and Ukraine had not invited them, it was a military invasion. Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not the invasion of the Russian army, but it's quite logical, yes.
Ukraine demanded assurances from Russia that it would not attack Ukraine, at that time there was already a conflict in the Donbas. Somewhere in 2014 or 2015 213.87.102.249 (talk) 15:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What a load of reversals and doublespeak: They weren’t there. Of course they were, but not invading. Well, yeah invasion, but not an invasion invasion. (Also, please don’t mention Crimea, Ukraine.)
Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2014, violating international law and its own non-binding and binding assurances. Its invasion continues uninterrupted to this day. It’s a waste of time to debate this. See WP:CHAT. —Michael Z. 15:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is "full-scale" because the partial-scale invasion began in 2014. The 2022 invasion is indeed full-scale since the initial goal of the invasion was to occupy the entire country of Ukraine and instate a regime change. This initial goal ended up being thwarted when Russia was unable to capture Kyiv, so the scale of the war was drawn back to only occupying eastern and southern Ukraine.
Russia's initial invasions of the Crimean peninsula and the Donbas region back in 2014 can be considered "partial-scale" since they were only fragments of Ukraine, rather than the entire country. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russian shelling port of Odessa after 1 day of deal with Turkey and UN

https://amp.france24.com/en/europe/20220722-live-ukraine-ports-to-reopen-after-grain-export-deal-with-russia-says-turkey

https://www.euronews.com/amp/2022/07/23/russian-missile-strikes-in-ukrainian-port-hours-after-grain-deal-claims-odesa-mp https://www.ukrinform.net/amp/rubric-ato/3535226-russian-missiles-hit-odesa-port.html Vyacheslav1921 (talk) 10:12, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/us-pledges-more-military-aid-ukraine-peace-seems-far-off-2022-07-22/ Vyacheslav1921 (talk) 11:13, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The American envoy to Kiev has criticized this action. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This should be included. FWIW the Russians deny responsibility (CNN), but afaik they still deny ever killing any civilians, so... Elinruby (talk) 00:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adequate investigations into the killings of civilians have not been conducted, which is not convincing enough. Unfortunately, there was no clear evidence to observe (but I would like to see), alas, only walls of text and photos of corpses. 213.87.102.249 (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is about the shelling of the port. Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Today MFA of Russia confirmed what shelling is russian

https://news.ru/vlast/zaharova-vyskazalas-po-povodu-raketnogo-udara-po-odesse/ https://www.svoboda.org/a/mariya-zaharova-prokommentirovala-raketnyy-udar-po-portu-odessy/31957376.html Kyiv* Vyacheslav1921 (talk) 09:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NATO expansion

The text says "Several African leaders said the western expansion of NATO contributed to the war" I suppose this should be eastern expension?

Teun Spaans (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, but it's a moot as the entire sentence was OR and has been removed. It built on one single source, from 2018, so obviously not suitable to describe reactions to the invasion. Jeppiz (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Translation is incorrect. The term "western expansion" refers to the expansion of the influence of Western Europe and the United States to the east in the form of NATO. TheRatProphet (talk) 12:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 July 2022

Change "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." to "The International Criminal Court has opened an investigation into crimes against humanity in Ukraine over war crimes in the 2022 invasion." as the lead should contain information directly related to this event Originalcola (talk) 03:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The cited source mentions that earlier probes dating back to 2013 will be included in the investigation. Maybe this could be reworded but I think removing that context completely might not be the most appropriate change. --N8wilson 🔔 16:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Differentiate between lethal and non-lethal military aid

Some countries only provided non-lethal military aid, and it’s slightly misleading to list them alongside countries that provided heavy weaponry or combat weapons. I would suggest using two shades of blue for this purpose. 2A0D:6FC2:4970:A100:21C8:F806:25C4:99AF (talk) 10:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Care to provide a list of nations that have only given no lethal military aid? Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
List them where? As far as I can tell, they are only mentioned in prose. Blue, of course, denotes a link, and denoting information only by colour is not good WP:accessibility practice. —Michael Z. 14:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here so we can discuss how to word it, and to enable us to assess the sourcing. Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second animated map caption needs an update

The caption under the animation currently says from April to 11 July but the animation runs to the 24th of July. 2603:8080:5701:9E54:E0FB:BA41:E1D9:182B (talk) 01:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Updated to 24 July. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Change in number of refugees who have fled Ukraine

The article on the refugee crisis caused by the war states that the number of people who have fled Ukraine is now 9.9 million not 9.6 million citing the UN refugee agency among other sources. Can someone look into this please? 2A00:23C8:905:2701:2135:2504:3AA0:4023 (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox casualties and losses

The infobox “Casualties and losses” section currently links to the article section with no data. It should at least give the reader an idea of the magnitude of losses. I suggest we put the range of losses estimated by third parties or accepted by reliable sources, even if it is a very wide range. —Michael Z. 16:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we wait till it's over, and we can actually get some authoritative figure. Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there are too many sources to account for to do that currently. —Biscuit-in-Chief :-) (ˈ[d̥͡soːg̊ʰ] – [ˈg̊ʰɒ̹nd̥͡sɹ̠ɪb̥s]) 17:33, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You expect sources will disappear in the future? —Michael Z. 18:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What are you possibly envisioning? There will never be an “authoritative figure” but only more estimates that continue to disagree, probably widely. For example:
  • Soviet–Afghan War
    • Soviet forces killed 14,453 or 26,000 (larger figure by 80%)
    • Mujahideen 56,000–180,000 (221%)
    • civilians 562,000–2,000,000 (256%)
  • First Chechen War
    • Russian forces killed 5,732–14,000 (144%)
    • civilians 30,000–80,000 (167%)
  • Second Chechen War
    • civilians killed 40,000–80,000 (100%)
 —Michael Z. 18:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! There were no insurgents killed by the Russians, amazing! 2601:85:C101:C9D0:200B:EB29:38C6:8D49 (talk) 19:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any speculation that casualty figures will somehow improve and become more suitable for the infobox in the future is WP:crystall ball gazing. The casualties line is for the best estimated range of casualties. There is no standard for what is not reliable enough, and surely the estimates available today are of better quality than the thousands entered in infoboxes for historical battles.

If there is a concrete reason not to state them according to some guideline or supportable logic and data, then please provide it. Until then, I will enter the best third-party estimates in the infobox. —Michael Z. 14:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Slatersteven and Biscuit-in-Chief. Plus also per earlier established consensus where it was agreed among editors no casualty figures will be included in the infobox due to the wider range of claims (to avoid bloathing) and only a link to the casualties section would be provided where the readers can see the competing claims/figures. A new consensus would be required to start adding the claims/figures to the infobox. EkoGraf (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly the given casualty figures were misrepresenting the sources. The sources explicitly mention only those deaths confirmed by name and explicitly state that "the data collected does not reflect the actual level of casualties'. Yet, our table pretended that these were total deaths.

This is the third time I've found someone trying to pull this trick off. Don't do that again. Volunteer Marek 18:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Figure was not presented as an ultimate total since there was a note beside the figures which clearly stated it was only a confirmed figure thus far, not final and with confirmations ongoing, with estimates higher. But going to write it in the format as per our earlier discussions/agreement regarding these figures where it is more overtly emphasized its only concerning confirmed deaths by name (similarly to the form as Mzajac wanted earlier). The new form would then make the note redundant and not needed. EkoGraf (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The most charitable interpretation I can give to that is that it's the "insinuate falsehood in plain view, but protect yourself by burying the truth in a footnote" kind of thing. When readers see "5000 deaths" they'll think "5000 deaths" not "Hmmm, 5000 deaths, maybe I should click this little blue number by the 5000". Volunteer Marek 18:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that @EkoGraf’s removal of an overt “confirmed” makes the table misleading. Even that is insufficient to differentiate the completely incomparable figures of confirmed number X but we know it’s many more, and estimated total number Y. These should not be in the same column with a single label implying they are comparable or contradictory. If a note is really redundant, then remove the note. Key definitions of data must be readable inline. And there’s no reason to abbreviate “conf.” when the table wraps and we can write “confirmed.” —Michael Z. 20:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The note has already been removed since we added the over emphasis they are confirmed deaths. Although I find the idea a good one and agree a larger differentiation between confirmed and estimated/claimed figures would be nice, the breaking into two different columns leads to unnecessary overall bloating (widening) of the infobox and leaving a large number of boxes empty. The current form of the table has been stable for the past 5 months following earlier discussions and consensus in March what should be included in the table. So I would recommend either a new consensus be reached, or (compromise proposal) at the very least we break the table into two different ones. One for confirmed casualties (by 3rd parties and self-confirmed by belligerents) and estimates/claims (by 3rd parties and by one side of their enemies' losses). EkoGraf (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Between, there are a few figures that we could maybe remove due to them becoming highly outdated at this point. Namely the US estimate and Russian claim of Ukrainian losses from mid-April (confirmed figure by Ukraine has already superseded mostly the US estimate). EkoGraf (talk) 22:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"WarTok" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect WarTok and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 31#WarTok until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. MB 01:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VeryControversialArticle edit request on 30 July 2022

Please change the short description to {{Short description|none}} per WP:SDNONE. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear what is gained by that. The article has redirects at the top of the article, and lists relevant categories at the end of the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why Belarus is listed as sponsor of Russia when USA not listed as sponsor of Ukraine?203.219.83.10 (talk) 00:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus is providing safe conduct to military troops from Russia invading the Ukraine; USA has no boots on the ground in Ukraine. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? How about Americans that been captured and killed in Ukraine? How about strong rumor from everywhere that HIMARS actually operates by Americans (may be other troops from NATO)? How about training? And how about all those American weapons that been supplied to Ukraine? Is it not "sponsoring"? But then what it is? And FWIW there is NO invasion on Ukraine by Russia from Belarus land. Also it is my typo - in article it says "supported by" (not "sponsored" as I typed) and it would be completely silly to deny that Ukraine not supported by all NATO and particular by USA and UK. 203.219.83.10 (talk) 03:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&oldid=1101648414"