Jump to content

Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 85.249.168.173 (talk) at 08:55, 12 June 2023 (→‎Russo: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Independent Ukraine, a loaded term

Since people do not tend to talk about an 'Independent' France, Germany or USA, why are is this word being used in relation to the Ukraine? If the article is to be considered natural, should it not avoid questionable or loaded terms? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.2.120 (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's only used in the background section to contrast the newly independent Ukraine with the previous period, so I don't see much of an issue here. Alaexis¿question? 19:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is true, but it still reflects a bias, because no one ever refers to “independent Russia” after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The contrasting usage falsely implies that the Soviet Union became Russia, while other republics had been its chattel.  —Michael Z. 22:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems biased on your part to skip the entire history of forced Russification suffered by the republics of the USSR, where Russia played a central and controlling role towards the other republics. 189.219.230.116 (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know nationality of many ussr leaders ? Stop saying bullshit that russia was controlling. One of the leaders of ussr was ukranian and many others(like Khrushchev) Navi86 (talk) 07:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And yet the Russification of other nations happened. This is well documented historically. The fact that the leaders themselves were Russified doesn't change that. — Czello (music) 07:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s saying about multicultural, so basically you are spreading false information. Can you say evidence about your statement ? 91.205.170.238 (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, regarding independence, that it very boased becayse why noone talking about independence of Czech Republic or Slovakia in the same way? 91.205.170.238 (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add Iran to Belligerents on Russian side

Based on the amount of drone, microchips and body armour that have been donated from Iran to Russia, and even the fact that they have sent actual troops to help with drone operation. I think it would be justified to add Iran to the "Supported by" section in the belligerents on the russian side

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/iran-sent-troops-ukraine-help-russia-use-iranian-made-drones-biden-adm-rcna53277#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20has%20evidence%20that,Biden%20administration%20officials%20said%20Thursday. Source for Iranian troops sent to the war Hholdenday (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. Belarus is a belligerent because it was used as a staging ground for the invasion. Arms suppliers and technical support do not qualify as belligerents. If they did, there would be dozens of countries to add. Mr rnddude (talk)
Do we need to add Iran to the FQ about belligerent? Slatersteven (talk) 09:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Iranian personnel deploying in theater to assist with technology transfer doesn't even qualify as "supported by" according to consensus. Consider that British and possibly other personnel also have deployed in theater for similar purposes. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oh but if Iran, a country which is yet to be proven to be involved in this war, is added to that list, then so should the US, the rest of NATO and any other country that has sent heavy military Aid and equipment to Ukraine 41.116.40.211 (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but as no one has agreed to it this is irrelevant. Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 May 2023

correct the start of the Russian and Ukrainian war, separating Crimea annexation as it misleads making people think the war started back in 2014. 84.65.90.61 (talk) 15:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It did, per RS. Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An you show evidence that it started in 2014 ? Base on all source and if you take a look to all article back in 2014 there were no war between ukraine and russia Navi86 (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
answered=no Navi86 (talk) 20:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some sources: https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2023/02/19/for-ukraine-the-war-started-in-2014-not-in-2022_6016441_4.html
https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/02/12/the-other-ukraine-war-crimea-invasion-2014-putin/ HappyWith (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Russia-NATO edits

Hi RadioactiveBoulevardier, could you explain the issues you have with this edit?

  • In his speech justifying the invasion of Ukraine, Putin falsely claimed that NATO military infrastructure was being built up inside Ukraine and was a threat to Russia. - This is in line with the sources and is surely an important thing to mention, as it was one of Putin's main excuses for invading.
  • Lavrov's claim that NATO started a proxy war against Russia had been left with no rebuttal, so I added one: NATO says it is not at war with Russia; its official policy is that it does not seek confrontation with Russia, but rather its members support Ukraine in "its right to self-defense, as enshrined in the UN Charter". If one party is accusing another of starting a war, I think it's important to mention what the other party has to say about that. My wording closely follows what the source says.
  • Russian leaders described this expansion as a violation of Western powers' informal assurances that NATO would not expand eastward → Putin claimed Western powers broke promises that NATO would not let any Eastern European countries join - This is more in line with the sources. Also "NATO expansion" is a term used in Russian propaganda to imply military expansion/conquest. The more neutral term is enlargement.

Thanks. – Asarlaí (talk) 08:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!
I was about to go to bed when I saw this notification, so I’ll give you the quick(er) version.
I don’t have an issue with every single change in that edit, but there were a large number of changes, and some of them seemed…imperfect. Two or three rewordings I remember being slightly concerned by.
Also worth pointing out, this is a C-class article as of this writing. There are a lot of issues running the gamut from the usual technical issues to the broad and subjective questions of layout.
RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 09:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RadioactiveBoulevardier, when you have time, let me know which changes you have concerns about. Thanks. – Asarlaí (talk) 09:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has just become leftist propaganda

WP:SOAP. — Czello (music) 09:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.


"Ukrainian forces have also been accused of committing various war crimes, including mistreatment of detainees, though on a much smaller scale than Russian forces." ? 151.36.12.52 (talk) 12:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes? What is wrong with this? Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What a breath of fresh air, usually driveby IPs are claiming that this article is right-wing propaganda. signed, Rosguill talk 15:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cited with notorious commie outfits AP and OHCHR.  —Michael Z. 00:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Intense discussion. For everyone who knows. And who organized the transpost, buses.
For +/- 5,000,000 refugees from Ukraine ? President of Ukraine? Ministry of Ukraine  ?
Organized refugee ( and accommodation ) in the European Union , USA and Canada . For ... 50,000,000 .
Claims from the Ukrainians would have decreased. :)91.183.159.198 (talk) 09:39, 22 May 2023 (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.

Notorious anti-Russian Media Outfits

Bizarre conspiracy theories, not constructive. — Czello (music) 18:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.


Due to the lack of independent reporters on the ground - or first-hand reports from the battlefield - perhaps Wikipedia could/should question some of the more notorious Washington-backed media outfits and much of their wilder/more outrageous claims of anti-Russian human rights abuses? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.2.24 (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You do understand that US media is not state-controlled? Or that we do not solely rely on US media? Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But do you not people understand that, while US media might not be DIRECTLY state controlled - it does tend the follow the Govt/corporate line? Given that this line in strongly anti-Russian, is it little suprise that nation/corporate media outlets tend to reflect this line in their 'reporting'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.2.24 (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does it? Evidence? And (again) we do not only use US media. Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But does not that miss the point that, here in the UK, most media outlets take their lead from the US corporate media and Govt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.2.24 (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What? No it does not miss the point, its that you do not have one that is valid. Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, any sources for the wild conspiracy theory and allegations? We can read RT but it's not a reliable source. How about Al Jazeera? Andre🚐 17:55, 21 May 2023 (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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 May 2023

Change "the Euromaidan protests" to "the far-right U.S.-backed Euromaidan protests" [1] Chances last a finite time (talk) 13:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based upon 1 source? Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jacobin is approved on the Wikipedia list of reliable sources. Chances last a finite time (talk) 13:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, it is still only one source, and read its wp:rsp entry to see why this edit can't be down. Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It says it is reliable and that it is sometimes biased, but bias is not a problem if it is reliable. Chances last a finite time (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It also says " Editors should take care to adhere to the neutral point of view policy when using Jacobin as a source in articles, for example by quoting and attributing statements that present its authors' opinions, and ensuring that due weight is given to their perspective amongst others'.", or (as I said above) this is just one source saying this. Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But if it is reliable, then it is factual, and we should report facts. Chances last a finite time (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changing the label to something so contentious based on one source is WP:UNDUE. — Czello (music) 14:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Get consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is conflation. Jacobin was determined to be avowedly partisan with a focus on political commentary and opinion rather than on news report[ing] in this discussion. Hence, the warning on WP:RSP to consider both NPOV and due weight when using the source. This is even more a concern when considering applying contentious labels which should be avoided without a wide consensus between sources and even then be applied with in-text attribution, rather than in wikivoice. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But that says that it has "a reputation for fact-checking", and this is about facts. I opened a discussion on the source discussion forum about this. Chances last a finite time (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It also says Editors should take care to adhere to the neutral point of view policy when using Jacobin as a source in articles, for example by quoting and attributing statements that present its authors' opinions, and ensuring that due weight is given to their perspective amongst others'. Including a contentious statement based on a partisan source is not due weight. — Czello (music) 14:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If a reliable source says it, it cannot be "contentious". Jacobin "meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering". Chances last a finite time (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"If a reliable source says it, it cannot be "contentious"." just not true. On wikipedia all contentious content has to have been published in a reliable source by definition. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not like Fox News. The bias there is a form of hate and leads to fake news. Jacobin's bias does not make it tell lies. Chances last a finite time (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It can be contentious when it's a very radical label not given by the majority of sources, and instead only comes from a source known for being partisan (one whose statements should normally be attributed). — Czello (music) 14:41, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not just Jacobin that says this. [2] "the far right Svoboda party was the most active collective agent in conventional and confrontational Maidan protest events, while the Right Sector was the most active collective agent in violent protest events". Chances last a finite time (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And how do you get from that to "the far-right U.S.-backed Euromaidan protests"? Because what you just quoted is very different from the text you're trying to use it to support. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Horse Eye's Back [3] "A US-Backed, Far Right–Led Revolution in Ukraine Helped Bring Us to the Brink of War", "There’s no doubt US officials backed and exploited Euromaidan for their own ends", "The same far right that had led the charge in toppling Yanukovych, including Parubiy, found themselves with plum roles in the interim government that followed". Chances last a finite time (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Our sourcing standards exclude titles. The NBC piece appears to be largely opinion/analysis and to be marked as such. You've still got the problem that far-right led =/= far right. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So I should write "far-right led, U.S.-backed protests" instead? Chances last a finite time (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Branko Marcetic is an outspoken partisan political editorialist, not a reporter in Ukraine nor an expert on recent Ukrainian history. He didn’t consult any fact-checkers when he wrote that Ukrainian Nazis toppled Yanukovych (in fact it was the Verkhovna Rada, where Yanukovych’s own party members held the controlling votes). This is pure POV pushing.  —Michael Z. 19:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mzajac You say that "He didn’t consult any fact-checkers when he wrote that Ukrainian Nazis toppled Yanukovych", but Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 351#Rfc: Jacobin (magazine) says "Jacobin meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering". I opened a discussion at the reliable source forum Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea, but I do not understand why you make this claim. Chances last a finite time (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s an editorial. What you tout as Marcetic’s “facts” are contradicted by numerous more reliable and more recent sources used in articles on related subjects.  —Michael Z. 20:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea "Yet for most Western observers, many of its basic, well-documented facts have been either excised to push a simplistic, black-and-white narrative, or cast as misinformation and propaganda, like the crucial role of the far right in the revolution." There is propaganda that tries to wash this away, but Jacobin's reporting is strong and reliable. Chances last a finite time (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And the article linked to with the words “crucial role.” What does it actually say on the subject?  —Michael Z. 20:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that information contained within this article points to American meddling in the internal affairs of the Ukraine, is it not reasonable to mention how the "US-Backed, Far Right–Led Revolution in Ukraine Helped Bring Us to the Brink of War"? For while the "American agents of influence would prefer different language to describe their activities — democratic assistance, demooocracy promotion, civil society support, etc", are there not indications that their (dirty) work, however labeled, "seeks to influence political change in Ukraine"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.2.85 (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't Wagner, the Freedom Russian Legion and other militias alike be included in the belligerents at this point?

The comment could be made that Wagner and other private militias on the Russian side are not acting independently and are just part of Russia. However, the Freedom Russian Legion and the Russian Volunteer Corps are taking part in the war, while being independent from any of the armies. 84.125.94.214 (talk) 06:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. Those are not independent actors. Andre🚐 07:10, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agred. Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add The US and NATO to the Belligerents on the Ukraine side.

since Ukraine is obviously supported by these countries and some of their military equipment, those of the United States in particular, are used by Anti-Putin groups; in the spirit of unbiasness & accurate reporting isn't this a fair move? 41.116.40.211 (talk) 13:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See FAQ. Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This talk page doesn't have the FAQ, only Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine has it. In brief, supply of military equipment does not qualify as belligerency. There is no consensus to include nations that have supplied arms into the infobox. NATO is also not an arms supplier and could not be included in any case. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to the OP, you are correct. We do not list arms suppliers, as belligerent means party to the conflict. Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are saying that war started in 2014 simply saying that russia supported Donbass people, base on it that means thar was is against NATO 85.249.163.121 (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2014.  —Michael Z. 19:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the evidence that war started in 2014

Basically completely wrong page there were no russian war against ukraine. You can say easily that the war was USA vs Ukraine because usa trained a lot of ukraine militaries during this time. Why it’s not saying anything about massacre in Donetsk ? Bombing civil houses by ukranian army and killing a lot of civil people in donetsk and Luhansk ? Navi86 (talk) 07:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2014 was when Russia invaded and annexed Crimea. Most sources call this the start of the war. — Czello (music) 07:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
what kind of resources ? Why noone was saying about a war in 2014 ? Stop spreading one point of view 91.205.170.238 (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-productive attacks on Russia

Can something be said about the possible impact of the drone attacks on Moscow? For, together with German panzers being sent to the Eastern Front, such attacks can only prove to the Russian people that their their country is in real danger. That said, how are people world-wide to view such attacks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.2.82 (talk) 11:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t really think ordinary Muscovites have been emotionally affected much by the drone attacks. They’re very depoliticized, to the point that they’ll look away from almost anything, even this. There isn’t much media coverage of Russian civilian reactions, and the coverage that I have seen is pretty bad. If editors can find better sources on this, we could totally add the information, thought. HappyWith (talk) 20:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Russia-Ukraine War started in 2022, not 2014

WP:CIR. Editors have been hard at work on this article since March 2014, first at this title, then at 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine, and as of 2020, back to the current title signed, Rosguill talk 01:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 article is also overly protected by admins who add original-research information to this website. Like since when has the period from 2014 until 2022 been referred to as the Russo ukrainian war? There was 0 fighting between russia and ukraine during that whole period aside from clashes which killed only 500 RUSSIANS during the whole 8 year period. Literally all media sources use this article’s name for the post-2022 invasion (not gonna include sources, i think you can use common sense and go google that name and see the sources for yourself). This is a huge problem, because pro-putinists sometimes use the argument that ukraine has been bombing ethnic russians since 2014 and this article and its naming could be used to support their argument. It should be renamed back to “Russian involvement in the War in Donbass (2014–2022)” or, Ukraine crisis (2014–2015 or 2022) (BTW, this article is just a copy and paste of War in Donbass (2014–2022) except other not very related events were put together into one so called “war”. If this huge war somehow begun all the way back in 2014 then i must’ve had a lobotomy done on me without me knowing. 88.245.197.160 (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article has existed since 2014. It has been titled 'Russo-Ukrainian War' since 2014. Sources from 2014 on-wards have referred to this as the Russo-Ukrainian War. Notice the spike for the term starting in 2014. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, the international war started when Russia first invaded Ukraine and occupied its territory in February 2014. The Kremlin denied its invasion and claimed there was only a “civil war” in eastern Ukraine. Countless sources support this.  —Michael Z. 23:26, 1 June 2023 (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.

Russian public opinion

'Russian public opinion...

...According to some sources, a reason many Russians supported the "special military operation" has to do with the propaganda and disinformation'.

So it would seem that the only 'propaganda and disinformation' is that put out by Moscow, and that Washington would hardly ever use media outlets push an anti-Russian agenda? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.199 (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"According to some sources", we do not say it is a fact, we say it is an opinion. However, it can be pointed out that out of the two nations, only Russia has passed laws relating to freedom of speech over this conflict (and acted upon them). Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let’s not forget the oppression. Beatings and arrests of protestors, threat of lengthy jail sentences for vaguely defined criminal offences like “discrediting the armed forces,” mistreatment of prisoners of concience, &c.  —Michael Z. 19:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let’s not forger what happening right now in ukraine, all priests under pressure , moreover it’s better not to speak in russian. Why it’s not mentioned it? 85.249.160.72 (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Soruces? Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 June 2023

Should the Freedom of Russia Legion be added to the belligerents? TheCalmEAK (talk) 07:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not as such, but maybe Russian dissidents. Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Also write the Belarusian opposition. Parham wiki (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: No consensus or source -Lemonaka‎ 17:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

War started in 2022

War started in 2022, if you think it started in 2014 then add official resources 85.249.163.121 (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned above, in #Russia-Ukraine War started in 2022, not 2014.  —Michael Z. 19:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it's here:
Parham wiki (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not according to RS. Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then rename article to NATO vs Russia, because NATO support Ukraine since 2014 as Russia supported Donbas since 2014 85.249.160.72 (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Crimea, why it’s not mentioned that people were voted to join russia ? Why also it’s not mention that crimea was joined to ukraine SSR in 1960-x when ukraine was soviet union ? 85.249.160.72 (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NATO is not a formal combatant, nor is it even an informal one. Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NATO isn't at war with Russia, so no. — Czello (music) 14:03, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I misspelled what I meant, I meant that these events together with the invasion constitute the Russo-Ukrainian War. Parham wiki (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Russo

Russo is not a country name, please change name or delete article 85.249.163.121 (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions about the name are listed at the top under “Deletion Discussions, Moves, Merges, Press, etc.”  —Michael Z. 19:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, its an abbreviation of one. Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Abbreviations is not a formal name. Please rename it 85.249.171.208 (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or add that is fiction artivle because there is no country with name “Russo” 85.249.160.72 (talk) 17:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Russo-Swedish War (1495–1497) Russo-Kazan War (1505–1507) Russo-Turkish War (1735–1739), its a common name. Other examples of abbreviations used in war Franco-Prussian War, and wars that use alternative names Anglo-Mughal War (1686–1690). Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please consult a dictionary.[4][5][6] Russo- is not exactly an abbreviation but a combining form meaning “Russia, or Russian (and).” Russo-Ukrainian War is an exact synonym for Russia–Ukraine War, and I suppose Russian–Ukrainian War.  —Michael Z. 01:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The OP seems to be based on a lack of understanding of English and appropriate prefix demonyms in compounded words such as this title. WP:CIR applies. Explanation has bee given. I don't see any point in keeping this discussion open. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand meaning of abbreviation but i am suggestion the same abbreviation russo-khohol. So it means abbreviation from left and right side. 85.249.168.173 (talk) 08:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russo-Ukrainian_War&oldid=1159748802"