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 182.224.89.144 (talk) at 04:54, 22 July 2023 (→‎doraemon time patrol Ukraine war join: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

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]

Given the revolt by Wagner in the last 24 hours, should Wagner be included in the belligerents list now? How has Wikipedia previously handled other mercenary revolts throughtout history? 2001:56A:7130:8700:FD4A:AD7E:689D:B682 (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well given the only one I can think of is the Indian Mutiny, no I do not think they are now belligerents in this war, rather they are belligerents in another. Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And not even that, now. Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's wait for RS to describe them as such. Since the mutiny lasted less than a day and had (so far) no discernible effect on the war I wouldn't hurry with including them. Alaexis¿question? 18:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kyiv Bans Import of Russian Books

Kyiv Bans Import of Russian Books

As reported by REUTERS - and highlighted in todays I newspaper - the Ukrainian President has just signed a new law banning the import of books from Russia. Together with reports of the banning of Russian in Ukrainian schools, the negative effects of such laws must be of real concern. For what next, the Burning of the (Russia) Books? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.130 (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to suggest an edit, as this is not a wp:forum. Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, while Wikipedia is not a Talking Shop, is not the Banning of the Books an issue of some concern? Given this, might not the full impact of such laws on the Russians living within the Ukraine be highlighted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.153 (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If reliable sources consider it a human rights violation, it can be added to the Russo-Ukrainian_War#Human_rights_violations section of this article. I would also add it to the Russian language in Ukraine article. Alaexis¿question? 20:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that the Russian campaign to Russify education in the occupied territories of Ukraine, the banning of Ukrainian-language books, the imposition of Moscow’s curriculum by force on Ukrainian teachers by threats and the use of re-education camps, the mass kidnapping of Ukrainian children, and other potentially genocidal measures would warrant quite a bit more WP:DUEWEIGHT in this article.
If we’re going to get into domestic policies, then we could cover the longstanding suppression of Ukrainian language and education in Russia first, too.  —Michael Z. 21:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, does Russia allow the import of Ukrainian books?  —Michael Z. 21:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any restrictions on Ukrainian-language books or books published in Ukraine but if they exist they should be mentioned in relevant articles.
I agree that the Russification of education should be covered - even if it's largely a fast-forward mirror image of the Ukrainisation campaign of the previous decades (changing language of instruction from Ru to Ukr, removing the status of Ru as a regional language, changing the curriculum, etc). Probably you find the latter legitimate and the former illegitimate but both are relevant. Alaexis¿question? 06:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alaexis, as WP editors we should always rely on reliable, secondary sources, preferably academic ones. We should also let those sources inform our judgment on what is relevant or irrelevant. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, this is what I wrote in my first comment in this thread. Alaexis¿question? 09:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Do you not see a substantive difference between language protection laws that many states have, and a violent campaign of of language suppression imposed during a military occupation that has been explicitly linked with incitement to genocide, a risk that genocide is occuring, and the indictment of a head of state on charges in an international court’s investigation of war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide? Well we do.  —Michael Z. 13:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Russia has eliminated Ukrainian-language education for Ukrainians in its own borders and in occupied territories of Ukraine, and is imposing anti-Ukrainian reeducation on Ukrainian children. It has removed references to Ukraine and Kyiv in its history curriculum. It shut down the Ukrainian library in Moscow after the 2014 invasion, and prosecuted its chief librarian for extremism and spreading ethnic hate. The campaign is connected to dehumanizing anti-Ukrainian rhetoric by Russia’s head of state and media which which explicitly refer to conspiracy theories and language suppression practiced by Moscow authorities since the seventeenth century.  —Michael Z. 13:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Russian opposition

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.

Why is the Russian opposition not written in this Infobox even though it is written as hostile in other articles in Infobox? Parham wiki (talk) 11:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

internal opposition to wars are not normally listed as parties. Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But in the articles 2022-2023 Belarusian and Russian partisan movement and 2023 Belgorod Oblast incursions it is written as hostile. Parham wiki (talk) 11:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then I would say they are wrong. Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 11 July 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 11 July 2023

I want to add casuality numbers released for Russian side as cited below.

https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/how-many-russians-died-in-ukraine-data-points-out-what-moscow-hides/article67065514.ece

Two independent Russian media outlets, Mediazona and Meduza, working with a data scientist from Germany’s Tübingen University. APT141 (talk) 12:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 12:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lukashenko in the infobox

Belarus only supported the invasion so remove Lukashenko in the infobox. Parham wiki (talk) 11:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lukashenka is the leader directly responsible for the crime of aggression (Rome Statute 2(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. 15:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that Lukashenko is a criminal, but the field of commanders is for those who lead the conflict, NOT THOSE WHO COMMIT THE CRIME OF AGGRESSION! Parham wiki (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mzajac I think I've mentioned to you before that, although it hasn't yet occurred to anyone that it'd be necessary to mention it at WP:NOT (although I’m sure consensus there could be found)…
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a court of international law.
Editors are, obviously, perfectly free to expound on such issues at length in the relevant articles and sections (citing RS and following policies and guidelines, yada yada).
So habitually invoking alleged or actual points of international law instead of addressing the actual substance of issues raised in TP threads is, in my personal opinion, not particularly productive, and might even be sometimes potentially liable to be construed as tending toward WP:FORUM behavior.
While I haven’t by any means read every single TP post you’ve made in the topic area, I’m seeing a pattern of repeatedly answering legitimate infobox-related queries in this topic area with appeals to points of international law. While you, personally, may believe that these are valid reasons, this seems to be a highly creative excuse (even if it’s an unconscious one) to impose a POV on what’s supposed to be a bland overview of a military conflict. In the past, if I remember correctly, you’ve used similar arguments to oppose what you feel might draw moral equivalencies between Belarus and Western supporters of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
The reader can easily see for themselves the plain facts of everything that Russia (and Belarus) have done. So partisanship against them is not only superfluous, but runs the risk of gradually undermining the credibility of WP’s coverage (particularly in the vast outer swathes of the English-reading world that have a different and more nuanced POV than most of the editing community) and setting disturbing precedents for future controversies.
(Also, since you brought it up, Belarus isn’t a party to the Rome Statute. So the point is not only not answering to OP’s question, but probably entirely irrelevant, even without going into the thorny complexities of the precise parameters of the crime of aggression.)
RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lukashenka is complicit in the invasion. I was explaining why, in case it’s not obvious. There’s no rationale for removing him given.
Aggression is one of the core crimes in international law, and does not depend solely on the Rome statute.
Try to comment on the subject and resist the urge to stereotype your peers and analyze their train of thought or motivation, in the interest of productive discussion.  —Michael Z. 03:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of any precedent or consensus for adding the leader of a supporting country or faction to an infobox.
If I understand what you’re saying correctly, you’re arguing that “complicity” means that Lukashenka is an active participant in the conflict for the purposes of the infobox.
Unless I’m very much mistaken, this is essentially arguing to circumvent the usual criteria and include infobox information based on legal, moral, journalistic, or other unencyclopedic methods of assessment. This argument, along with similar ones, has, I believe (and by all means show me otherwise if it hasn’t), been generally discredited by multiple other editors at Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine and elsewhere.
I have indeed been commenting on the subject. Any analysis of my peers’ train of thought or motivation was merely giving them the benefit of the doubt per WP:AGF. Would you prefer that I instead accuse my peers of POV pushing, failure to get the point, or other actions counter to P&G? Patient adherence to WP:AGF is clearly in the interest of productive discussion. Addressing, in detail, others’ arguments is also in the interest of productive discussion.
There’s no rationale for adding/keeping him given, other than that he is allegedly complicit in the crime of aggression. I’ve explained above why this argument doesn’t hold water.
And please, let’s not get sucked into debating the crime of aggression, which, in both definition and application, is way more complex than you make it out to be. Suffice it to say that the actual liability of Russia (let alone Belarus, since there is zero precedent in customary law to hold providers of basing and transit accountable) under the crime of aggression (as opposed to various grave breaches they’ve since committed against innocent civilians, of course) is not completely clear since it would probably revolve around the events of 2014 rather than of 2022.
(Ironically, it was the Russians/Soviets who were, once upon a time, responsible for creating much of the current concept of the crime of aggression. Isn’t history wonderful?)
Regardless, as I said in my edit summary removing Lukashenka, the point is more or less moot since per template docs, information subject to controversy is to be avoided and there is a presumption not to put him in even without the substantive merits (or lack thereof). If you can demonstrate a clear consensus to include Lukashenka, feel free to revert me. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:17, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in the body of the article that would explain who Lukashenka is and why they might be placed in the infobox as a significant or notable commander. There inclusion is therefore contrary to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and of absolutely no benefit to a reader. Note: an article must stand alone, independent of linking. There are also way too many entries under the commanders parameter per the template documentation. While other commanders listed may not be supported by the body of the article, we can still improve the article by increments. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 July 2023

Add Russian opposition (from 2022) to infobox, Russian opposition due to 2022–2023 Belarusian and Russian partisan movement Including the 2023 Belgorod Oblast incursions, the Wagner Group rebellion (In the article Opposition to Vladimir Putin in Russia#2023 Wagner rebellion, the Wagner Group rebellion is part of the Russian opposition.), and the Anti-war protests in Russia (2022–present) should be added as hostile. Parham wiki (talk) 09:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Xan747 (talk) 23:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that it should be added to the infobox as proposed. First, the Opposition to Vladimir Putin in Russia (the article you link to) consists of many different fractions and while pretty much all of them are against the war, only very few can be considered belligerents, which is what the infobox is supposed to contain. And lumping Wagner together with the liberal opposition would be pretty far-fetched.
I'd go with what RS say here. If they describe the Freedom of Russia Legion as a significant belligerent, then we can definitely add them to the infobox, similar to the way DNR and LNR are there. Alaexis¿question? 11:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. DLNR are not treated as belligerents by current sources, since late 2021. What used to be labelled “occupied by Russian-backed separatists” on maps is now labelled “Russian occupied before February 24, 2022,” for example.  —Michael Z. 19:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Wouldn't consider the protest groups etc "belligerents"- and the Wagner conflict was unrelated. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 23:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Edward-Woodrow: Demonstrations are in support of Ukraine, and anti-war groups are not supposed to be added to the infobox. Parham wiki (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Xan747: Does that mean I have to open an RfC? Parham wiki (talk) 00:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, just start a disucssion here. WP:RFCs are more of a last ditch attempt to reach consensus by drawing more editors in. Since this talk page has 852 watchers, it's probably unnecessary. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 00:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Parham wiki (talk) 00:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add the Russian opposition

I think the Russian opposition (from 2022) should be added to infobox, Russian opposition due to 2022–2023 Belarusian and Russian partisan movement Including the 2023 Belgorod Oblast incursions, the Wagner Group rebellion (In the article Opposition to Vladimir Putin in Russia#2023 Wagner rebellion, the Wagner Group rebellion is part of the Russian opposition.), and the Anti-war protests in Russia (2022–present) should be added as hostile. Parham wiki (talk) 00:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where? Under the "Belligerents" heading? Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 00:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Edward-Woodrow: I mean write this in the infobox (it shouldn't be in "supported by:" like Belarus):  Ukraine
Russian opposition (from 2022) Parham wiki (talk) 07:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that this will be the thread to discuss this, I'll copy-paste my response here.
I'm not sure that it should be added to the infobox as proposed. First, the Opposition to Vladimir Putin in Russia (the article you link to) consists of many different fractions and while pretty much all of them are against the war, only very few can be considered belligerents, which is what the infobox is supposed to contain. And lumping Wagner together with the liberal opposition would be pretty far-fetched.
I'd go with what RS say here. If they describe the Freedom of Russia Legion as a significant belligerent, then we can definitely add them to the infobox, similar to the way DNR and LNR are there. Alaexis¿question? 11:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NATO and United States military response

This heading suggests that the USA is separate from NATO.It is an integral part of the alliance and the heading should reflect that by stating just NATO. The contribution of each ally can turn be detailed in the body of the article. 2A00:23C7:D38A:8B01:25BB:A435:E33A:A6F6 (talk) 10:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no NATO military response, I think it just reads badly. Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphen/dash

Should we keep the hyphen in the title or change it to a dash? WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it should be a dash per MOS:DASH—blindlynx 21:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done good catch—blindlynx 21:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted your rather premature move. This has been discussed in the past. "Russo-Ukrainian" is a single adjective, not two nouns joined by a dash. See MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES. (The shortcut refers to "nationalities" but the section is broader than that.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
my mistake, sorry—blindlynx 22:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support and Backing for a Proxy War

While keen to keep its' troops out of harms way, the US is willing to spend billions on arms, training and other aid to maintain the conflict in the Ukraine. Given this, might there not be a section called: 'US Support for a Proxy War'?

Has been discussed multiple times before. In short, reliable sources do not widely describe this as a proxy conflict. — Czello (music) 09:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Broadly that's the case, but I'd add one small but significant caveat to what Czello said. Because once you consider RS from India, Anglophone Africa, etc. there is probably enough for one or two lines under WP:DUE.
That being said, I have little interest in debating that point at the moment. I suppose one could get four RS or so and boldly add the sentence, and it would have a 50/50 chance of avoiding the BRD cycle. Myself, I have other stuff on my mind right now. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 10:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, as the US did not arm Ukraine till after Russia invaded, this is not a Proxy war. As best we might have one line that says "and some have claimed this is a proxy war". Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence

Should we change Ukrainian crisis in the first sentence to Ukraine crisis? I mean, that’s how most sources reffered to it in the beginning. WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 12:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

doraemon time patrol Ukraine war join

the doraemons doraemon time patrol Ukraine war join 182.224.89.144 (talk) 04:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russo-Ukrainian_War&oldid=1166528737"