Talk:War in Donbas

Recent controversial edits

Hello RGloucester. You made a series of controversial edits on June 16th. You summarized these edits as "c/e", which I have to say was misleading, since they mostly concerned Russian involvement in the conflict, a rather controversial topic. The coverage of this topic in the article deserves an expansion, and the organization of this article would be improved if this expansion was focused in a separate section. If you are interested in contributing, please consider expanding War_in_Donbass#Russian_involvement. Thanks, Heptor (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Your edits have been entirely unacceptable, and I've reverted them. Each time you to try to remove sourced information about Russian involvement in the war. Please spare us this continued campaign of POV pushing. RGloucester — ☎ 18:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

RG, you made significant controversial edits with misleading edits summaries. You removed at least two reliable sources: . I am happy that you are now participating in the discussion. Kindly explain the changes you made on June 16th, and let's take it on from there.

I did not make any changes. I reverted your edits, because they are a clear attempt at POV pushing, and are making a disinformation campaign out of this article. RGloucester — ☎ 18:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't doubt that you mean well, but Im afraid that some of the neuances about the politics of the conflict may have been lost in your edits. Would it be unreasonale to ask you to detail the specifics of why you consider these changes an attempt at pov pushing? For example, do you disareee with how i offloaded most of the text on the Rusain involvement in a separate section? Is there something wrong with the two references I added? Heptor (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Past engagement with you has made clear that constructive discussion is impossible. I will simply allow others to judge the veracity of your intent. RGloucester — ☎ 19:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

This is the first and only time that I have seen you participate in a discussion on any article that I have edited. Heptor (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I was asked at this editing dispute at my talk page. Whereas I have no opinion on the validity of edits made by Heptor (and, to be honest, I do not quite understand what they wanted to do - not that I want to understand it), I see that the article was for a long time in a quasi-stable state (I have now extended confirmed protected it to exclude sockpuppet edits, which it has see a lot). In this situation, if the edits get reverted, per WP:BRD Heptor has to go to the talk page and explain what they want to do, and subsequently seek consensus. There is no obligation for RGloucester to participate in this discussion if they do not want to; however, if the discussion starts and RGloucester ignores it they should not be surprised that their point of view have not been taken into account. If any of you feels like the opponent is acting against the policies, you should present the opponent to WP:ANI, or, if this has happened before, possibly to WP:AE.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

May I assume that RGloucester disagrees with my reversal of his edits from June 16th? I have also made a series of other edits, mostly directed towards offloading the overly long lead, and some copy-editing on the section about the Russian involvement. Does RG disagrees with that as well? I had been editing this article a lot previously, have to point out that it was in a rather stable state before June also. Heptor (talk) 11:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Heptor, you are really taxing my patience. I did not make any 'edits from 16th June'. All I did then was revert the stealth changes you had inserted into the article in an attempt to create WP:FALSEBALANCE. The long-standing version is the one I have reverted to, which is a reproduction of the 21 February version, dating to just before you began your campaign of POV pushing. You move the 'Russian involvement' section to background, when this is clearly not 'background' information, but information about the body of the conflict. You remove reference to the annexation of Crimea, the 2014 August invasion, &c., and attempt to make it seems as if the Crimean vote was legitimate, in clear defiance of the consensus of reliable sources. Enough is enough! The Russian claims are not of equal validity...reliable sources do not treat them as such, and showcasing them in the lead in an attempt to make the article more 'neutral', only creates WP:FALSEBALANCE. Your changes may seem inane to the untrained eye, but it's quite clear what you're trying to do. I entreat you to kindly stop, or otherwise I shall have to request your topic banning from this subject area. RGloucester — ☎ 13:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

RG, I kindly entreat you to WP:AGF, keep a WP:CIVIL tone and follow the dispute resolution resolution procedures. There was nothing stealth about my edits. Unlike you I generally provide extensive and descriptive edit summaries. I do have to point out that at least until June you contributed little except reverts with abusively snark edits summaries[1][2]. Until now, you ignored attempts to engage in a conversation. I hope to see further improvement in your willingness to collaborate. As to the actual content dispute, maybe we can address a few points:

• Do you dispute that (PS: also ) are articles published in a reputable journals, that paint a nuanced picture that can be accurately captured by the summary "The extend of the Russian involvement in the conflict is controversial. It is variably described as a covered-up Russian invasion or as a mainly local separatist insurgency."
• The summary description of the 2014 Crimean status referendum in the first paragraph of this article had been stable at least since April. Do you dispute that it is an accurate summary of the main article? Quoting from the first paragraph therin, "The Crimean status referendum was a controversial vote on the political status of Crimea held on March 16, 2014 by the legislature of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the local government of Sevastopol [...] The official result [...] was a 97 percent vote for integration of the region into the Russian Federation with an 83[...]." The vote is described as "mostly unrecognized", but perhaps we should also add "illegal under Ukrainian law"?
• The Russian involvement in this conflict is rather profound and had a significant impact on the course of this conflict. For this reason I moved this section up from the bottom of the article to a place very near the top. You seem to object rather strongly about having it as a subsection in the "background" section. I don't quite see what's the big deal here, one way or the other. I'd be happy to have it elevated as a separate section if it would make your day a little better. Heptor (talk) 14:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The only thing 'we' (in the sense of 'Wikipedia') should do is revert Heptor's edits. No amount of discussion will produce a productive result. The stable version is the only acceptable one. I certainly do not agree that the picture is 'nuanced'. The vast majority of reliable sources are quite clear about the nature of these events, and the lead of this article has stood the test time, remaining stable for years until your attempts to twist it into a mess. Enough is enough! RGloucester — ☎ 15:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I see very little willingness on your part to engage in a discussion. Heptor (talk) 15:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Ymblanter, given the involvement of two long-0established editors, and the political significance of the article, I think a "consensus required" type of restriction might be justified - that is, any bold edit which is reverted, must not be reinstated without consensus. Guy (help!) 23:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, now you are in 1RR violation and you still don't engage in any constructive discussions. The version that you are pushing is based on the totality of one academic-ish journal, published by the Rand Corporation: "Lessons from Russia's Operations in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine" (you did however list it up twice in the reference list, so kudos I guess). The actual academic discussions on this subject are more nuanced, as illustrated by the reference list below. At least you are trying to clean up some of your mess, but I have to say that the structure remains so-so, and there are quite a few rambling sentences that should be broken up. Heptor (talk) 18:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

1RR is not in effect on this page. I have insulted multiple, reliable, scholarly sources on the subject, and clarified the stream of events. The academic discussions you suggest are not at all 'nuanced'. Your sources don't support the conclusions you've made, and this is of course no surprise. If I list things multiple times in the ref list, it is because I am giving page numbers! Something one can't expect from the likes of you. In any case, I will continue to improve this lead in line with the current academic consensus on this matter. RGloucester — ☎ 18:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, citing for example, far from instigating the rebellion in Donbass and using it to destabilise Ukraine, revise the international order, or seize additional territory, Moscow has largely been reacting to events and trying to gain some control of a process which was originally almost entirely outside of its control. How is that not nuanced? Also, do you have to be so angry all the time? It's rather unbecoming. Heptor (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

It isn't nuanced at all. If you read your source, and indeed, the Rand Source, you'd see that. Most sources agree that Russia was caught off-guard by the 2014 Ukrainian revolution, and thus had to react, as such. The reaction went well in Crimea, but didn't go so well in Donbass. The initial protests in Donbass were genuinely spontaneous, though whether they represented a region-wide consensus is doubtful. Russia decided to encourage a fringe of separatists with political, information, and military support, but didn't realise that these idiots would actually start making the mess they did, or that Ukraine would actually fight back, unlike in Crimea. Russia eventually realised that Novorossiya was a failure, that the 'separatists' didn't have the capability to function as true proxies, and thus invaded in August 2014 to settle the score, and regain control of events. That 'control' is evident in the Minsk Protocol, and the desire to reintegrate the DPR and LPR into Ukraine...to serve as a permanent conveyor of Russian interest into the Ukrainian state. So, while Russia did not have a premeditated intent to do what it did in Donbass, it did indeed do it! And that's what the sources say. Far from nuanced, the picture is incredibly clear. RGloucester — ☎ 19:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Literally over 90% of the population in DNR/LNR supported Yanukovych in the 2010 election. More than just fringes felt strong discontent about the revolution. Heptor (talk) 07:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed! But 'more than just fringes' most patently did not take up AK-47s in the name of separatism! RGloucester — ☎ 13:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

At least we agree about something then. There were about 50 000 people fighting in the rebel forces in 2017, obviously not a majority of the population. Speaking of which, what is your opinion of the Nov 2014 separatist elections? Katchanovski2016 says that The Ukrainian and Western governments and the mainstream media generally charac-terize separatism in Donbas as having a minor support and present the results of a refer-endum held by separatists after they seized power there as not reflecting public preference. Is your opinion generally in line with this description? Heptor (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, indeed it is! If you think that the 'choice' between Free Donbass and Donetsk Republic was really a 'choice', I think you'd have to be mad, regardless of any other questions about the legitimacy of the elections. RGloucester — ☎ 17:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

By the standard of what goes for elections these days, this choice doesn't look too bad actually. In any case, if the results of the 2014 Donbass status referendums are to be believed, it is exactly what the inhabitants of Donbas wanted (hey, at least they didn't get Boris Johnson). Do you feel that the results as not reflecting public preference? Or do you say it doesn't matter? The point is that the published research on the conflict usually considers the local discontent with the 2014 Revolution to be an important cause of this war, something this article seems to glance over. PS: everyone agrees that the Russian intervention was decisive, Strelkov himself rambles about it at great length on YouTube. Heptor (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The Donbass status referendums can't be 'believed' because they were illegitimate and held under the barrel of a gun. Public opinion polls in the lead up to the declaration of the 'republics' in February made clear that very few people wanted 'separatism' in Donbass (these are documented at 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine) . I agree that there has been local discontent. This article is, again, not about that stage of the unrest. There is a separate article, 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, that deals with the first stage, and another article, Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, which explains historical background. Both are linked in this article, in the 'background' section. The war itself, however, was not caused by the unrest, or local discontent, but by Russian manipulation of that discontent/unrest with the intent to hamstring Ukraine. That's the consensus of RS, and open for all to see. RGloucester — ☎ 20:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no such concensus in the literature. For example, citing Cordier2017, The driving forces behind the insurgency in Donetsk and Lugansk go well beyond the clichés of Moscow- backed separatism. Heptor (talk) 20:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Heptor, if you wonder why I doubt your sincerity, it is because of stupidity like this. You keep citing one line from an ABSTRACT of an article to make a broad claim denying Russian manipulation of events in Donbass. First of all, it's clear you haven't read the article! You've cherrypicked a line from an abstract that you think supports your conclusions, but of course, it doesn't. You probably don't even have access to the article, which is behind a paywall unless you are associated with a university (like I am). In any case, I have read the article, and I responded to you before on this subject. My answer explained that yes, indeed, the so-called 'cliche' of Moscow-backed separatism may be simplistic, but that's what a cliche is, is it not!? As I wrote above:

"Most sources agree that Russia was caught off-guard by the 2014 Ukrainian revolution, and thus had to react, as such. The reaction went well in Crimea, but didn't go so well in Donbass. The initial protests in Donbass were genuinely spontaneous, though whether they represented a region-wide consensus is doubtful. Russia decided to encourage a fringe of separatists with political, information, and military support, but didn't realise that these idiots would actually start making the mess they did, or that Ukraine would actually fight back, unlike in Crimea. Russia eventually realised that Novorossiya was a failure, that the 'separatists' didn't have the capability to function as true proxies, and thus invaded in August 2014 to settle the score, and regain control of events. That 'control' is evident in the Minsk Protocol, and the desire to reintegrate the DPR and LPR into Ukraine...to serve as a permanent conveyor of Russian interest into the Ukrainian state".

Moscow doesn't even want separatism! It might've done, but it changed its mind when it realised that separatism wasn't the best way to get what it wanted! And so, we have the Minsk Agreements, &c. Certainly, things go beyond the mere 'cliche' of Moscow-backed separatism, but that doesn't mean that Russia is any less implicated in manipulation of the discontent/unrest that erupted in February-March 2014. RGloucester — ☎ 21:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

RGloucester, if you wonder why I suspect that you are more likely incarcerated in a jail rather than enrolled in an academic institution, it is mainly because your writing is peppered with vulgarities like exemplified by the above. It's a good thing that they give you access to a decent library, but in either case I hope that you still have a few years left. Please consider that:

• Citing an abstract isn't cherry picking. An abstract is a good-faith summary written by the authors.
• Katchanovski2016, Matveeva2016, Cordier2017 are not behind a paywall.
• You keep saying this-and-that about the articles you supposedly read, but so far you refused to cite any. If you had academic credentials like you insinuate, citing your sources would be your second nature. Instead, you make a load of ipsi dixit statements, and act insulted when I request verification.
• Please tell me that the blockquote citation above is copied from somewhere? It almost looks like your are blockquoting yourself like it would give it additional weight.

Heptor (talk) 22:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I really have no energy to stoop to your level. All I can say is that every edit I have made is supported by citations, and you are free to look at those, as I've said time and time again. Precise page numbers are provided. RGloucester — ☎ 00:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The picture is anything but "incredibly clear". Consider also , There are many conflicting narratives about the conflict in Donbas. The Ukrainian govern-ment, the national media and, to a large extent, their counterparts in the West present theviolent conflict in Donbas as led, from its beginning in Spring of 2014, by regular armed Russian military units and Russian military intelligence agents who therefore lackpopular backing in this region. They present the war in Donbas as a conventional or a hybrid war between Ukraine and Russia. You are throwing around expressions like "most sources agree". Yet you have provided no sources on your own, and I see no evidence that you've familiarized yourself with any of the ones I have listed.

I did indeed insert many sources into the article. Please read them. Your newly linked source is old, dating to 2016. New developments have changed the general perception of events. Indeed, the author himself mentions that the lack of data prevents him from drawing conclusions about the nature of the conflict. That data is available now, and indeed, RS like the Rand report make the situation very clear. RGloucester — ☎ 19:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

You are mostly citing EuroMaidan Press, KyivPost and Ukrainian Pravda. Heptor (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

That's a downright lie. For one thing, I can't read Ukrainian or Russian, so how would I be citing Pravda? I do cite Kyiv Post on occasion, and consensus at the RS noticeboard and elsewhere have deemed them an RS. I have never cited EuroMaidan Press, which is basically a blog. Your intent is very clear, with such statement as these. RGloucester — ☎ 20:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

List some sources, finally. Thanks. Heptor (talk) 20:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say you were reading Pravda, you are citing it, however. Heptor (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I have never cited Pravda, and the idea one could cite a source without reading it is truly the thin end of the wedge.RGloucester — ☎ 20:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

What are you citing? You haven't listed any sources here, and your version of the article now lists Rand Corporation six times because they support the view you are pushing, while you removed because they say that there are other perspectives. Heptor (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't need to 'list sources here', they are in the damn article. The comprehensive Rand Corporation report is certainly worth citing six times! I did not remove Katchanovski...he's cited in the article. Other sources were not removed because of the sources themselves, but because you cited them for conclusions they did not support, and without precise page numbers! RGloucester — ☎ 20:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

You don't need to do anything, but you haven't presented any sources supporting any your statements. Heptor (talk) 20:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Every edit I have introduced includes a source with a precise page number...it's not my problem if you don't care to read them! RGloucester — ☎ 21:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Have to point out that you still haven't cited a single reference supporting anything you said in this now rather lengthy discussion. Heptor (talk) 07:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The citations are in the article. You've been watching my edits, so perhaps you could actually read the damn citations instead of constantly repeating the same thing here? RGloucester — ☎ 13:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I will gladly offer you praise for every veracious literature reference you edit into the article. Which specific references you added is not readily apparent from the diffs. So far I could only ascertain one, the most amicable report from the RAND Corporation. Although well-written and well-researched, it has never the less overt connections with the United States Armed Forces, and should not alone determine the facts of this topic. Still less commendable is the fact that in this discussion you made a series of claims that you did not support by any references whatsoever. Your unwillingness to discuss the literature that you have read before arriving to the position that you have is hard to reconcile with your claim of being associated with a university. Your frequent regressions towards vulgar language and personal attacks make such claims still less credible. Heptor (talk) 14:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The additional sources I added, excluding existing ones, include:

• Fedorov, Yury E. (2019-01-15). "Russia's 'Hybrid' Aggression Against Ukraine". Routledge Handbook of Russian Security. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-351-18122-8.
• Kofman, Michael; Migacheva, Katya; Nichiporuk, Brian; Radin, Andrew; Tkacheva, Olesya; Oberholtzer, Jenny (2017). Lessons from Russia's Operations in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine (PDF) (Report). Santa Monica: RAND Corporation.
• Snyder, Timothy. The road to unfreedom : Russia, Europe, America (First ed.). New York, NY. ISBN 978-0-525-57446-0. OCLC 1029484935.
• Karber, Phillip A. (29 September 2015). “Lessons Learned” from the Russo-Ukrainian War (Report). The Potomac Foundation.

This is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. If you want more, I'll give you more, and more. I have not even provided the existing sources in the article. And no, I won't engage in a long battle of quote wars with you, so please spare me! RGloucester — ☎ 14:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this literature is generally in line with the opinion that you are promoting. Hopefully we can discus the details of these publications in comparison with other research that exists on the field. Heptor (talk) 15:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Ymblanter: Heptor has just violated the consensus-required restriction you enacted with this edit. Are you going to allow this farce to continue? RGloucester — ☎ 16:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• That phrasing was introduced on July 1st Heptor (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, in tandem with the consensus-based renaming of the other article at Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War. The addition was stable at the time of the establishment of the restriction. I reverted your removal of that phrase, and yet, you reverted again without gaining consensus to do so. This is a clear violation. RGloucester — ☎ 16:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no tandem, and there is also presently no consensus on Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War. Heptor (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense, an WP:RM was held in June, with universal support. Your new RM shows the same result. RGloucester — ☎ 16:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Heptor, do you want to explain how it makes sense to use the Rand report as a source for the sentence: "The initial protests were largely native expressions of discontent with the new Ukrainian government" without the secondary part of the sentence, referring to Russia's taking advantage of that discontent? The Rand report clearly states as much. It does not support the idea that war is an indigenous outbreak of discontent. RGloucester — ☎ 16:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The first part of this sentence states a rather uncontroversial fact (give me a minute, I'll get additional references). The second part is largely a value judgement and an expression of opinion. Wikipedia should describe the various narratives that exist in the sources we use^{:There are many conflicting narratives about the conflict in Donbas}. Heptor (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

References

• I am not going to police (and, in fact, read) this discussion, and I do not even have this page on my watchlist. If the situation is as simple as that, you should have no problem getting them topic-banned at WP:AE.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Causes of the conflict

This article could be improved by a more detailed discussion of the events that led up to this war. Research on this topic commonly point to divisions in cultural, linguistic and historical identities in Ukraine, and discontent with the results of the 2014 Revolution as the trigger for the 2014 pro-Russian unrest.. For example, citing Cordier2017:

So, if there is indeed an identity and a societal concept that are being defended by the insurgents against external aggression and existential threats, then what are their components and characteristics?

This question is thoroughly discussed in the article above as well as others, and a well-written encyclopedic treatment should present a comprehensive summary of these discussions. Heptor (talk) 08:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Heptor, you know that we have Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, right?? It's linked in the article. RGloucester — ☎ 13:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you or do you not object to a more detailed discussion of the events and cultural developments that led to this war? Heptor (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I object to such discussion in this article, because that's not what this article is about. There are sub-articles that deal with this matter. The present summaries here suffice. RGloucester — ☎ 16:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

In which case this article will be one of the few articles on military history that is afraid of discussing the causes of the war it describes. Heptor (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The article scheme is Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine>2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine>War in Donbass, in line with the chronology of the events and in line with WP:SPINOFF. Otherwise, the article would simply be too long! It's already too long as it is. RGloucester — ☎ 16:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Copyediting

RGloucester, since you are here, could you explain the intent of the following sentence from the lead.

These demonstrations, which followed the February–March 2014 annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, and which were part of a wider group of concurrent protests across southern and eastern Ukraine, escalated into an armed conflict between the separatist forces of the self-declared Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics (DPR and LPR respectively), and the Ukrainian government.

The interjection "which followed the February–March 2014 annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, and which" is weirdly sandwiched into an otherwise cohesive statement.

• The logical connection between the annexation and the demonstration is unclear. To me it looks like some form of causation is insinuated, but how?
• If interpreted literally, this interjection is untrue, because demonstrations started well before the annexation.

This interjection is a separate complete thought and should form a separate complete sentence, but it is not clear to me what this thought is supposed to be. Heptor (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Cargo 200 NGO

I don't understand why somebody recovers references to this absolutely unreliable source. This is very important article and it should be based on trusted sources only. Due to this the article looks very unprofessional. Such important figures as numbers of killed are takes from the site having 4 level deep domain, which is referring to Elena Vasilyeva's list who was caught in a lie many times. Dron007 (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

The site in question does look rather amateurish and poorly organized. Can you provide an independent confirmation for what you claim about Vailyeva being unreliable? Heptor (talk) 08:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

This StopFake site (which is used by Facebook for news checking) is not always neutral but this specific case looks quite correct [3]. And I think that instead of providing independent confirmations of claims we should provide independent confirmations of proofs and reliability of some information and person. Dron007 (talk) 16:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Consensus required? "Russian involvement"

Heptor, please explain where you got consensus to once again remove the sourced statement about Russia's involvement? RGloucester — ☎ 16:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Your recent addition unfortunately falls short of presenting a balanced view of this topic. For example (Wilson 2016) provides an excellent summary of the existing views on the topic:

The War In East Ukraine That Began In The Spring 2014 has produced many contrasting analyses. Some [view the] origins of the separatist movement in the Donbas region [...] as a ‘grassroots’ phenomenon with genuine ‘popular support’. Others have largely blamed Russia for provoking the conflict from the outside.

The additions you mention do little except to unduly promote the latter view of the events. Wikipedia aspires to report on such disagreements, not to partake in them. By such high bar, your additions fail to be an improvement of the article, and a reversion of the addition is unfortunately a justified course of action. Heptor (talk) 21:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no disagreement in the reliable sources, and Wilson's view is in line with those. He says that there were many different analyses, which is true, but in the years since the conflict one of those analyses has become definitive. The historiography of the conflict has EVOLVED, which I don't think is hard to understand. I didn't support this view of events at the time the conflict was happening in real time. I opposed moves to "Russo-Ukrainian War", &c., because reliable sources were conflicted in their understanding of events. With more time to process the events, a clear consensus has emerged, and Wilson goes on to state that viewpoint later in his article.

Historical and identity factors have been extensively cited as key explanations of the separatist movement in the Donbas. However, neither the creation of the DNR and LNR nor the war would have happened without resources. These came from Russia and from the Yanukovych ‘Family’ and some allied oligarchs...Local opinion was malleable to an extent, allowing the leadership of the DNR and LNR to increase their initial support. But their leaders were never an autonomous force, and were repeatedly changed at Russian instigation. The war that began in 2014 was not a civil war with foreign intervention, but a process catalysed and escalated by local elites and by Russia, with local foot-soldiers. The last word could be given to President Lukashenka of Belarus, who declared in October 2014, ‘let’s be honest, the days of the DNR and LNR would have been numbered long ago without Russia’. (Wilson 649)

It is Wikipedia's job to reflect the consensus in RS. Wikipedia does not give WP:UNDUE weight to WP:FRINGE positions, merely for the purpose of creating a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Reliable sources all agree about the nature of Russian involvement in this conflict...Russian claims that date back to the time of the conflict itself should not and cannot be given equal validity to the general body of scholarship now. RGloucester — ☎ 01:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)