Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War

Alley of Angels

write here or a separate article may be

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%8F_%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2

Alley of angels - a memorial complex of the Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) in memory of the children who died during the armed conflict in eastern Ukraine. Located in the city of Donetsk in the Park of Culture and Rest named after Lenin Komsomol. It was opened on May 5, 2015 after the installation of the memorial sign, and on June 2, 2017, a monument to the children of Donbass was added to the composition of the alley.

According to UNICEF data published in October 2018, during the armed conflict in eastern Ukraine since 2014, at least 140 children died or were injured as a result of a mine rupture in the DPR [1]. To attract public attention to the problem of death of children during the conflict, activists organized the site 101life.net, which published photos of all documented cases of deaths in the Donbass of children as a result of hostilities [2].

+ links in wikipedia article

--145.255.169.213 (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Gorlovskaya Madonna

Kristina Zhuk was 23 years old, her daughter Kira was 10 months old when they were killed in Gorlovka (Horlivka). The young mother was buried with the baby in her arms. A terrible tragedy then excited the world, the pictures flew around the world, and the deceased Christina was then called the “Gorlovskaya Madonna”.

https://tverdyi-znak.livejournal.com/2608923.html

https://www.google.com/search?q=%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F+%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B0&rlz=1C1GKLB_enKZ658KZ658&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiqqr7U3e_mAhV066YKHcCrBYAQ_AUIDSgA&biw=1517&bih=670&dpr=0.9

https://www.google.com/search?q=%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F+%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B0&rlz=1C1GKLB_enKZ658KZ658&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiysO3g8O_mAhWywqYKHTF4D0kQ_AUoAXoECAwQAw&biw=1517&bih=670

--145.255.169.213 (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Civilians killed in Horlivka on 27 July are already mentioned in Battle of Horlivka. Unfortunately, no source mentions Kristina Zhuk by name and LJ blog cannot be used as WP:RS. Cloud200 (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

However, she is mentioned on Wikinews so I think we can use this.[[1] Cloud200 (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Cloud200: that Wikinews article is not sourced. Worse yet, it appears to echo Kiev's nationalistic war propaganda (i.e., the message that Russians are brutal, bloodthirsty killers who "invaded" Ukraine to steal land and spread mayhem). Interestingly, on the subject of civilian casualties in Donbass, there's no mention in Wikipedia of the large number of ethnic Russians who were killed in Donetsk and Lugansk in the summer of 2014, all of them victims of Ukrainian ATO mortar shelling. I think you get my point: there's a near total lack of balance in these articles concerning facts and truth.SvorLyl12 (talk) 17:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I have objections to the Battle of Horlivka article. Namely, it uses illegitimate sources of info to substantiate its claims. One example is the Atlantic Council document (footnote #15). The Atlantic Council is NATO's' think tank. NATO and the Atlantic Alliance are clearly sponsoring Ukraine's participation in this conflict. Therefore, any data found in an Atlantic Council document is going to be rabidly anti-Russian. That means Atlantic Council data is not objective, and should not be used in the footnotes for this article. A second problem is that RIA NOVISTI, a Russian government news source, is used as a footnote. Why should anyone believe anything written by the Kremlin's media? A third problem is that Ukrainian News is used as a footnote. Ukrainian News is just an outlet for pro-Ukrainian propaganda. So, let's face it: from a variety of different angles, the sources for this entire article are invalid. SvorLyl12 (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Cloud200, SvorLyl12 some of these sources are listed in WP:RSP, including Wikinews (“generally unreliable”) and RIA Novosti/Sputnik (“no censensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply”). Please read the specific notes on these and similar sources there. —Michael Z. 16:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Some of these are also on the shorter list at WP:DEPS. —Michael Z. 16:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, if even you agree that those particular sources are unreliable, then why aren't you urging people to remove them from the article? The article is just garbage as long as its content is predicated on those unreliable sources of information. SvorLyl12 (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I am urging you to improve the article. Please. —Michael Z.

Requested move 9 June 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

---

• Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present) → Russo-Ukrainian War
• Russo-Ukrainian War → Russo-Ukrainian War (disambiguation)

– Per WP:COMMONNAME. The disambiguation page Russo-Ukrainian War should be moved to Russo-Ukrainian War (disambiguation) or even deleted. Zotur (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support – I opposed such a move numerous times during the course of the conflict, but I've finally come to support this proposal. 'Russo-Ukrainian War" has become the common name for this conflict, used in many reliable sources and publications on the subject. A plain Google search shows that 'Russo-Ukrainian War" comes up with 17,900 hits, vastly exceeding the current title's 4,480. Notable publications using the now common name include Non-State Actors in the Russo-Ukrainian War, The exploitation of cyber domain as part of warfare: Russo-Ukrainian war, and Virtual Warfare: Masculinity, Sexuality, and Propaganda in the Russo-Ukrainian War. The time has come to recognise that the present title simply does not reflect the reality on the ground, or indeed, the naming used by reliable sources. While it has taken time for RS to get to this point, we can say that it is now time to follow the sources and rename this article. This would also be WP:CONSISTENT with Russo-Georgian War, which I find to be a bonus. RGloucester — ☎ 18:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. The time has come for a long time. --— Green Zero обг 19:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support  No one uses the name this article currently bears. —Michael Z. 2020-06-11 03:25 z
• Support. Seems much more common than the current name being used. Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 13:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

---

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

• I suppose this (and even previous) title is wrong. If to refer to Google search, then Russo-Ukrainian conflict has 100x more hits than both. Infovarius (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Agree with Infovarius. The present title is not the common name, and also somewhat opinionated. Heptor (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  Interestingly, the number of views of this article dropped by about 70% after the name change (see the graph on top this page). This further supports that the new name does not reflect the common usage. Heptor (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  Heptor, I don’t think it does. —Michael Z. 16:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  The PageView was not updated with the new title apparently. Thanks for fixing. Heptor (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  Unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be a way for this template to display a continuous graph through a page move. But the point will be moot 90 days after the move. I presume that the page views for the new title include the redirects that are still coming from the old one. —Michael Z.

The present title - "Russo-Ukrainian War" - should definitely be scrapped. Nobody in media or diplomacy uses that term except Wikipedia. My impression is that the person who invented this term is determined to underscore and amplify the idea of an ethnic or national conflict. Russians against Ukrainians, and vice verse. The problem with this thinking is that Russia and Ukraine still overlap considerably, much like a Venn diagram. It's not easy to tell where Ukraine really ends, and where Russia really begins. Therefore, we should drop any language or descriptive terms which serve to neatly categorize the combatants' nationality into one exclusive group or another.SvorLyl12 (talk) 16:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

There’s an international consensus and many ratified treaties that determine exactly where the Russian Federation ends and Ukraine starts. The title refers to the two states directly involved in this war, and not the many ethnic groups to which individual combatants, victims, and displaced persons belong. This is clear. Speculative opinion about the intentions of the undefined “person” and their “thinking” is not helpful. —Michael Z. 16:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

But you overlook that the conflict is a civil war in Ukraine. It's a civil war because the ethnic Russian enclaves of eastern Ukraine are rejecting and rebelling against Kiev's policies. Or, to put it another way, the rebels are ethnic Russians, and not ethnic Ukrainians, even though the two nationalities live within the same state. For this reason, it is overly simplistic (if not downright wrong) to treat the international borders as the ethnic and national dividing line between the combating parties.SvorLyl12 (talk) 16:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I don’t think your view of the dividing lines is at all accurate, but, in fact, downright wrong. There’s an interesting ZOIS report entitled “Attitudes and Identities Across the Donbas Front Line” that surveys the complex self-identification of people living in the Donbas, on both sides of the line of contact. Worth a read. Also relevant that many of the the leaders of the so-called LDNR have been Russian citizens documented to have reported to Russian government, military, and security actors, and that over two million residents have fled the part of the Donbas run by militants. Anyway, none of this is changing my mind about the article title. —Michael Z.

I have already read the ZOIS report. It confirms that the vast majority of people living within the rebel-held part of Donbass are pro-Russian. Those people reject the rule of Kiev. That's indisputable, based on the ZOIS findings. As for the many people who have fled the conflict zone, the majority have sought refuge in Russia, and not on the Ukrainian side of the firing lines. Those refugees, clearly, are fleeing from the Ukrainian ATO's offensive. They are not running from the rebels.SvorLyl12 (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe read it again. The ZOiS report doesn’t use the vague term “pro-Russian,” but it does say that even of those still in the militant-controlled territory, a majority do not call themselves “Russian,” and a majority prefer their region to stay in Ukraine. Nearly two million were registered as internally displaced, less than half a million as asylum-seekers in the RF (very few of them as actual refugees), and some tens of thousands in other countries. There hasn’t been an ATO for years. This is irrelevant to this page move, but I wish you’d stop spreading false information here. —Michael Z. 21:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The claims you make are incorrect. Woefully so. Please allow me to explain. Let's start with your erroneous belief that the ZOIS data proves that "a majority prefer their region to stay in Ukraine."

On page 12, figure 7 of the ZOIS report, the polling question asks of people in rebel-held territory, "In your view, what should the status of DNR/LNR be?" If you check the bars on the graph, you'll see that three out of the four answer options represent a pro-Russian status for the area. By "pro-Russian status," I am referring to any of the several permanent solutions for DNR/LNR which have been advanced by the Kremlin, or which have been proposed by the pro-Russian rebels themselves. Those three categories on the ZOIS poll are as follows: 1) Special Autonomy Status within Ukraine (i.e., the Minsk II format, which is obviously a pro-Russian outcome); 2) Part of the Russian Federation (obviously pro-Russian in nature); 3) Special Autonomy within the Russian Federation (another blatantly pro-Russian outcome). Now, if you add up the total percentage of poll respondents who voted for one of those three pro-Russian outcomes, you'll see that the total was 79.5% in 2016, and 76.5% in 2019. By any measure, that means an overwhelming percentage of people in rebel-held territory are pro-Russian, and vehemently support a pro-Russian political solution to the conflict. There's no way you can argue with those numbers.

You will probably quibble with me about whether the pro-Russian answer choices in the ZOIS poll (that I refer to) are indeed "pro-Russian." I notice that you advance this argument by stating that "The ZOiS report doesn’t use the vague term “pro-Russian,” (sic). But, based on that statement you make, it appears that you don't know the history of political negotiations in DNR/LNR dating back to August, 2014, when the Ukrainians lost the Battle of Ilovaisk and signed Minsk I. From that time moving into the present, the Kremlin and the rebel leaders have advocated turning DNR/LNR into an autonomous region within Ukraine. That's obviously a pro-Russian solution to the war, as Kiev absolutely does not want to give the DNR/LNR special autonomy within Ukraine. Therefore, you can't possibly deny that this proposed outcome is a pro-Russian solution. Above and beyond that, based on the ZOIS poll, there are huge numbers of DNR/LNR citizens who want to ditch the idea of being inside Ukraine and who desire that their territory become part of the Russian Federation. That means those people favor redrawing the border, with Ukraine literally ceding territory to Russia. That too, by any measure, means a pro-Russian solution. Hence, I trust my explanation of this point is sufficient, and that you are ready to lay your objection to rest.

Concerning the ZOIS findings about what nationality the people of DNR/LNR tend to identify with, a very strong argument can be made that they lean heavily toward Russian ethnic identity. At the very least, the poll data proves that the people in rebel-held territory are far more likely to lean towards Russian identity than Ukrainian identity.

On page 9, figure 4 of the ZOIS report, the question is "DNR/LNR Identity First Choice." Six of the answer categories suggest a definite or highly possible Russian identity, and five categories suggest a definite or highly possible Ukrainian identity. That's without getting into the question of how many people are ambivalent about ethnic identity. But either way, the answer categories and corresponding percentages for the Russian choices are: 1) Ethnic Russian (12.2%); 2) Mixed Ukrainian-Russian (21%); 3) Russian Citizen (2.7%); 4) Citizen of Ukraine and Russia (1.4%); 5) Resident of DNR/LNR (11.5%); 6) Russian Speaker (6.9%). Add all those percentages together and you get a total of 55.7% of DNR/LNR people leaning in favor of Russian identity, if not choosing that identity outright and unequivocally.

By contrast, the total percentage for all five categories suggesting Ukrainian identity applies to only 28.6% of all DNR/LNR residents, at an absolute upper-limit. Those five categories are: 1) Ethnic Ukrainian (4.5%); 2) Mixed Ukrainian and Russian (21%); 3) Ukrainian Citizen (12.6%); 4) Citizen of Ukraine and Russia (1.4%); 5) Ukrainian Speaker (0.1%). That's what the ZOIS data uncovers with respect to the ethnic and national leaning of DNR/LNR people. Quite clearly, far, far fewer people in rebel-held territory have any conceivable reason to think of themselves as Ukrainian as opposed to identifying with Russian ethnicity.

I hope my reference to the graph data on ZOIS puts our disagreement to rest.SvorLyl12 (talk) 03:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Michael Z: you made the erroneous claim that "There hasn’t been an ATO for years. This is irrelevant to this page move, but I wish you’d stop spreading false information here." You claim is factually inaccurate. Also, you are incorrect in asserting that my comment about the ATO is "irrelevant to this page." Kindly allow me to explain.

Today, the vast majority of the Volunteer Battalions that comprised the ATO in 2014-15 are still active and fighting in Donbass. That's just an incontrovertible fact. The same West Ukrainian units are on the front lines, and they still adhere to the same Ukrainian nationalist political philosophies that they identified with in 2014. To deny this by asserting that the original name of the military expedition - the ATO - is no longer used is just to quibble. I trust I made my point here, and that there will be no further disputes on this issue. Call the expedition what you want: an ATO, or a Ukrainian military, it doesn't matter. The Volunteer Battalions are alive and well, and they're still wreaking havoc on Donbass people. That's the chief fact.

It is entirely valid and relevant to the point for me to refer to the combat activities of the ATO as of 2014-15. That's because I was explaining why so many hundreds of thousands of pro-Russian people in Donbass were forced to flee to Russia at that time. Those refugees, most of whom are still in Russia, left Donbass during the ATO's invasion of 2014-15. Hence, my reference to the ATO was appropriate and factually relevant to what we're discussing.SvorLyl12 (talk) 03:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Then, again, identity is not straightforward in Ukraine.^{:identity is far from straightforward in Ukraine} Ethnicity (call yourself "Russian"/"Ukrainian") is a poor marker of allegiance. Cultural identity, including language people speak and authors people prefer to read, is comparably more important. Heptor (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Check out the ZIOS data that I point to on page 9, figure 4 of the ZOIS report. I believe it indicates that the culture, language people speak, and media preferences are reflected in the poll answer categories. And, as I've said before, summing the totals of the various categories points strongly toward the conclusion that residents of DNR/LNR have a Russian identity. Also, for what it's worth, I am personally acquainted with people who live in DNR and who visit the region as tourists. Those individuals tell me that the pro-Russian orientation of the people there is strong. One of them, in fact, told me that cafe and store owners in DNR/LNR will verbally lambaste any customers who speak in Surzhyk or Ukrainian. I find that information to be quite convincing.SvorLyl12 (talk) 12:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Bad faith

The proposer of this page move, Zotur, was confirmed a sockpuppet account. In light of that, and the fact that several people now came forward to object it, it appears that there was never a good-faith consensus for renaming this page. Heptor (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Ugh. I have informed the closing admin, here: User_talk:JHunterJ#Closed_move_nominated_by_a_sockpuppet_account. —Michael Z. 22:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Page views on Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present)

Page views on Russo-Ukrainian War

It looks like the new RM below is the best course of action here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@JHunterJ: That's a course of inaction. Are you sure we can't reopen the RM, given that things happened like they did? Heptor (talk) 13:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

It's a course of current action. Yes, I'm sure -- there's no allegation that the participants in the RM discussion other than the OP discussed in bad faith. Since that RM was properly closed, the correct course of action if editors subsequently think a new consensus has formed is to propose a new RM, which has happened. But more to the point: what would be the benefit of closing the below request and reopening the above? -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@JHunterJ: Procedure aside, this RM could have benefited from more time for discussion. The consensus to move was temporary. It doesn't look like any other editors than the OP acted in bad faith, but the fact that the OP was a sockpuppet is an exceptional circumstance. WP is fundamentally reliant on people acting in good faith, and I dare say that the integrity of this project is in this instance best served if the results from an action by a sockpuppet are undone. Heptor (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

And what indication was there at the time that the discussion needed more time? The discussion was unanimous in its support. The fact that the OP was a sockpuppet is a circumstance, but removing the sockpuppet from consideration still left clear consensus for the move. The discussion nor the move itself was carried out by the sockpuppet, so those don't need to be undone. The integrity of the project is intact with the penalty imposed on the sockpuppet, and further protected by not negating the discussion of good-faith participants. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

There's plenty indication now though. Heptor (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

And that new indication is being addressed through the new RM. That's the integrity of this project. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I was hoping there'd be a consensus to move it to R/U conflict as a compromise. Now it will probably stick with war. Heptor (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

It will "stick" with the current consensus unless there's a new consensus. Still back to the integrity of the project.-- JHunterJ (talk) 23:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Requested move 8 July 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 19:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

---

Russo-Ukrainian War → Russo-Ukrainian Conflict – Per WP:POVNAMING, the proposed title has a neutral tone, whereas the existing title advances the view that the present conflict in Ukraine is mainly with the Russian Federation. The picture on the ground is rather complex, and different understandings of the role played by the local rebels exist in the literature. 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 , formation of a protest movement [in Donbas] out of locally available ingredients. Neither of the two titles are widely used to refer to the conflicts in Ukraine, consider searches war "War in Donbass" (457 000 hits), "Russo-Ukrainian War" (21 200 hits)

References

Heptor (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose – "Russo-Ukrainian conflict" sounds like an article about a thousand-year old feud between these two countries, rather than anything having to do with what is described in this article. It is completely imprecise, and not used by reliable sources as a name for this specific event, unlike the present title. This article was moved to this title on the basis of reliable sources, as seen in the recent RM. As I said then, 'Russo-Ukrainian War" has become the common name for this conflict, used in many reliable sources and publications on the subject. A plain Google search shows that 'Russo-Ukrainian War" comes up with 17,900 hits, vastly exceeding the old title's 4,480. Notable publications using the now common name include Non-State Actors in the Russo-Ukrainian War, The exploitation of cyber domain as part of warfare: Russo-Ukrainian war, and Virtual Warfare: Masculinity, Sexuality, and Propaganda in the Russo-Ukrainian War. While Heptor cites one sentence from the abstract of an article, he hasn't actually read the whole thing, which doesn't support his claims. Furthermore, 'War in Donbass' and 'Russo-Ukrainian War' are two different things...namely, Donbass is a subset of the Russo-Ukrainian War, the other component of which is the annexation of Crimea. Everyone knows that this war hasn't been conducted the same as the grand wars of the 19th century, but that doesn't make it any less a war! Luckily for us, we have RS to explain the nature of that situation, such as “Lessons Learned” from the Russo-Ukrainian War by Dr Phillip Karber. These are cited in the article, and indeed, make for good reading. While Heptor would have us establish a WP:FALSEBALANCE of Russian and 'Western' claims, that's not true WP:NPOV, and not what Wikipedia is meant to do. We follow the sources, and this article's title is doing that right now. RGloucester — ☎ 21:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

RGloucester, those Google hits numbers are Google’s nonsensical “estimates”—I don’t know why Google hasn’t fixed that or removed it. You have to page all the way to the last results to see real numbers at the top. See WP:GOOGLE. —Michael Z.

Also "Russian military intervention in Ukraine" gets 101 000 hits. The link used by RG uses "Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014-present)", which is rather construed. Heptor (talk) 14:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Conversely, they use "Russo-Ukrainian Conflict" in American: Zelensky Walks the Knife’s Edge, Atlantic council: How fake news helped hide Soviet genocide in Ukraine. "War" title is probably more common, arguably because it is way more catchy. Obviously it's "Masculinity, Sexuality, Propaganda and War", not "Masculinity, Sexuality, Propaganda and an ethno-political divergence of views between certain post-soviet independent states". Heptor (talk) 22:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

'Conflict' in that context is referring to something other than the war itself...if anything, I feel like it would be a scope change, putting aside POV concerns. That's not something I see as acceptable. RGloucester — ☎ 22:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Heptor: you are aware that the Atlantic Council is NATO's think tank, correct? IMO, this means that Atlantic Council publications are little better than Ukrainian and Russian government media news (which is all propaganda). After all, NATO and the Atlantic Alliance are party to this conflict. They are staunch backers of the Ukrainian government. Therefore their think tank, the Atlantic Council, cannot possibly be disinterested and objective in espousing views about the war. SvorLyl12 (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

References

• Oppose  I don’t agree that the proposal makes this more neutral. Neither title is bad, but the current one encompasses the full scope, is less of a euphemism, and is not a Latin borrowing. This is an armed international conflict with thousands of dead, tens of thousands wounded, and millions displaced. It includes both an invasion and occupation/annexation and a semi-covert war that has involved significant foreign combatants and matériel. Yes, there is also conflict between some groups in Ukraine, but that is a part of most wars. The shortest, simplest Anglo-Saxon term for this is war. —Michael Z. 03:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The implied scope of the present title is exactly why I disagree with it. It describes the conflict as mainly between the Russian and the Ukrainian states. Many non-state paramilitary groups participate in the conflict. To name a few, let's start with Oplot, established in 2014 as an anti-maidan group; Vostok Batallion, the ex-Security Service of Ukraine officer Khodakovsky, then there was Slavyansk Brigade, led by Igor_Strelkov_(officer); Bezler (Bes); Somali, headed by Givi; Sparta batallion, headed by Arsen Pavlov; Zarya, commanded by Igor Plotnitsky; Batman, commanded by Alexander Bednov; and Goblin, commanded by Alexei Pavlov. And that's just the rebel side. On the Government side, at least ostensibly, we have Azov Battalion, organized by the neo-Nazi Social-National Assembly with help of the Radical Party (don't believe me? check their logo); the less neo-nazi Right Sector.

These paramilitary groups were responsible for the vast majority of the fighting, especially at the start of the war. The right sector had openly opposed the Yatsenyuk Government and Petro Poroshenko on many occasions. To which degree Vladimir Putin was ever in control of the paramilitaries on "his" side can certainly be discussed. I think the idea that he does is based on the cliché that Putin control everything Russian, which I think is extremely simplistic. So in my view, the present title is a misnomer. Heptor (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this sort of analysis is basically original research. It isn't our job to decide what qualifies as a war or not. We're meant to reflect RS, which do describe it as such. Speculation about the exact nature of participation by 'non-state' forces is irrelevant here...what is relevant is the body of academic consensus. As written in "The Donbas in 2014: Explaining Civil Conflict Perhaps, but not Civil War", it is true that many different forces participated in the war. However, without Russian intervention, there would've have been no war at all! RGloucester — ☎ 16:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

RGloucester, the very first sentence in that paper is The War In East Ukraine that began in the Spring of 2014 has produced many contrasting analyses. Would you like to discuss those contrasting analyses, and how Wikipedia should best present them in accordance with our WP:NPOV policy? Heptor (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, it did produce such analyses, but now, years later, there is a dominant understanding of events as found in RS...as present in Wilson's work! RGloucester — ☎ 20:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you now asserting that Wilson had changed his mind since writing the above? Do feel free to support this with references to the relevant literature, it would be most interesting to share this perspective with our readers. Heptor (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Wilson did not 'change his mind'. He said that many analyses were produced at the time of the conflict. He goes on to state the singular analysis that became definitive. RGloucester — ☎ 01:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose — for the reasons above.--Arorae (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Conflict" is too vague for something that presents itself only as a war. It's true that there's more going on -- Russia is involved in many direct and indirect ways -- but that makes it more of a war between the two, not less. The "other groups" involved persist only as much as Russia supports them. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 21:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. While I agree that there is no officially declared war, it is a typical example of a proxy war of Russia against expansion of NATO. Crimea was occupied to prevent US mil base there. Donbass War is a sizzled attempt of the Russian Malorossia project to separate the southern+eastern belt of Ukraine and connect it to Transnistria (I am surprized wikipadia does not cover this). Staszek Lem (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
• Commment. This does not appear to be a good compromise title for the article. Per Michael, war is the proper English term for the events in Donbass. Conflict is vague per Staszek Lem. This is either a civil war with a decisive Russian intervention, or a Russo-Ukrainian war. Euphemising it as a conflict would serve to fog the issue, not make it more neutral. I, the nominiator, would like to express gratitude to my fellow editors who contributed their time and mental energy to this discussion, and hereby withdraw the proposal. Heptor (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Why is Ukrainian state media regarded as a legitimate source here?

I just gave the article a quick look over. It is clearly written to flatter the Ukrainian nationalist perspective. Most bizarre is that Ukrainian state media outlets are used for footnotes throughout the article, including the InfoBox. Don't the authors understand that Ukrainian state media is no better than Pravda, RT, or Sputnik with regard to integrity of information? It's pathetic that the authors/editors don't understand this. It's even worse that they would expect to manipulate reader opinion in such a way as to induce a pro-Ukraine bias.

Come on, Wikipedia: the world expects better from you than this.

SvorLyl12 (talk) 00:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Well thank you for the question. The Ukrainian media is mostly owned by the state or by the oligarchs. In case of de:Ruslan_Kozaba, a dissenting opinion was met with dismissal from employment and criminal prosecution on trumped-up charges. As to your titular question, I think people just want to believe that the Ukrainians are the good guys fighting for democracy against the scourge of Putin... So far, attempts to present a more nuanced reality here had been aggressively fought off. Perhaps the Ukrainian crisis is simply too complicated for Wikipedia with its current editing policies. Heptor (talk) 10:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

SvorLyl12, which media are “Ukrainian state outlets”? —Michael Z.

The answer to your question has already been made clear. If you believe those sources are not echoing Ukrainian state propaganda, then kindly explain why. SvorLyl12 (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

There are 624 references in this article. If you believe some of the sources named in them are Ukrainian state outlets without an independent editorial policy, kindly name them and explain why. —Michael Z.

I'm not going to quibble with you. It's perfectly clear which sources I am referring to. But to everyone else reading this page, I invite you to check out the propagandistic Ukrainian media outlets that are treated as legitimate "sources" of information in the article. Those Ukrainian media outlets have no more credibility that RT or Sputnik. Same difference. Equally bad. SvorLyl12 (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

An interview with the new owner of KyivPost. [2]. He says that he is not going to let his agenda affect the editorial policy, and also states "my television station [in Odes(s)a] is as independent as we can make it independent in Ukraine." The amount of confidence this inspires is certainly not overwhelming. Heptor (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. Since the Maidan, at least, the Ukrainian state has had to keep the country's media on a tight leash. I even get the impression that Ukrainian media is operating under something like wartime censorship. The authorities in Kiev don't want bad news circulating. Certainly anything that undermine's the state's credibility is being kept out of Ukrainian news outlets. That's because of the relative degree of political instability that exists in Ukraine at this time. As for Russia's news sources, they are equally unreliable (which everyone already knows). I think there's only one Russian news agency which remains independent under Putin.SvorLyl12 (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

What’s “equally bad”? Only Ukrainian media organization 112 Ukraine is blacklisted by Wikipedia, per WP:RSP and WP:DEPS. But it is not state media: it is considered to be controlled by Putin’s intimate friend Medvedchuk. Is that what you mean? —Michael Z.

Well, they are separate but still equal. Heptor (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Michael Z: if Wikipedia is blacklisting only one Ukrainian media organization, then something is seriously wrong with Wikipedia. It is very well known that UNIAN and Ukrayinska Pravda are just echo chambers of Ukrainian government propaganda. Not by any stretch of the imagination are they legitimate news sources. Also, all newspapers that part of the 1+1 Media Group are controlled by corrupt oligarch Igor Kolomoyskyi, who functions as a "king maker" of sorts in Ukrainian politics. Any paper under Kolomoyskyi's thumb will dispense propaganda in favor of his allies. For the time being, the Ukrainian government is one of Kolomoyskyi's allies (possibly even his puppet), therefore his papers spew state-sanctioned propaganda. As for Kyiv Post, everybody knows that its a yellow newspaper that was (and continues to be) funded by American NGO's. That means Kyiv Post has a pro-Western, pro-Maidan, and anti-Russian propaganda line to toe.

Based on your statement about only one Ukrainian newspaper (the pro-Russian outlet) being blacklisted by Wikipedia, I can only conclude that Wikipedia's been infiltrated by lots of rabid pro-Ukrainian, pro-Maidan, and anti-Russian editors. To me, that says something sad about Wikipedia.SvorLyl12 (talk) 03:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

”it is well known” - please provide reliable sources to that effect. Also this discussion should probably be take to WP:RSN. Volunteer Marek 05:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: It's understandable that you don't want to believe such things, and perhaps you are even suspicious of the intent of those who bring it forward. The reports from Ukraine is that being labeled "pro-Russian" had become dangerous both politically and personally. Many among those who were thus labeled, emigrated or at least were denied access to the mainstream Ukrainian media. Following the 2014 revolution, many former officials associated with the deposed regime were killed or committed suicides under questionable circumstances. Dissenting opinions among journalists are met with dismissal from job, criminal prosecution on trumped-up charges as for example in case of Ruslan Kozaba or, in some cases, murder. Heptor (talk) 08:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Marek: there is no need to get anal about this...no need to take the conversation to WP:RSN. The editors of this article are using bad sources, and I believe that everyone who reads this article should have the benefit of coming to this talk page, to see for themselves that those pro-Ukrainian, anti-Russian propaganda outlets (i.e., UNIAN et al) are being challenged by right here. Moving the issue to WP:RSN serves no purpose except to hide the criticism that some people are levying against Ukrainian government media outlets.

By the way, I have another question for you. Exactly who at Wikipedia has the privilege of deciding which international news sources are to be blacklisted or validated? Does Wikipedia have a committee to decide such matters? If so, the politically objectivity of those editors is deeply in doubt, IMO.SvorLyl12 (talk) 12:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I’m not clear on how that addresses my question. Volunteer Marek 08:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we could examine the Freedom House report from 2020? It seems to support at least parts of what SvorLyl12 wrote earlier. Note for example the following excerpts from the report:

• Business magnates own and influence many outlets, using them as tools to advance their agendas.
• Journalists continue to face the threat of violence and intimidation.

By the way, Michael, according to Freedom House, Russia is indeed worse. Based on the content of their report, this assessment is not entirely self-evident. Heptor (talk) 10:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

The first quote describes media in, for example, the United States. Trump has made the second literally true, too. So if you want to try disqualifying all media in certain countries for citations in Wikipedia, please take this to a broader forum, unless your objective is strictly to banish Ukrainian voices from this website. Otherwise, please get ready to do the research and get a lot more specific on your onjectives. —Michael Z. 03:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Michael, I have much sympathy for the American journalists who now face the threat of verbal abuse and a toxic working environment in the White House. Nevertheless, I dare say that the situation for the Ukrainian journalists is far more grave. Did you read the rest of the report? What is your impression of it? Heptor (talk) 08:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I will look at it. But I’m not really interested in chat about this stuff. This talk page is for improving the article, and this thread is distracting clutter. —Michael Z. 15:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Marek: he's giving you clear, well-documented evidence that Ukrainian journalists cannot express Russia's point of view without risking their own lives. If that doesn't qualify as data that answers your question - that Ukrainian media is only reporting one side of the conflict - then I don't know what does. Also, I'm not impressed with your defense of UNIAN et al. Your hypothesis seems to be that all Ukrainian media (including that which echoes Kiev's propaganda) can and must be regarded as objective and credible unless someone here does double back flips to prove otherwise to you. You're showing a clear, unmistakable bias in favor of the Ukrainian government's account of the Donbass conflict, and in favor of the yellow newspapers that support Kiev's propaganda. That is not good.

I have a better suggestion for you, Marek. Why don't you post some information which establishes that UNIAN is an objective and trustworthy source of news (i.e., not a paper which echoes Kiev's propaganda)? I find it strange that you always hold people with opposing views responsible for "disproving" your claims, most of which are not adequately supported by your footnotes and sources. I'm really interested in your answer to my question. Thanks in advance.SvorLyl12 (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I’m not clear on why you are claiming that I’m defending UNIAN (“I’m not impressed with your defense of UNIAN”). What are you talking about? What I said is that this is something that is better suited for WP:RSN. Volunteer Marek 17:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

MIchael & Marek: Freedom House is a US government funded think tank. That means it serves American foreign policy interests. It's literally an echo chamber of views held by the US State Department, and possibly of the CIA and Pentagon too. How could anyone fail to realize that about Freedom House? The full data regarding that think tank is available on Internet (even on Wikipedia, in fact). Just do a google search. Freedom House's biased views on all issues concerning Russia is especially well known. So, in conclusion, the answer is an outspoken "no." An endorsement or criticism from Freedom House does not in any way count as a valid measure of a media outlet's objectiveness and credibility.SvorLyl12 (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Freedom House is reliable but should be attributed. Volunteer Marek 17:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

But your claim doesn't make sense. As I've already explained, Freedom House is a think tank that has a bias in favor of its sources of money. One of Freedom House's funding sources is the US government. If a think tank is producing reports and analyses to flatter the US government's agenda, then how can that source possibly be regarded as "reliable?"

After all, the US government is a party to the Ukrainian-Russian Conflict. That means you prioritizing sources of info that are biased in favor of America's foreign policy goals. That is not a good way to write a Wikipedia article.SvorLyl12 (talk) 03:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I’m not sure what the proposal is. Wikipedia should be purged of all statements supported by any sources based in Ukraine? Sounds like an issue for a broader forum than this one article’s talk page. Maybe start a thread somewhere else and get input from WP:UKRAINE and WP:FACT. —Michael Z. 16:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

The question is not whether the sources are from Ukraine. The question is whether the sources are coming from respectable media outlets. Ukrainian government sponsored press, Kololoisky's news outlets, Radio Free Europe (well known US propaganda outlet) and the Atlantic Council (NATO's biased think tank) are objective, reliable sources of information. That's already well known throughout the West.SvorLyl12 (talk) 03:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:RSN. Volunteer Marek 17:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@SvorLyl12:, I believe our two interlocutors are correct in that WP:RSN is a better forum for your (IMO generally correct) criticism. You are of course under no obligation to proceed with this, but if you do, it may be a great way to impact the use of the Ukrainian state media sources across the project, specifically in articles related to the Ukrainian Crisis. Heptor (talk) 21:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Russian involvement in the war in Donbass

It would be appreciated if interested parties would participate in the discussion on Russian involvement at Talk:War in Donbass. RGloucester — ☎ 01:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no Russo-Ukrainian war

There is no Russo-Ukrainian war! The point of view that this ordinary Civil War is a war between Ukraine and Russia is only Ukrainian Propaganda! The Ukrainian Military is to weak to wage such a long war with Russia which is next to the USA the post powerful Military Power in the world. A real war between Russia and Ukraine would end like the American-Mexican War. The point of view of the Russian government on this war is much more realistic than those of the government of Ukraine.--92.211.155.49 (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

«The Ukrainian Military is to[o] weak» — thanks to this war the Ukrainian military has multiplied its military power..., and, what has changed since the ruling of the ICC in 2017? —Pietadè (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's hard to understand that war can take forms other than mere 'total war'...sure, Russia could've conquered Kiev in 2014...but that's not what Russia intended or wanted to get out of the conflict. I highly recommend you read the RAND Corporation report on this matter. RGloucester — ☎ 19:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

References

I agree, you can't call what's happening at this moment a war. Russia has influence on LDNR, maybe it provides military assistance, but this is a civil war, which is confirmed by the fact that during the last exchange of prisoners the Ukrainian citizens were exchanged for Ukrainian citizens. We could talk about the war in 2014, when there were confrontations in the Crimea, but the Ukrainian military did not receive commands to defend and simply gave up the Crimea and left. According to the Minsk Protocol, Russia is not a party to the conflict. The title of this article is misleading and manipulative.Dron007 (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)