Talk:Prelude to the Russian invasion of Ukraine

February 16?

• [1] - "Russia will start a physical assault on Ukraine as soon as Feb. 16, multiple U.S. officials confirmed to POLITICO, and Washington communicated to allies that it could be preceded by a barrage of missile strikes and cyberattacks." - Include it? My very best wishes (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, just more neutral language as other sources report that US intelligence assesses that Russia "could" attack on 16 February. It's just a prediction.

There are some other notable developments in this context. As a result, many countries have urged their citizens to leave Ukraine: [2][3]. Some countries also began evacuation of their embassies or reduction of the diplomatic staff: [4][5]. Some airlines suspend flights to Ukraine: [6]. Ukrainians rally for resistance: [7][8]. --Mindaur (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, maybe they will attack another day just to prove US intelligence wrong. So, am leaving this to you and others. This is too painful for me to edit. My very best wishes (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Added a paragraph to the "Second Russian military buildup" section. --Mindaur (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this is not a prediction, but an intercept of communications [9]. The message allegedly assigned "specific tasks to the various Russian invasion units". It is very difficult to change such date on a short notice, but possible. My very best wishes (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Is "debka.com" a WP:RS? Has this been confirmed by other sources? The US administration later clarified that they still don't know whether Putin has made a decision. On a general note, the US is aggressively releasing intelligence information: [10][11][12]. It's a part of the US strategy (of deterrence as well as countering the Russian disinformation). My point: we stick with the WP pillars and that includes neutral and balanced view, without sensationalism.

It is worth noting that if Russia will go for a full-scale invasion, then we will enter the fog of war. That means a lot of unreliable information and the WP editors will have to maintain a high standard of WP:RS. --Mindaur (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mindaur: same story covered 1 (may not be RS, actually), but also 2 and 3. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

According to Politico and other sources, "Joe Biden told Western leaders about the Feb. 16 date on an hourlong call". That is significant. That must be serious sources. Will it happen? We will know it in a few days, but so far all new info points in this direction. My very best wishes (talk) 03:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Trimmed evacuations and warnings as those do not belong to that particular section. As for "the prediction", do not see any problem writing that up with proper attributions, which is not to "US intelligence" (unknown to us), but certain media, primarily Der Spiegel, allegedly quoting anonymous officials who were "briefed". I think all that ought to be taken and written up with a very big pinch of salt.Axxxion (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Axxxion: You removed my [13] reference. The US officials openly stated that their view is based on the US intelligence (there are other references on this too); they just refused to provide the details of the intelligence. Note that I deliberately avoided mentioning a specific date, as that is based on "three officials — based in Washington, London and Ukraine — [who] told POLITICO".

I disagree, however, that diplomatic evacuations, dozens of countries issuing warnings to their citizens to leave Ukraine and flight uspensions should be in the reactions section. It's not a fragmented actions some countried said or did. It is a significant shift in assessment of the situation by many countries and that deserves at least some narrative. Diplomatic evacuations are not usual reactions. --::Mindaur (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Mindaur: My point is that WE (editors) have no access to any of "the US intelligence". All we have access to in this case are publications in news media that refer to some incognitos who allege to be officials who do. Besides, as all who are over 35 know that "the US intelligence" is shorthand for "we know nothing but we are eager to tell you something that we have been ordered by our masters to tell you", such reference looks pretty much like a jest, or a self-refutation indeed. (A disclaimer: the above is not MY view, as I personally believe that all they say is always very serious and entails grave destructive consequences, i.e. for ordinary people, of course).Axxxion (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

How would you know it's false either? What proof is there for/against these allegations? --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Axxxion, your unfounded bias/agenda on the matter of the intelligence services of the Americans makes you unfit to be editing this section. If the RS says 'US intelligence,' then so do we. 50.111.56.58 (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Please don't tell editors with autoconfirmed accounts they're "unfit to be editing" anything. Their editing style can be discussed on their talk page (or do request an admin to look into it if you feel like their behavior is disrupting WP). --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

We don't need to "access" the US intelligence material. If a US official made a statement in a press conference. said it is based on the intelligence and it was reported by several WP:RS, then it's perfectly fine to attribute this to the US intelligence in a WP article. This is how WP works, as you must certainly be aware, so I am surprised we even discuss this. I understand you might have strong personal views on "US intelligence", but we write based on WP:RSes. --Mindaur (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Whydoesitfeelsogood: I do not mind being accused of "bias". Every one has a bias and it is always NOT "unfounded", i.e. based on our experience. AGAIN, as peeps fail to understand plain English: I do not question "the U.S. intelligence" — I simply state the obvious fact that we do not know any of it. On a broader point of the value thereof, any intelligence (the data gained by espionage, i.e. through criminal activity, including murder) always serves the purposes of those who order it. In the U.S. the sole customer is the POTUS, in the RF it is Putin, not the public. When "intelligence" IS made public, it always serves the purposes of those who ordered it made public. Just plain logic. CNN lately ran an analysis asserting that "a Russian invasion could have a significant domestic blowback inside the United States in a way that would impose more economic pain and ultimately hurt the prospects of Biden and his Democrats in November's elections". Which struck me as utterly bizarre: one does not have to be an analyst to understand that any major military conflict GREATLY boosts the U.S. standing, virtually by default, without the U.S. having to do anything much. For the U.S. is the center of the global financial system, runs the global reserve currency, is the world′s lender of last resort and the safe haven of last resort (for both assets and people), and is by far the mightiest military power, excepting the nuclear capability, which is assumed to be unusable. Any sane person will read the constant flow of "U.S. intelligence" made public in the last several weeks as an attempt to put Putin in a situation where he has no other option but invade indeed (altho it is obvious his original plan was to create a plausible threat in order to blackmail, with an actual invasion being an undesirable Plan B). That is not to say "the intelligence" is false: it may well be true and objective, but the way it is used by the respective political masters serves the purposes quite different (usually contrary) to those proclaimed. My point being ATTRIBUTION is key to us being unbiased and not looking foolish too.Axxxion (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

"U.S. intelligence" made public by Colin Powell holding a model vial of anthrax while giving a presentation to the United Nations Security Council in February 2003

Irrelevant. The 'bias' is only of concern when it enters your editing. WIKI follows 'verifiability, not truth.' We go by what the Reliable Sources say. 50.111.36.47 (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

All fake. Moreover Ukraine attacked first Russian territory not so long ago. 2A00:1FA0:2BB:1CBE:EDCA:79BD:DABE:F83D (talk) 05:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion on addition

Since this suggestion would concern some parts of the article. I would like to reach a consensus first before making any edits. I propose we add 1-2 quote boxes regarding certain statements made by national leaders in several sections. Notable ones include Putin's statement towards Ukraine and Biden's prediction about Russian troop movements.

Secondly, I would want to add a small table listing troop numbers calculated and estimated by different sources, so readers can grasp the different troop numbers postulated by several sources. (As there are multiple sources that are debating on different numbers, from just 30,000, all the way to 175,000).

That should be it for now, I'll prepare some examples in subsequent posts. Cheers, PenangLion (talk) 09:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@PenangLion: Regarding the quotes: seems reasonable, but I think at the very least it should also contain a quote from the Ukrainians. Some editors seem to forget that the crisis is in Europe, about Europe and primarily about Ukraine, yet the European or even Ukrainian point of view gets less representation.

Regarding the table with troop numbers: I think it's a good idea. The only question is: how are we going to select or filter the sources as there might be quite a few?

Speaking of new sections, I would like to propose a section called "Analysis": there are already quite a few good articles (more academic ones) about the crisis, discussing the nature of the conflict, reasons and potential political objectives. In other words, they attempt to answer the questions "why?" and "why now?" Russia is amassing troops for a credible military option. --Mindaur (talk) 11:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I support the creation of the section, although I do feel writing the section would be a bit challenging.

For my part, I'll start drafting the quotes, including those from Zelensky, Putin and Biden. For the troop numbers, I will see if I could produce a draft table within a few days. PenangLion (talk) 12:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The first one:

My guess is he will move in. He has to do something.

President Joe Biden, remarking on Vladimir Putin's actions, 19 January 2022.

(PenangLion (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC))
The second one:

Every indication we have is that they’re prepared to go into Ukraine, attack Ukraine. My sense is it will happen in the next several days.

President Joe Biden, remarking on the possibility of a militarized escalation of he Russo-Ukrainian War, 17 February 2022.

The third one:

First of all, we all understand that 'surprises' may come at any time. We must rely on our own strength. We understand that such things can happen without warning, so the most important thing is to ensure that we could be ready for anything

President Volodymyr Zelensky, remarking on Russo-Ukrainian tensions, 12 February 2022.

I need suggestions, to be fair. I can't find any decent ones related to Zelensky. (PenangLion (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC))

"Every indication we have is that they’re prepared to go into Ukraine, attack Ukraine. My sense is it will happen in the next several days." [14][15] -- he just said this. --Mindaur (talk) 16:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@PenangLion: Perhaps: "First of all, we all understand that 'surprises' may come at any time. We must rely on our own strength. We understand that such things can happen without warning, so the most important thing is to ensure that we could be ready for anything." [16] --Mindaur (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@PenangLion: Zelensky's speech at the Munich Security Conference 2022 today: [17]. A good source for quotes, if you want more options. --Mindaur (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the suggestions. Cheers, PenangLion (talk) 03:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the citations: no problem for me. Regarding the table of the troops: wouldn't it be a repetition of what it's written in the infobox? Regarding the section "Analysis": sounds good, although there's the risk to create something original or non-neutral... Do you have some sources already as a reference? P1221 (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Nope. The infobox talks about the general strength of both belligerents. But I'm referring to the speculated troop numbers that have amassed near the border. Hope this clears any confusion. Cheers, PenangLion (talk) 06:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• The latest assesment by the US delivered in the OSCE meeting: 169,000-190,000 troops (up from 100,000 on Jan 30): [18]. --Mindaur (talk) 14:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Would it be possible to include the list of sanctions that the West has imposed on Russia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 07:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

  It is possible. PenangLion (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

France and Romania

Should France and Romania be counted in the belligerent's section in the infobox on the side of Ukraine since France is sending troops to Romania? And Romania is agreeing to host them? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Romania is a NATO member - they 'agree' to 'host' all sorts of Western military.50.111.36.47 (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so: as you wrote, the troops are sent to Romania, not Ukraine. P1221 (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

But they were sent during this crisis unless the NATO mission isn't entirely related to this current crisis. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

No (we discussed this already multiple times); this doesn't constitute support to Ukraine; NATO is not a directly involved party. --Mindaur (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

"Genocide" accusations

There are a wide variety of reports saying that Russia is accusing Ukraine of "Genocide" of Russians in East Ukraine. Should this accusation be addressed in the article? Victor Grigas (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

It should as a certain pretext but neutrality must be preserved. PenangLion (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

He first dropped the word on 10 Dec 2021: "I have to say that Russophobia is a first step towards genocide. You and I know what is happening in Donbass. It certainly looks like genocide." And then on 15 Feb 2022 in a more direct way. But presenting such claims (which are purely rhetorical at this stage) "as a certain pretext" in the WP voice would violate our neutrality. As this is an official line of the US State Dpt and should be presented as such (see the latter ref).Axxxion (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Victorgrigas, Axxxion: I don't see why it couldn't be addressed in the article, but it's not really a new allegation. Here is the article by an agency of the European Commission on Russian disinformation (which covers the previous "genocide" allegations): [19]. It's also worth pointing out that neither the United Nations Human Rights Office nor the ongoing multi-national OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine found any evidence of this in their latest reports: [20][21]. So, I think these observations should be included, if we cover this aspect in the article. --Mindaur (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me that the main article should be humanitarian situation during the war in Donbas, which is severely lacking in info from 2016 to 2022, or even better, WP:SPLIT off the War crimes section to a separate article. Putin's comments seem notable as rhetoric about human rights in Donbas during the war in Donbas, but obviously not as information about human rights. Boud (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

All the points above seem valid to me - does someone want to be bold and start a section called '"Genocide" accusations' or something like it? Victor Grigas (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

This just another propaganda stunt by Putin. It does not deserve a separate section. Probably belongs to "subversion" because this is an attempt to find casus belli to attack Ukraine. My very best wishes (talk) 04:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Should it be instead part of a new section related to Russian attempts on finding a casus belli for war? PenangLion (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Somebody created a section, but I think it should be in the narrative for now. It's a baseless claim (as evidenced by the reports of multiple international organizations and other observers). We also do not know whether this is going to be the casus belli yet. Basically, I think it shouldn't get more weight than other pieces of disinformation for now. --Mindaur (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Why do we need a causus belli? This will mean third world war, and thus we do not need to adhere to UN Charter. Ukraine attacked first Russian people in Rostov (causus belli) and was killing for last 8 years pro-Russian people with Russian passports that vote on our elections and thus is a friendly nation (thus we have it even more strongly), anyway, per UN Charter we already have both causus belli's and can attack using thermonuclear strike. We the people of United Nations, by the UN charter, the Constitution that overwrites all other Constitutions "1) as a means of defending themselves—or an ally where treaty obligations require it—against aggression" are allowed to attack. 213.87.148.189 (talk) 14:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian-Polish-British Security Pact?

Any opinions on this? Do we need a change in the infobox for belligerents?

https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2022/02/17/ukraine-uk-poland-announce-security-pact-amid-heightened-tensions/ PenangLion (talk) 06:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, the source says that this security pact "is meant to deepen Ukraine’s relationships with the two European nations in matters of cyber security, energy security and countering disinformation". In my opinion, this is not a real military alliance... P1221 (talk) 08:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Correct. It's enhanced cooperation (which is worth mentioning in the narrative), but not a military pact (i.e. no mutual defense). --Mindaur (talk) 14:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

A reference has been added in the article. FYI, this pact has already its own page in Wikipedia (which IMHO requires some cleanup...)P1221 (talk) 14:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do to the page, and thanks for the replies. Cheers, PenangLion (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Infobox additions

Apparently, it was known as the Dutch will be sending military equipment. Source: https://nos.nl/collectie/13888/artikel/2417915-nederland-levert-oekraine-geweren-radars-en-helmen
Please make adjustments (too afraid)! Cheers, PenangLion (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Source in English: [22]. --Mindaur (talk) 13:34, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Putin′s decree on call-up of reservists

signed 18 Feb: http://publication.pravo.gov.ru/Document/View/0001202202180067

The fact in itself is probably not extraordinary but needs to be followed up for context and consequences.Axxxion (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

They do it every year; nothing strange. Except that they usually defined the period of training for the reservists (up to 2 months) in the past. Not so in the orders issued in 2020-2022. How many reservists will be called up is a good question. My very best wishes (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Kindergarten story is fake

Not only that, but no one even died officialy, because "officially" Donbass bomb did not blow up, but it is widely percieved as a fake. Also the fact Ukraine bombed Russian territories, where Donbass region is being evacuated into. That is declaration of war from Ukraine to Russia. Also I see no mention about Blinken lies (kindergarten+Minsk agreement) debunked in UN S. C. (only a meme picture about it with that fake chemical), I also see no mention how 16 January date was wrong. 17, ah I am sorry, 18 intel. agencies were wrong, as always. 2A00:1FA0:2BB:1CBE:EDCA:79BD:DABE:F83D (talk) 05:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

User was blocked - anon acct created for block evasion.

This is not the place to parrot propaganda. Provide sources, not opinions. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The first six edits are related to this section. Good job, propagandists. PenangLion (talk) 08:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

There are insane amount of addresses in ipv6 network. So everytime you edit + 1 hour, there is a new address. It is normal. 213.87.133.90 (talk) 10:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Always good to hear from Moscow trolls. Not. As EvergreenFir stated, the rules here are to discuss Reliable Sources for the improvement of the articles - not forum-bait. 50.111.36.47 (talk) 12:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

You did not block a user. You blocked the whole Russian ipv6 network of biggest provider MTS. This is insanity to block /23. Wow. Still it does not change the fact that Ukraine attacked first, when they bombed Russia. Stop the blocks. This is not a block evasion, Acroterion, and this is certainly not a payed "bot" (as if this is written by AI, LOL), or russian Kremlin-payed persona. Maybe you still think there was a Russian collusion not from Clinton? As for sources, I did try to find all sources in English, but failed. I can provide sources in Russian, in RSPS. I will also remind you that there is an evacuation going on right now, so you also blocked some DNR and LNR people. This is a disgusting behaviour from you, Acroterion. And yes, this is a personal attack per WP policy. 213.87.133.90 (talk) 10:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think when the first 8 edits you have provided relates to this talk page certainly aids in justifying yr point. PenangLion (talk) 11:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Because more than 3x smaller in population and nearly 7x economically weaker Ukraine chose to attack Russia at the exact moment when Kremlin deployed 190,000 soldiers at max combat readiness on their border? :) Kremlin propaganda is getting pathetic. --Mindaur (talk) 11:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine did not attack Rostov region using soldiers, it used bombs. What? Just like Russia is not going to attack using soldiers, however many are on the border with Donbass (not the line of connection where the conflict happens). Thermonuclear strike on Kiev or Kyiv or whatever. Are you people insane in USA (or if you are not from USA, sorry) or something? Invasion of Russia will be mutual annihilation of the whole world. Also, this is not a Kremlin propoganda, again. Also what 8 edits? I did not do any edits to the article, what? 213.87.148.189 (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

On what goes to "Reactions"

Axxxion: You removed my sentences with some points from the Zelensky's statements at the Munich Security Conference 2022. You have a certain point that it might belong to the "Reactions" section, but this section does not have chronology. For example, Biden's statement that he now believes that Putin made a decision is a significant shift from the previous assessments; that's why it belongs to the narrative. Zelensky's statements were at a critical moment following these developments, including the increased shelling and general escalation (two soldiers died); it incudes his response that Ukraine won't respond to provocations. We cannot easily convey this response in the reactions section, without sufficient context and chronology. Do you see my point? --Mindaur (talk) 14:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Mindaur: I hear what you say, yet it is hard to see how it would fit into the "Russian buildup" section (narrative). The sectioning of the article is certain to be reformatted later on, especially if an actual war begins (all we have written until now will likely go into "Background"). Honestly, i do not view his phrase "won't respond to provocations" as truly meaningful as this is a threadbare line of smb who is in a weaker position. All sorts of comments are being made by top officials. Rarely do they carry real significance: just war of words, propaganda, deception, or intimidation. Really meaningful things are done without words, or with succinct understatements such as today′s statement by Khrenov. I think this last announcement is of utter significance as it shows that Luka is fully on board (enlisted) and is probably rarin′ to go. But my gut feeling they will also invade Lithuania, as occupying a part of Ukr makes no strategic (geopolitical) sense for them. Perhaps the bit in question could go into the "Ukrainian defenses" section?Axxxion (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, did not mean anything personal. Did not know you are from there. Just my personal reading of Pu′s and Luka′s minds.Axxxion (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, let's keep things as is for now, as the situation is rapidly developing. If the war actually begins, we will certainly need to restructure the article (and we will probably need to introduce a separate section on the casus belli).

P.S. The troops in Belarus are postured for the offensive on Kyiv. I wouldn't worry about the Baltic States; Lithuanian military is on high alert, NATO Enhanced Forward Presence is reinforced, VJTF is on go/no-go and there are more things happening behind the doors. --Mindaur (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

If a further invasion (beyond the Donbas line-of-contact) happens, then better start off a new article 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and leave this one as an article on the lead-up (a "prelude"). The current article is already getting huge. Unfortunately, this is a good time to start an informal preliminary search for a name for the new article ("... further invasion ..."?), and a possible rename for the current article. Given the intense interest in the current article, getting a good candidate for consensus before a formal {{RM}} could be helpful... Boud (talk) 06:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Boud: I think 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine would be a suitable title. However, in that eventuality, I think it should be created on a basis of the current article. At that point, the "crisis" is no more and it will not make sense to leave the "crisis" as a distinct event, separate from the war. We can move out some of the content into separate articles (e.g. there is already Reactions to the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis; we could also create Preparations for 2022 invasion of Ukraine). Let's hope, though, that will not need to change the title of this article. --Mindaur (talk) 12:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mindaur: It's true that the event would no longer be a crisis, but a war. It seems to me that there should then be three main articles (plus Reactions ..., maybe other sub-articles too), because the current content, which is a lot, is already huge, and adding in the invasion details would make it even huger and un-navigable.

• overview - name = 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian war?
• leadup - most of the current content of this article - name = Preparations for 2022 invasion of Ukraine? (problem: the US/EU/NATO role, per most WP:RS, was mostly not "preparations", but rather "attempting to prevent") or Leadup to the 2022 invasion of Ukraine?
• invasion - the new events once the WP:RS agree to call the events an invasion (or a "further invasion") - currently 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is the proposal

So then the question, apart from the choice of names, is in terms of moves/new articles. Should the current article be moved to the 'leadup' article or the 'overview' article? I don't think that moving it to the 'invasion' article would make sense, since the current content is mostly about the 'leadup'. I would propose that this article be moved to the 'leadup' article - and a fresh 'overview' article would have to be created. Keeping an eye on https://liveuamap.com, it looks like we may not have much time (hours?) before there's a deluge of editors jumping in based on mainstream media headlines, so better that we have a plan that has a chance of achieving consensus. COVID-19 pandemic title battles consumed a lot of editing energy... Boud (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Boud Previously, I would not be willing to discuss about the possibilities of war prior to this, but I'm forced to concede that war is highly likely. I have concerns using the "2021-2022 Russo-Ukrainian War". On paper, the war from 2014 has not ended, and given the likeliness that the war would spill to other regions, very likely we need alternative names in case that happens.

However, is there a possibility that this article could be similar to the July Crisis? PenangLion (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

You are right that technically this is a re-invasion or a (full-scale) re-escalation. War in Donbas was directly orchestrated by Moscow and it hasn't ended. However, the intervention in Donbas is militarily of a bit different nature: Russia has been officially denying involvement and has been trying to maintain plausible deniability (although, by now, there is an overwhelming evidence by many organizations proving their involvement). What is going on right now could bring the conflict to a whole new level (a country openly attacking its sovereign and independent neighbour). Anyway, feel free to make proposals! --Mindaur (talk) 13:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be more rational to rename the current article and add the "Invasion" section. There are various sections, like "Background", "Ukrainian defenses", "NATO reinforcements" and a lot of the build up content would still be relevant and could largely stay as is. After all, we are volunteers with limited time, so an incremental approach might be easier than scrambling a whole new article. I think splitting the current article into Leadup to the 2022 invasion of Ukraine and 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine sounds good. I don't think we need a separate overview article, because it is a part of the longer conflict which already has an article: Russo-Ukrainian War. Also, please create a new section in the talk with the proposals. --Mindaur (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I support renaming the current article Leadup or Prelude instead, keeping it separated from the article which will be created for the war. Otherwise, I would consider splitting this article in various different articles, like it was done for "Reactions". P1221 (talk) 13:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

What? No, Donbas war in 2014 was not orhestrated by Moscow. It was orhestrated by Hunter Biden who laundered 22 billion $USD for Kolomoisky and Zlochevsky armies and Voice party of Ukraine that fully consists of Soros' people, "sorosyata" and thus is foreignly governed by USA. Did you even watch the first impeachment of Donald Trump? That is why he was impeached and aquitted. I understand that there is some kind of blindness on Biden family. But that is obvious. Re-escalation happened because USA people reelected Biden into office and everyone has predicted it on January 6th, when election was certified, even though even by not observed ballots Trump won. 213.87.148.189 (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Any admins please resolve this issue, ASAP, thanks! PenangLion (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Second Russian military buildup: Paragraph with duplicated sentences

I just read large parts of this article. In the section Second Russian military buildup I noticed a paragraph with duplicated sentences. However, the duplicated sentences cite different sources.

Here is a copy-paste of the specific paragraph:

Following these announcements, the US ordered most of its diplomatic staff and all military instructors in Ukraine to evacuate.[156] The US, the UK, Japan, a number of European and other countries also urged their citizens to leave Ukraine immediately.[157] Next day, Dutch KLM suspended its flights to Ukraine, while other airlines reduced their exposure to the country.[158] Following these announcements, the US ordered most of its diplomatic staff and all military instructors in Ukraine to evacuate.[159] The US, the UK, Japan, a number of European and other countries also urged their citizens to leave Ukraine immediately.[160] Next day, Dutch KLM suspended its flights to Ukraine, while other airlines reduced their exposure to the country.[161]

Unfortunately I don't have the capacity right now to fix this issue myself. Maybe someone can have a look at this and fix it. Thank you! --Soluvo (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Too US-biased. Add another POVs.

Noam Chomsky: https://chomsky.info/20211223/

NATO expansion to the East promises: https://www.euroweeklynews.com/2022/02/20/has-nato-reneged-on-a-1991-agreement-with-russia/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.29.161.183 (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The Russian view is already presented in the article. Your source on NATO enlargement doesn't seem reliable; there are plenty of other sources on this subject, though: [23][24][25][26][27][28][29]. Nevertheless, no matter what was discussed in formal and informal meetings ~30 years ago, there is not a single legal document where such a promise, assurance or even non-binding declaration was given; that's pretty much all what matters. However, more to the point: it is simply irrelevant, as this crisis is primarily about Ukraine's sovereignty. --Mindaur (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The article is excellently balanced. With some 190K troops on Ukraine's border, the RS material is going to swing a certain way - that's just common sense. 50.111.36.47 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

While Russia indeed has concentrated quite a lot of troops near the border and may well attack, the coverage in the Western media has its peculiarities. As an exercise, try finding any information about the locations or plans of the Ukrainian army which is presumably not sitting idle. I'm not saying that you should believe in RT's reporting of Ukrainian hordes massing to attack DPR and LPR at any time, but we are still getting a partial picture at this moment. Hopefully in a few years time we'll have some good research on this. Alaexis_¿question? 21:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Alaexis: You made a good point. But this particular "peculiarity" is easy to explain: we supposedly know much about Russia′s deployments because the relevant info (secret and otherwise) is being released into public domain virtually in real time. Apparently, there is a standing order from Biden to release it as soon as it crosses Avril Haines′ desk. Meanwhile, Russian agencies and their political masters have traditionally been exceedingly tight-fisted in this respect. There lurks a suspicion that this intel may have been deliberately planted ("The sources cautioned that orders can always be withdrawn or that it could be misinformation meant to confuse and mislead the US and allies"), though. I should think that the Kremlin does not really care: they have been doing the deployment virtually demonstratively and apparently gave orders to invade in a similar manner. What do they have to be afraid of? This may well be part of their psy war, would be quite clever, in fact. For they likely assume that the majority on the Ukr side will not fight and the Ukr defences will implode in the first hours.Axxxion (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that there are good reasons for that. My point is that we are getting a partial picture as the information (even if we make a generous assumption that it's 100% true) is released strategically. Alaexis_¿question? 06:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

"try finding any information about the locations or plans of the Ukrainian army which is presumably not sitting idle. " Wow, just wow. No, it is very simple to find how Ukraine is attacking us Russians and DNR, LNR. I mean mass media of all above are reporting on it with details, even classified in some cases. Wow. 213.87.148.189 (talk) 14:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Where are the Russian satellite photos of the supposed Ukrainian buildup? I think the Russian MOD and Russian Union of Engineers has posted such photos after they shot down flight MH17, but they were mostly photoshopped Google satellite images. This might explain why a reliance on WP:RS looks “US-biased” to some. —Michael Z. 18:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Where should we put this paragraph?

On 19 January, Biden predicted said Russia "will launch an invasion" on Ukraine, but stated that Putin would pay "a serious and dear price" for an invasion and "would regret it". Biden remarked, "It's one thing if it's a minor incursion and we end up having to fight about what to do and not do. But if they actually do what they're capable of doing with the forces amassed on the border, it is going to be a disaster for Russia if they further invade Ukraine." Biden's comment hinted the division between NATO's allies on the question of responding to a possible "minor incursion" into Ukraine. The remark was criticized by Ukrainian officials, several world leaders and members of the US Congress, as it was implied that low-level Russian aggression would not be met with a forceful response. Zelensky wrote, "We want to remind the great powers that there are no minor incursions and small nations. Just as there are no minor casualties and little grief from the loss of loved ones." The Biden administration later clarified Biden's comments, mentioning, "he has been 'absolutely clear' with President Putin. He has no misunderstanding. If any - any - assembled Russian units move across the Ukrainian border, that is an invasion... It would be met with severe and coordinated economic response."

I still believe this paragraph is pretty important, but I still need to poll a consensus. Which section should I add in? PenangLion (talk) 08:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Considering the current structure of the article, it should belong to US "Reactions". P1221 (talk) 09:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the reply. PenangLion (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@PenangLion::...that is except the first sentence therein, which mutatis mutandis is where it was.Axxxion (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Alright, noted. Thanks. PenangLion (talk) 05:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Tentative split proposal

This informal proposal aims to search for a consensus on how to WP:SPLIT in the currently hypothetical case that the crisis gets named by WP:RS as an "invasion", which seems highly likely on a short time scale, but is not yet the case.

• overview - name = 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian war?
  • against: continuation of 2014
  • against: subsection Russo-Ukrainian War#2021–2022 Russian military buildup already exists as an overview (but could be improved as a summary rather than timeline)
• leadup - most of the current content of this article - name = Preparations for 2022 invasion of Ukraine or Leadup to the 2022 invasion of Ukraine?
  • against Preparations: the US/EU/NATO role, per most WP:RS, was mostly not "preparations", but rather "attempting to prevent")
• invasion - the new events once the WP:RS agree to call the events an invasion (or a "further invasion") - currently 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is the proposal; an alternative would be 2022 further Russian invasion of Ukraine
  • against further: technically more correct, but sounds cumbersome as a title, and 2022 distinguishes this phase from the ongoing invasion since 2014
• successor of this article: current proposal - rename this article (2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis) to the invasion article (and then split out the leadup components, leaving brief referenced summaries in place)

Boud (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine already invaded yesterday, are you nuts? This is not WP:CRYSTAL, this is just a lie. 213.87.148.189 (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Take your crazy talk somewhere else. Read what this page is for at the top of this and every other TP.50.111.36.47 (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

No need to reply. Let the admins handle it. It wastes time. PenangLion (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I will just point out that I was right: see below, we killed 5 Ukranian diversants in Rostov. 2A00:1370:8184:C98D:49C9:6700:846A:E7E4 (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support the following variations: the overview should really remain within Russo-Ukrainian War (this is part of the same conflict); leadup as Leadup to the 2022 invasion of Ukraine seems suitable; invasion/war as 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Obviously, we would take into consideration WP:RS, but given the significant escalation in Russian disinformation and propaganda, it seems that we are indeed hours away. --Mindaur (talk) 14:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Mindaur Not sure if you have read it / not, but another article exists: 2022 Russia-Ukraine clashes

  Should we need a merger and list the casualties under the infobox of the main article? PenangLion (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I just renamed the section to "Alleged clashes between Russia and Ukraine". It's not independently verified, denied by Ukraine and is currently just an a accusation/allegation from Russia. The article is way premature, especially since there is a lot more disinformation flowing in today. --Mindaur (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the changes. PenangLion (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support Hi guys, I've started the article 2022 Russia-Ukraine clashes after reading about the Russian claim of killing 5 Ukrainian soldiers. I believe the clashes, which allegedly began since early Saturday between Russia and Ukraine (not including the clashes between Ukraine and Donbass separatists) should have their separate article. In case the clashes turn into an invasion or a war between Russia and Ukraine I believe that should have a separate 3rd article as well to separate the early clashes from the actual war phase. Viewsridge (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
• The invasion hasn't even started yet and you're already writing about it? Please read WP:FORUM, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTNEWS and don't try to run ahead of the train. Keep a neutral style and do not use articles for propaganda purposes. 178.163.92.71 (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

  Preparations come better for a smoother process in editing. We're not betting for it to happen, we're preparing for what might and might not happen. PenangLion (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Why not leave the current title of the article in that case? The July crisis is not called "Preparing the great powers of Europe for war among themselves." But "Ukrainian crisis (2021 - 2022)" would be the most appropriate name, the crisis is in both Russia-NATO and Russia-Ukraine relations, and not just Russia-Ukraine. The Caribbean Crisis, the Bosnian Crisis, the Berlin Crisis are named after the geographic center of the crisis, so why not do so in this case? 178.163.92.71 (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

We are merely preparing for the eventuality as things are developing fast. It may happen or may not. If Russia will not proceed with the attack, then the title will remain. --Mindaur (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support Mindaur's proposal P1221 (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support per Mindaur. Although I do think we need some time (in case it happens, preferably within 12 hours) to see how the media names it. They might give another popular name, we might not know. That is my concern for now. PenangLion (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - given that 2022 Russia-Ukraine clashes was created, which of leadup and invasion should be the successor of the current article? Technically, renaming this one to leadup, and clashes to invasion, would be simpler, and better preserve editing history for those wishing to trace that. Boud (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

  You have a point. I think its perfect. PenangLion (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. Keep this page as it is for now, and see how the events will develop. One can create additional pages as needed (no problem), but it does not mean this page should be split. My very best wishes (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: We are keeping fow now; we are just trying to come up with an action plan if things escalate. --Mindaur (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - I think the new article would also need edit protection. Lots of Russian IP addresses are trying to interfere already. --Mindaur (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

  I have an account with more than 500 edits, so even extended will not help. 194.154.66.69 (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support per Mindaur. Russian forces really are beginning to escalate near Ukraine, and we are on the ledge of destruction. If, however, Russia does not invade Ukraine, the split can wait until they actually invade Ukraine. Taking into context that Russian forces have literally been dancing on Ukraine's border and not yet invading, however, a split is neither likely nor unlikely. Thank you. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 19:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

BTW, you were wrong. The actual declaration of war is effectively against NATO or will be against NATO. 194.154.66.69 (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• Terminology of the invasion article:
  • 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine SMH NYT Thomson Reuters Biden said. "This is the beginning of a Russian invasion of Ukraine."; or
  • 2022 enlarged scope of Russian military intervention in Ukraine [30]; or
  • 2022 Russian military crossing into Ukraine up to the frontline [31]; or
  • 2022 Russian undeniable movement against Ukraine [32], Two European officials said Tuesday that Russia had sent troops into the area, but Russia's Foreign Ministry denied having done so.
  • 2022 Russian sending of what Putin calls peacekeeping forces into Ukraine' [33].
  • @Mindaur: (or someone else who can edit carefully, per consensus): It seems to me that plain English descriptions agree on "invasion", and three RS agree that Biden used the term "invasion", so I propose that you be bold and go ahead with your version of the proposal, which appears to have rough consensus, i.e. rename this article to Leadup to the 2022 invasion of Ukraine and un-redirect 2022 Russia-Ukraine clashes and rename it to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. And then you and or others can start seeing what material should be shifted/summarised to minimise overlap. This will allow people to edit efficiently in a modular way, and formal rename proposals can be made if people disagree with this rough consensus. (There's already some apparently sourced material in the lead of Russo-Ukrainian War, on the further invasion that started on 22 Feb 2022, which could be used in the invasion article.) Boud (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Boud, PenangLion, P1221: The article on clashes doesn't really have a meaningful history, so we might as well create a new one. Okay, I can try to create a basic structure, copy-paste the relevant sections from the current article, adding/rephrasing some sentences about the actual invasion. Basically, start with the minimalistic article and then we incrementally improve both. --Mindaur (talk) 11:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Boud, PenangLion, P1221: Please see 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. --Mindaur (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

      @Mindaur I personally still have doubts whether the invasion has actually occurred. However, there are news reports that Kharkiv might be attacked in the next 2 days. Would the background section in the invasion page be better off linked to the background section of this "crisis" article? PenangLion (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@PenangLion: I have been torn on this question myself and thought quite a lot. De jure, legally, in a sense of international law: what happen yesterday was an invasion, with military equipment being officially ordered and actually pouring into a territory of a sovereign country [34]. The situation de facto is more blurry; if you insist, we can change the title to "intervention". However, I am afraid (and I sincerely hope I am wrong) the situation on the ground is not getting any better.. and the title might have to be changed back in the next 24-72 hours. We can keep the current article on "crisis" with the present title for now.

Regarding the background: it would be good to de-duplicate it in some way. Proposals welcome! We should probably also have some degree of separation of reactions to the events yesterday from earlier actions. Also, sections like "Ukrainian defenses" should also be reconciled in some way. --Mindaur (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support Length of this article is getting a bit unwieldy, and the invasion itself makes a natural source for the split. --Jayron32 17:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose at this time – It is simply TOO EARLY to be splitting out 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine at this time. We still don't know what has actually occurred on the ground, and it is not yet clear that an independent article will have sufficient content to stand on its own. If anything, I would argue that a RENAMING of this article would be more appropriate than a split, as there is very little benefit from dividing information that is directly connected. Another possibility is splitting out content related to the 2021 events. Of course, if we see all-out war in the coming days, that would be a quite different scenario, but let us not forget that Russian forces have been present in the Donbas areas since 2014. In that context, does a new article, AT THIS TIME, make sense? I think not. RGloucester — ☎ 17:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• @RGloucester: You should really participate in the discussion before making late objections and reverts. Also, we do know what happen on the ground, there are sufficient sources of that. --Mindaur (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid the person who has not followed the appropriate processes is yourself. This proposal was made two days ago, and given its gravity, has not had nearly enough time for adequate discussion. Outside comment has not been solicited, either. The sources given in the article do not provide adequate justification for a new article at this time. You are presuming that something more substantial MAY happen (see WP:CRYSTAL), but if it were not to do so, the new article would not have sufficient content on which to stand. Again, as I said above, Russian troops have been present in the Donbas areas since 2014. This is widely documented, specifically at War in Donbas. The mere entrance of new Russian troops into the area, without any substantial other change, hardly constitutes a new development worthy of a new article. RGloucester — ☎ 18:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@RGloucester: We followed the usual process. You could have raised your concern here and we would revisit the decision. Instead, you chose to storm in and just overrule the consensus. It's not constructive and disrespectful to the editors who already put a great deal of work into this. --Mindaur (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The usual process would be to wait seven days, and post notices of this discussion on the relevant WikiProject Talk pages, etc. Then, one would need an uninvolved party to determine consensus. You are not uninvolved. While there are many people who support a split, most of those supports are conditional on the timing of the invasion itself. It is not up for you, yourself, to decide this timing. Again, an uninvolved party must do this. Furthermore, when reliable sources, such as as the BBC, write "It is not yet clear if any Russian troops have yet crossed the border into Ukraine" as of an hour ago, your unilateral action simply does not stand up to scrutiny. Wikipedia does not jump the gun. It doesn't rush to be first. It waits for reliable sources to come to a consensus. RGloucester — ☎ 18:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:CON does not appear to have a seven day requirement. The process we followed is WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS and no, it doesn't require uninvolved party if there is no dispute. Nevertheless, we still waited a few days. Please at least attempt to engage in a constructive discussion (especially when the consensus appears to have been reached) before stomping on the editors.

There are other sources which have been reporting troop movements e.g. [35][36]. --Mindaur (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

If there is a conflicting information in RS, that's all the more reason to wait. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and there is WP:NODEADLINE. Finally, please take a look at WP:BREAKING. It is WISE to delay, it says...and indeed, it is wise here. However, again, in as much as a gold-standard source like the BBC says the situation is not clear, it simply is not possible to proceed at this time. RGloucester — ☎ 18:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

It would be conflicting if BBC would have denied the reports or said there is no evidence. It merely said it couldn't verify those reports (yet). With a great respect to BBC, their processes are a bit slower. However, the lack of confirmation by BBC does not disqualify other WP:RSes. --Mindaur (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Except, that very CNN article says "CNN has not independently verified the presence of additional Russian troops in the Donbas". You can use that article to cite the what the Latvian prime minister has said, but you certainly can't use it to state that an 'invasion has begun' in Wikipedia's voice. That would be a fundamental mis-use of the source. Again, wait, per WP:BREAKING. RGloucester — ☎ 19:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

• I would like to propose the following alternative to what is proposed above. Namely, splitting out 2021 content into a 2021 Russo-Ukrainian crisis (or similarly named) article, and renaming this article as appropriate (perhaps 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine), depending on what happens in the coming days. At present, it really does not make sense to have the 2021 content in this article. If anything should be a target for splitting, it should be this stuff. RGloucester — ☎ 17:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: You seem to suggest splitting the content by year rather than the actual events; it has no rationale (history doesn't roll by calendar years). Moreover, we already had several discussions on this (you seem to have just ignored them). --Mindaur (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it is logical to say that the first military build-up last year can logically, historically, be separated from the build-up this year. There is no obvious justification for documenting it here. It is also, I might add, documented at Russo-Ukrainian War, so we are having a duplication problem as well. The solution to this problem is not an endless series of FORKS, but actually a consolidation and trimming of the existing articles. RGloucester — ☎ 18:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

It is a continuation. The only obvious split between both phases under the same crisis occurred between April and September 2021. However, the buildup never dismantled itself entirely, it went dormant. The latter hasn't ended when the troops returned to the region en masse. The characteristics of both timelines should be grouped into a single definition. Tensions remain high during the period, while the buildup went higher and higher. There is no separation in military buildups. Even Shoygu's declaration in April only involved the retreat of "a portion" of troops that was sent to the front lines for the buildup.

Although, I do agree, some components on the split has some ambiguity whether it is a pragmatic stance on technical terms, or an unintended violation of Wikipedia:CRYSTAL. What is confirmed, however, is that this movement into Donbas is unusual - this recognition of the DPR and LPR, is on paper, a violation of territorial sovereignty, and hence, it is considered an invasion. This is also aided when several world leaders from NATO has already voiced their opinions that this incursion should be considered as an "invasion", no matter how it went.

I admit the consensus is rushed (where it was done in 4 days, not 2, note the discussion above this section; rather than your standard 7), but given the uncertainty of this event, where any day could be a possible start date, it wouldn't be a wrong thing to do it first under preliminary comments and suggestions. PenangLion (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@RGloucester: I don't think this alternative is a good option. Splitting by year seems too arbitrary. @everybody, RGloucester is correct that there's no rush. The section above is titled a "tentative" proposal; once there seems to be a general agreement. Once we've got it narrowed down to a couple of best options, then we have the actual split discussion. The section above isn't remotely close enough to a well-formed consensus to be talking about the split discussion in the past tense. VQuakr (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

We have an article that has already got much too big. Waiting a full week while a huge number of new editors become active trying to edit it risks making the article more and more unmanageable. Just for the record: Mindaur did not start the shift on his/her own, and I'm fairly sure that we two had some editorial disagreements for this article, so it's unlikely that we two form a WP:CABAL. This article has about 400 kb of content altogether, and most of it is prose (maybe 1/4 to a 1/3 or so is references?). WP:SIZESPLIT says that an article of 100 kb (or above): Almost certainly should be divided. Boud (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Boud: Using the page length tool, readable prose size is currently 60 kB. I don't think anyone disagrees that some sort of reorganization is warranted, though. There's no rush, and "in the midst of breaking news events" is a poor choice of time to hurry a restructure. No one said cabal. VQuakr (talk) 21:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@VQuakr: Which tool? Boud (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Boud: WP:Prosesize. Looking over the highlights many of the lists weren't included in that 60 kB and probably rationally would be considered "readable prose". The point that there's no emergency action needed is still the same, though. VQuakr (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Boud: I don't doubt that you have the noblest of intentions, but please stop and think for a moment. In the first place, I would like to draw your attention to WP:HASTE, from the guideline that regulates article size. It reads As browsers have improved, there is no need for haste in splitting an article when it starts getting large. Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage. So frankly, your plea that the article must be split NOW is uncalled for. There is no hurry, no emergency. Secondly, even if this article must be split, article size is not the prime consideration. We must take into account Wikipedia notability and content guidelines, per WP:WHENSPLIT. In such a case, there can be no justification for creating the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article at this juncture, as Mindaur did, when reliable sources are still unclear on the subject (see the above discussion). Certainly, article size is not a justification for creating such an article. See WP:BREAKING, as I cited above. Such a creation is WP:CRYSTAL, because we don't yet know if such an article will have the content or notability to stand alone.

Rather than consider creating a new article about something that may or may not be necessary depending on how the cards fall, why can't we focus on trimming uncontroversial parts of the article? A prime example is the reactions section, the vast majority of which can easily be removed to Reactions to the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis rather than duplicated here. This was customarily done at War in Donbas many years ago. Furthermore, while my proposal has been misrepresented as 'cutting off the article by year', what I actually meant was separating or removing content related to the spring 2021 buildup from this article, given that that content is already present at Russo-Ukrainian War, and focusing on the current build-up here (with appropriate background and links) instead. Both of these are viable solutions to the size problem, without separating critical context from this article, and creating a problematic new article. RGloucester — ☎ 21:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Pushilin asked to sign into law "DNR as a sovereign nation"

Putin is right now considering it on our TVs in the first ever (!) public hearing of Security Council of the Russian Federation and other stuff. He just mentioned the "annexation". This may be a real one, not like with Crimea, where people voted. 213.87.148.189 (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The hearing by the Security Council has been openly televised [37]. That was interesting. One can see that participants and especially Sergey Naryshkin are extremely uncomfortable with such decision (to declare the independence of the territories), but Putin beats them into submission and enjoys the performance. I wonder what is next? Are they going to blow up buildings by "Ukrainian saboteurs" (as they did in 1999 to justify Second Chechen War) or something else? My very best wishes (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

That was very Russian. The Tzar invites Boyars to stamp his decision, so that people will blame bad Boyars later if things go south. My very best wishes (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

We just killed diversants in Rostov apparently and after that russian ruble crushed. Fiat is 💩. Oogh. RS: https://www.interfax.ru/russia/823442 As for Council, Putin just said he will decide whether to declare it in 2 hours, by signing the law. And your analysis is hillariously wrong about that SVR guy, he was the one who even mentioned the annexation, no? 213.87.134.1 (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Putin just accepted Donbass as suvereign. Putin also mentioned 22 billion $USD Hunter Biden laundered and said "we know who they are and we will PUNISH them" (emphasis his). Finally. He also mentioned that" USA embassy controls ALL UKRAINE". Finally. This is so over for you, USA and for Biden family. He also mentioned Ukraine positevely planning on creating nuclear weapons. Nice. He said Ukraine is controlled by NATO digitally, because the master systems of NATO are connected. Wow. Ukraine has access to NATO sea technology in Ochakovo and can use it against Russia. 194.154.66.69 (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Merely an annexation of the already occupied territories might be actually a good outcome for Ukraine and people who live there, but this is probably just a step in a bigger game. Some commenters, like that one still believe Putin might not pursue occupation of the entire country because his Chinese comrades said they do not support it. My very best wishes (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@My very best wishes::Yes, Naryshkin′s gig was jaw-dropping. I do not remember ever laughing more watching smth supposedly serious (in Russian it is from 1:22:38 on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFowAABiFXM ). Actually proves that Putin was probably honest when prefacing the talks by saying the whole show had not been scripted, or cleared in advance. But I would disagree with you on how to parse Naryskin′s performance. No chance he needed being browbeaten into "submission". I had been watching Naryshkin online for some while now, that is in rare instances when SC sessions were (partially) downloaded. And I noticed long ago that he often comes across as immensely nervous (uncomfortable) manifested by feverish small gestures, even when he does not speak. I tend to think it stems from his psychic state, irrespective of the subject matter. The guy is obviously out of his depth as a chief of the country′s main intelligence service and shows signs of what looks like the onset of Alzheimer's disease. In fact, that gig was a PR disaster for the SVR. Makes me wonder why Pu keeps him in that position. My guess is that Pu is directly in charge, with Naryshkin being a mere frontman for administrative work.Axxxion (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Our fake propoganda already said that Naryshkin gig was planned. I think a lie but I did have such an impression when watching it live. 194.154.66.69 (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I will also mention that his speach lasted for a effing hour was essentially a declaration of war to NATO. Insane. 194.154.66.69 (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

TREATY is signed: we now have casus belli

Putin lied, he did not just accept Donbass, he signed NATO level treaty with them (friendship, and helping each other). Thus we now have our own Article 5. It was removed immediatelly from all channels, but here not: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-qY6MGxnYI 194.154.66.69 (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I will also confirm that again. 2A00:1370:8184:C98D:49C9:6700:846A:E7E4 (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

That was ratified by Duma. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4tzmmDtf3o 109.252.169.138 (talk) 12:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

And by "Senate". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqG7o4HIE-U 2A00:1370:8184:C98D:942F:AB87:B4D2:F402 (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Misinformation/false-flag article

The RU-UA war navbox has a cyberwarfare section with five articles, but false-flag attacks are not purely in cyberspace. The COVID-19 pandemic navbox has a Misinformation section pointing to COVID-19 misinformation and six more specific sub-articles. People who find that there is notable coverage of false-flag attacks (quite a few happening since the last few days) might want to create a sub-article with an initial title such as Misinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis or False-flag attacks in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis, so that only brief summaries would remain in the broader articles. This would help reduce the volume of the broader articles such as this one (2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis). Better to have meta-information about misinformation once it has become notable, rather than no information at all, but in a place where readers will expect to find it. And more modularity of article structure tends to be better than just single huge articles (even with sub- and subsub- and subsubsub-sections).

Obviously, many individual items might need individual debates and checking of sources, and might have to switch between "information" and "misinformation" articles, as editorial consensus evolves regarding the WP:RS analysis of what is information and what is misinformation. Boud (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Boud: Just some sources on this: [38][39][40][41][42][43][44]. I'm sure there is plenty more and the Russian disinformation campaign is probably worth at least a section. --Mindaur (talk) 14:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I think that could work. PenangLion (talk) 14:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mindaur and PenangLion:  Done Misinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis. Thanks for the refs. Interesting to learn about StopFake - a Ukrainian fact-checking group. Boud (talk) 01:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The invasion has started

It has been confirmed that Russian forces are entering DNR and LNR.--Karma1998 (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

That is not Ukraine. Also a source is needed besides "Putin orders troops into separatist-held parts of Ukraine" from CNN. They are like Bloomberg. 2A00:1370:8184:C98D:49C9:6700:846A:E7E4 (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

OF COURSE it is Ukraine - what is wrong with you? Stop posting garbage on the TP.50.111.36.47 (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Not an invasion since the republics allowed it. Wiki must not be a place for emotions or cyberwarfare for pro-western sentiments, If you want, a segment within the section can added going: "Ukraine and etc etc have called this an invasion". Nebakin (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Nor should it be a place for pro-Russian sentiments. 119.74.177.38 (talk) 02:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Yep, RT just confirmed it, as part of NATO-like agreement. 2A00:1370:8184:C98D:4989:51D8:CA15:54C5 (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

RT is a Russian gov't-controlled organ, and is not a Reliable Source. 50.111.36.47 (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

How would a Russian govt-controlled organ not be an unreliable source on Russian troop deployment especially when it admits it? Nebakin (talk) 06:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not consider RT a Reliable Source. That they might occassionally state a fact is not germaine.50.111.36.47 (talk) 06:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I shall repeat myself: How would a Russian govt-controlled organ not be an unreliable source on Russian troop deployment especially when it admits it? What's next? The MoD or Kremlin being unreliable sources because it is controlled by the Russian government? Nebakin (talk) 01:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I perfectly know it is excluded from WP:RSPS. I just have some obvious concerns over CNN. 109.252.169.138 (talk) 12:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

https://www.newsdaily.com.ng/us-moves-all-embassy-staff-out-of-ukraine-after-putin-orders-troops-into-rebel-held-territories/ 109.252.169.138 (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

5 Ukrainian soldiers allegedly killed

According to Russian sources, 5 Ukrainian soldiers were killed making them the first casualties of this ongoing crisis. A casualties section should be made. https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-claims-ukrainian-soldiers-killed-after-invading-territory-2022-2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.238.67 (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

This was mentioned above. And false flag was false: no, NATO level agreement was achieved today and thus the invasion happenes as per it. It is insane step of Putin. 2A00:1370:8184:C98D:4989:51D8:CA15:54C5 (talk) 00:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Could someone please ban this Russian troll? It's clear that it's only here to mud waters.--Karma1998 (talk) 12:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

^ Agree with Karma. 50.111.36.47 (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Putin's speech, and captions

Hello everyone, I am in the process of converting Putin's speech to webm to upload to Commons, but in case my connection goes out or my conversion fails, I wanted to share the link here first: http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67828 Proof it's cc-licensed: http://en.kremlin.ru/about/copyrights If a major historic speech like this is referenced, I believe it should be in the article and we should make an effort to provide captions in multiple languages for this speech.

Victor Grigas (talk) 01:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Victorgrigas Can you help select some quotes deemed, memorable or important by Putin? This is in reference to Talk:2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis#Suggestion_on_addition PenangLion (talk) 05:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Here it is:

Putin's speech

Rapid Trident military exercise

I recently created a draft for the Rapid Trident military exercise between Ukrainian, American, and other countries forces. Seems like it would be helpful to have as it has been going on for a number of years. Thriley (talk) 05:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

War has started?

A new page was created, stating that the war has started. I think it's better to keep calm and let stick to the sources, which still define the Russian operations as "invasion". P1221 (talk) 10:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I called it that because this will obviously be a war. But I feel strongly that there should be a seperate page for the 2022 invasion of Ukraine itself and the war in this stage, which is by all accounts sepearate from the one that happened in 2014 with the invasion of Crimea. Several sources also say that invasion/war has started. --Aubernas (talk) 10:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your point, but I think it is better to reach a broader agreement on creating a new page and on how to call it. As you can see few threads above, there is already a discussion on how and when to split this article. P1221 (talk) 10:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

It's obvious, but no actual battles have taken place. Save everything as a draft first. PenangLion (talk) 12:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Aubernas: That may well be your analysis of the situation, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, we are not in the business of making predictions or speculating about future events. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@P1221: Yes, that article should just be deleted (and it seems that we already have a general consensus on the action plan in a section above). Having said that, it is highly likely that what happen yesterday is just the beginning (nobody deploys 190k combat-ready troops just to recognize some territories). While some predict intense and very destructive war [45], there is also a chance of "crawling" invasion from the puppet territories, without a very clear starting point. --Mindaur (talk) 12:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I suppose our tipping point is when some worthy personage calls this "The [Whatever] War"...

Is 'deploy' the right word?

The word comes from the Guardian, BBC does not use it.Xx236 (talk) 11:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Need more detail about what you are talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.36.47 (talk) 13:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

So apparently it was all fake news: Putin ordered as part of NATO-like agreement, but it did not happen "yet". See (maybe they just revealed some already present people there): https://www.rbc.ru/politics/22/02/2022/6214d5689a7947ada23780c0 2A00:1370:8184:C98D:942F:AB87:B4D2:F402 (talk) 14:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Your English is so bad it is difficult to determine exactly what you are saying, but Wiki follows what the Reliable Sources state. Russian government-controlled organs are not qualified to be RS's. 50.111.36.47 (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone here speak Russian?

Is there any valuable info here about the Transnistrian stance on the crisis? [46]. If so, please add the info into the article or translate it so that I do so. Super Ψ Dro 16:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

No, this is not an RS, and this content should not be included. My very best wishes (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

sanctions

we need a section on sactions and other current reactions not stuff from january. --2602:306:BC74:6240:441F:FD97:AEDC:2539 (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

add about foreign support to russia

several countries like syria, cuba, nicaragua, venezuela, belarus and transnistria have supported russia in the crisis, so i think that this should be added. EpicWikiLad (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Illegal annexation of Crimea

That term shouldn't be used in wikivoice, especially as the actual linked article does not assert in wikivoice legality; pointing out instead the nuances of what is legal and illegal in international customary law. 142.157.234.234 (talk) 02:10, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

"Russo-"?

Has there been a discussion supporting the use of this term for this topic? Seems completely arbitrary. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment: the obvious alternative is "2021–2022 Russia–Ukraine crisis", if that is any better. The current title seems to have been inherited from Russo-Ukrainian War, which from some research appears to a Wikipedia-created neologism... I suspect that there will soon be a round of RM's involving one/both articles depending on how things go, so these matters can be sorted there. — Goszei (talk) 08:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

C - The term probably originates from the Russo-Georgian War and the Russo-Japanese War. Besides, it sounds better than Russia-Ukraine, for me at least. PenangLion (talk) 13:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Death toll and casualties?

Should we include the death tolls and casualties from the recent escalations as part of the casualties list in this article? PenangLion (talk) 13:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@PenangLion: I am not sure. I am a bit reluctant to create the article on invasion just yet (per our discussion in a section above). Russian troops entering Donbas is an open and material breach of the international law; Russia is no longer covert, but overt [47] belligerent in the War in Donbas. However, de facto, the situation on the ground has not yet changed substantially (i.e. no major offensives yet). The hostilities in Donbas continue [48], but it's difficult to determine whether they are different from hostilities before 22 February and whether casualties should remain under the War in Donbas article. Looking at WP:RSes, some still use "Ukraine crisis" e.g. Politico: [49]. Perhaps we should just wait a little bit, as situation is fragile and still developing. --Mindaur (talk) 14:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mindaur:I'm only referring to the infobox of the crisis, i.e. the 5 troops allegedly killed, 2 killed by shelling, etc. PenangLion (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

In principle yes, but wait a few more days. tw^sabin 21:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)