Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine

Belligerent

Wikipedia article on Non-belligerent states:

A non-belligerent state differs from a neutral one in that it may support certain belligerents in a war but is not directly involved in military operations... The term is often used to describe a country that does not take part militarily in a war.

In that sense only Ukraine (and not the arms suppliers) should be in the belligerent section.

Shubjt (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Not Russia?Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I was talking about all the arms suppliers listed after Ukraine.(edited)Shubjt (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree those shouldn't be listed. It's inaccurate and complete WP:OR to call those 'parties in the conflict' and 'belligerents'. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Although, reading the Template:Infobox military conflict guidance, it seems a lot of flexibility is left to local editors (however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) ... may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding ... Combatants should be listed in order of importance to the conflict, be it in terms of military contribution, political clout, or a recognized chain of command. If differing metrics can support alternative lists, then ordering is left to the editors of the particular article. -- providing military equipment (etc) may well be sufficient to list them as 'combatants' in that sense. I think it's subjective whether it improves reader understanding, but I also see unrelated reasons for why it would be a good idea to include them all, so (on rethinking) I think I might lean towards supporting inclusion at this time. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

There's precedent for listing arms suppliers, for example at 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war. I can see both sides of the argument here, although I personally think it quickly conveys helpful information. Jr8825 • Talk 02:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that article is the best example for good practice, having closed an RfC there before where the majority position was not policy compliant.

Personally I'm unsure and going a bit back and forth on this. It does seem the West's most substantial intervention is in punitive economic sanctions (though of debatable severity). The Ukrainian PM mentioned in one comment that some British anti-air weapons were used and were helpful, and that more equipment would be helpful, but I don't know to what extent that's politics or whether Western arms supplies are actually substantially helpful (my understanding is the West is not providing meaningful military assistance in this particular invasion, although in the wider crisis in the past few years it might've, and I'm not aware of any military supplies being sent to Ukraine since the start of the invasion). In which case it would not only be inaccurate but maybe even insulting to imply NATO is doing more than it is. Perhaps waiting for sources to come to a consensus is the best approach. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppose listing parties that are not participating in combat operations. The trend towards listing entities that are indirectly involved in military conflicts is understandable, but it leads to a mess of OR, UNDUE, and sometimes outright misleading information being included. Diplomatic and material support can be discussed in the article text. --RaiderAspect (talk) 03:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment:' Should we add Chechnya to the infobox? Such as

Russia

• Chechnya

Thus under Russia? Beshogur (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Not an independet state. It's just Russia vs Ukraine. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

NATO as a belligerent

I believe NATO should be removed from the infobox as supporting Ukraine, vocal support is not an act of military belligerency. Viewsridge (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Des Vallee: should be made aware of the present talk section and specifically the belligerent topic already discussed extensively here. Maxorazon (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed I am aware, however yes vocal support and action is support, and NATO has made it clear they support Ukraine. Stating otherwise and going against what was announced via NATO is Original Research. While can be argued that the support is inefficient, to classify as support. Such nearly all reliable sources state NATO is supporting Ukraine. If we establish a consensus that reliable sources state NATO is supporting Ukraine, and NATO themselves state so stating otherwise is just OR, not only OR but it sets an dangerous precedent of ignoring citations when felt so.

I do however understand the argument that military source is not currently being provided, however we don't classify military support as being the only thing to add to infoboxes. As an example the War in Iraq (2013–2017), another example being the Russo-Ukrainian War shows many countries that supported the campaign but did not aid militarily. If we define that aid support is important then that classifies as support. Des Vallee (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you after reflexion, that adding support: NATO is correct. Finding good sources is still pending IMO. Maxorazon (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

What support? What reliable sources? Your edit had three sources. Two said NATO was deploying to NATO states which are *adjacent* to Ukraine, and the third literally says NATO and British troops will not be used to assist Ukraine because it would create an existential threat.[1] ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The French government, a key NATO state, is officially supporting the Ukrainian regime for example. AFAIK weapon shipments are on their way from UK and France too. Maxorazon (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

details support and 1 Moreover the citations go into detail onto military aid being sent to Ukraine, the third is due to the announcement and other. I think a foot-note may be best while this is being discussed on the situation with Russia, perhaps linking to the reaction section. The info-box needs to make that clear as military support is not the only action towards support, and I concur with Maxorazon. Des Vallee (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Both those sources precede the invasion, one is from 2018(!). I accept that NATO have supported Ukraine in the Russo-Ukrainian War over the years, including the provision of arms and training. But this article is not about the war since 2014, or even the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis, it's about the invasion of Ukraine, a narrow scope concerning a military conflict. AFAIK no country has agreed to provide substantive military assistance to Ukraine. I accept humanitarian aid etc is being given, and maybe further weapons shipments (which countries have said they're open to, although I'm not aware of any shipments since the invasion began) but I think that needs to be mentioned in the article body, where it can be properly contextualised to avoid confusion. Though I'm back and forth on this, as I said in the other section, seeing some people, including editors, be confused by the NATO (etc.) additions in the infobox leads me to feel this addition is a problem without proper contextualisation. We know a lot of people just read the lead+infobox and nothing else. To them the suggested presentation could give–and indeed has given–the impression that NATO states are actually doing something substantive to help Ukraine militarily against the Russian aggression, when obviously we know they aren't, as the Ukranian PM[2] and ambassador[3] have said and as everyone acknowledges. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, the source is from 2018 such a source does however detail Military support to Ukraine, and the other is deom the recent. The statement that no country has agreed to send extensive military support is not correct. I do however agree with your statement that it may be best to take the complexities of the situaiton. However the situation has passed. According to this citation 1 NATO forces are already deploying troops.

"NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said Friday that U.S. President Joe Biden and his counterparts have agreed to send parts of the organization’s response force to help protect allies in the east following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Speaking after chairing a NATO summit in Brussels, Stoltenberg said the leaders decided to send parts of the NATO Response Force and elements of a quickly deployed spearhead unit. He did not say how many troops would be deployed, but confirmed that the move would involve land, sea and air power." Des Vallee (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

And are being deployed in counties not at war.Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The details are unknown but even if it did, it's still direct military support towards Ukraine, if we take an example of say the Congo Crisis, UN forces could only operate in neutral provinces or counties and only fire once fired on, the are still listed as a belligerent. Moreover the article proves the foundation of non-military support in infoboxes as countries like United States, Soviet Union are listed despite not sending in troops, and only providing material support, another example being the Soviet–Afghan War listing supporting nations. Des Vallee (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

France is providing defensive weapons to Ukraine. France ready to evacuate Zelenskyy. UK is sending weapons too. Of course you will find nothing binding directly NATO to Ukraine today. But if Russia declares war against UK or France, you know the drill, by art5 of NATO, all NATO states enter war. Maxorazon (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC) P.S. I propose to add to belligerents NATO support to Ukraine, and as discussed two sections below, mention the unrecognized status of most Russia's allied states - this would better reflect in my opinion the actual balance of power. Maxorazon (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• So, it should not be included as a belligerent based on the discussion above I think. My very best wishes (talk) 04:38, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

What kind of argument did you bring to support your opinion? Russia today has from January a detail of weapon shipments. Maxorazon (talk) 08:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

That was not a delivery of weapons by NATO as whole (an organization). That was supply of weapons by individual countries: USA, Poland, Canada, etc. NATO includes 30 countries. By including just "NATO" you falsely implicated countries that did not actually supply any weapons. If you believe these countries should be included as supporters in belligerent section, please start new thread and justify your position. My very best wishes (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@My very best wishes:This borders strongly on the disingenuous side. The Reuters reference, which was in the belligerent section of the infobox, was the head of NATO explicitly declaring the sending of weapons. Also, as you probably know, there is the article 5, which virtually makes every military action of a member state the action of the whole group. I firmly disapprove that the mention as it was was misleading to the reader. Maxorazon (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

P.S. why in fact should I bear the charge of the source as I already supplied it? It is your turn to find such reliable sources backing your position, reverting meanwhile. Maxorazon (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

According to the cited source [4], the delivery of weapons is NOT an action by by NATO as a whole (as an organization) and NOT an action by all members of the organization (there are ~ 30 members), as your edit (insertion of NATO in the infobox) implies. Yes, the individual countries did delivered weapons, as this source say. Yes, this source say "NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said on Friday the alliance was deploying parts of its combat-ready response force". But the combat-ready response force was deployed in countries that are not participants of the military conflict, as someone else already noted above. Please self-revert or you may be reported to WP:3RR or WP:AE. My very best wishes (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Quoting the first paragraph. "the alliance was deploying parts of its combat-ready response force and would continue to send weapons to Ukraine". I see literally the alliance subject of the verb send, with the object being weapons.

I am not trying to antagonize for the sake of it: my hope is to remain as objective as possible while conveying a real change of the attitude of Europeans. Meanwhile your accusation remains baseless, maybe other opinions could further advance the debate. Maxorazon (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

P.S. RaiderAspect has a nuanced view on why he is opposing it in the belligerent section. BlackholeWA supports in the breakaway state section. I repeat, that in my opinion, not mentioning anyone standing besides Ukraine is more dishonest to the reader than displaying NATO help in such contrived terms "indirect defensive military & ISR aid". Maxorazon (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

You always need to read and understand what the source actually say. It say: "Some of the 30 NATO allies announced the type of weapons that they would supply Ukraine, including air defenses, he said, without giving details.". This is all. Everything else (such as relocating their forces) was not in support of Ukraine, but to defer Russia from attacking NATO countries. My very best wishes (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

At the NATO pristine source, quoting "We will continue to provide political and practical support to Ukraine as it continues to defend itself and call on others to do the same." I suggest that you revert to displaying NATO as supporting belligerent. Which it is, not recognizing it is some denial of reality. Maxorazon (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, he tells that ""We will continue to provide political and practical support to Ukraine". But who are "we"? After reading the text, it is abundantly clear it is not NATO as an organization, but a few countries (all sources say about it in terms of support from specific countries). That info about supporting Ukraine is already included on the page, and rightly so. But saying this is "whole NATO" in the infobox is misleading. My very best wishes (talk) 23:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

You are forming original research here. Please refer to WP:OR, we are not as editors supposed to look for interpretations ourselves, the interpretation should be made in the sources. I have cited explicitely two sources backing my position, you have cited nothing and only pretended to be better able to read prose than me. I am calling for help from other editors and already for moderation for help, to revert to the previous state on this topic. Maxorazon (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Reflist overhaul welcome?

I am considering overhauling the references to split them into buckets corresponding to the article sections, with the help of the "group" attribute of the reflist template. Is there opposition? Maxorazon (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

That is not a form of organising references I have seen before, is it common on military related articles? As a concern of mine, though, are there references used in multiple sections; and, to which I think the answers are both yes: 1. could there be dup refs in future and 2. could the system be too hard to interpret for other editors to easily add new references in its format? Lots of ways to break up the references without needing to label everything. Kingsif (talk) 10:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

It is not widespread at all. I discovered this way of handling references on the French article of graph theory. I would need to test, you are right, handling cross-references this way could be tedious. And it definitely puts a higher cost on maintenance and addition of new references - the last point could be welcome? Maxorazon (talk) 13:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Maxorazon: I started using index style referencing, based on harv refs, for articles with lots of references. It is not very common, but I get compliments for it, particularly its navigability (real word?). There are other options, though, even a traditional bibliography style can be more accessible to readers. (I posture a lot on how to make the refs just as much part of the article and just as easy to use for readers!) Kingsif (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Would suggest not trying to optimise refs until the editing on this article calms down. It will just make the article harder to edit, for one, and most people will ref normally which means someone will have to keep coverting into the new format. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2022 (5)

In think it should be added into the article (maybe in new section "Censorship"?):

On 24 February 2022, Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media ordered media, carrying out the activity to inform the events of Russian military campaign in Ukraine, to use only Russian official public sources.

On 26 February 2022, Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media ordered media to remove reports describing Moscow's attack on Ukraine as an "assault, invasion, or declaration of war" or face being blocked and fined. Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media accused a number of independent media outlets including television channel Dozhd and the country's top independent newspaper Novaya Gazeta of spreading "unreliable socially significant untrue information" about the shelling of Ukrainian cities by the Russian army and civilian deaths.

Novaya Gazeta reports that Russian authorities order to remove from newspaper's website the video message calling against the war of Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, editor-in-chief Dmitry Muratov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K8M8S8 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: Most of this was already covered on the page. I moved it to a more relevant subheading. This is subject to changes other editors see fit. Pabsoluterince (talk) 02:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Casualties Section

Very good overall effort, especially the top map of invasion progress. But re Casualties Section: Very unclearly done, as with "per Russia" etc.. Should say According to who: Losses suffered by who, and so on... 188.65.190.65 (talk) 02:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Great idea. Wtoteqw (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Removing UK stats (for now)

The section may be more representative, if the numbers according to the UK are removed (around the time of writing this point) because it's almost two days old and being included makes it seem like a competing calculation, rather than the practically continuous updates from Ukraine and Russia. To be clear, I'm not saying it's necessarily inaccurate or irrelevant, just outdated. — Bacon Noodles (talk • contribs • uploads) 00:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Having thought about it, maybe if there aren't more new stats from the UK, within a few days, that's when it may be more useful to move to the article or remove: if Russia don't say, Ukraine say it's over 40, UK say 137, the notably higher count from the UK makes it a more significant comparison point. — Bacon Noodles (talk • contribs • uploads) 01:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Foreign aid to Russia

There should be a section on foreign aid being supplied to Russia. Do you agree? Wtoteqw (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Got any sources listing what this might b? Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

No, I’m just suggesting that idea. Maybe two countries that are supplying aid to Russia are Belarus and Moldova? Besides, if you want information, just Google “ who is on Russia's side 2022 invasion”. Wtoteqw (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Belarus is already listed and Moldova isn't going to dig its own grave anytime soon. Super Ψ Dro 16:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Or maybe not, Until some RS are brought forward discussing this is a pointless debate. We do not speculate on what might be happening. We can't and must not have an empty section just in case. So I am bowing out of this until some RS are posted.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Would this and this be good sources? Wtoteqw (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any aid coming from Belarus. It is Russia giving aid to Belarus. --Robertiki (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh. If you can’t find where they talk about them sending Russia aid, just use the article as a generic reference. Wtoteqw (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

This thread doesn't make sense. What specifically is it that you want people to add into the article? Because Belarus is already listed as a belligrant in the page's infobox. You're also not giving people a concrete source or a concrete part of a source but asking them to search or read them, when that'd be your job. Super Ψ Dro 17:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

To be more clear, what I want added to the article is a section about countries that are shipping arms to Russia to aid in the invasion. Wtoteqw (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Car crushed by "tank"

Neither a tank nor it was Russian, likely Ukranian 9k35 Strela-10 with inexperienced driver that lost control on road curve, probably due to low tractioin of steel tracks on asphalt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1713:EA78:ACC1:79AD:4E91:56D0:2F00 (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDgEJ6mcI6Q Makes absolutely no sense for Russia to spearhead with a close air defence vehicle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1713:EA78:ACC1:79AD:4E91:56D0:2F00 (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Assuming it was a spearhead unit.Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Even if it was Russian, that video clearly looks like an accident and not like a deliberate war crime to me.

Maybe it does, to me that looks like wp:or.Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, especially after it backed up off the car and began firing at civilian vehicles in the street! I think the driver had a 'happy accident' - however, what I think, or you think, is OR and not allowed in the article, but only how the RS's relate the incident. 50.111.36.47 (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Are there sources confirming that that tank was not Russian and that that was an accident?P1221 (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Are there sources confirming that that tank was not Ukranian and that that was a deliberate war crime?

Either base on real evidence or not publish it at all, at least wether is was Ukranian/Russian and keep the war crime allegation out of it, unless proven.

The sources linked in the article tell the tank is Russian. If you can provide a source saying that the tank was Ukrainian,we can revise the article as you are asking to do. (and please, sign your comments adding four tildes at the end!!!) P1221 (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Sources also say it's a tank, when it's clearly not, but a mobile air defense system. Also no painted "Z" of the Russian invasion force.

So some claims, copied by a couple of newspapers is more evidence than a video where you can see, what likely really happened???2001:1713:EA78:ACC1:79AD:4E91:56D0:2F00 (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, as per WP:RS, newspaper are considered more reliable than Youtube comments. I can agree only on the fact that the tank is in fact a Strela-10 P1221 (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Verfiability, Not Truth - and many Russian vehicles in this invasion have been confirmed to be unmarked. You'll need a Reliable Source backing your view.50.111.36.47 (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I 100% agree with you that the vehicle in question isn't a tank; I don't see any turret and what you've identified it as seems correct. Unfortunately, our own analyses of the videos isn't worth that much and we can't cite that in the article, as what matters is what reliable sources say. You'll likely need to provide better sources that accurately identify what the vehicle is for this information to be included. Consider directly emailing the news sources in question about their misidentification and ask them to print a correction, because this isn't something we can go out and fix on our own. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

More weird Strela stuff going on here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_WM7G_8BMA

Seems more like guy on joyride/rampage than actual war to me....2001:1713:EA78:ACC1:79AD:4E91:56D0:2F00 (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Firefight preceding the car accident: https://vidmax.com/video/211138-wild-video-shows-russian-soldiers-get-ambushed-in-a-parking-lot-in-kyiv-all-3-killed 2001:1713:EA78:ACC1:79AD:4E91:56D0:2F00 (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

There should be an acts of heroism section where this is placed. Editdone (talk) 07:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Russian forces remaining in Belarus

Has anyone seen any news on what percentage is still left there (or estimates made by the Belarus opposition)? While a great deal of them were placed there pre-invasion for this planned attack, I don't see Putin letting go of his large physical footprint in the country for later re-incorporation into his empire. Also, has there been confirmation of Belarus troops in Russian uniform in Ukraine? That info should absolutely be in the article.50.111.36.47 (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Only one third of the troops on Ukraine's border have been deployed. Here's a source [5]. There probably are still some left in Belarus. I saw there were movements in Brest in southwest Belarus but I can't provide a source for that. Super Ψ Dro 18:47, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

A moving target, quite literally, though there are already different sources claiming it's more like 50%. To be fair I think those were referring to the entire buildup, not just in Belarus. One should keep in mind at any rate that the numbers never only included (mobile) elements supposed to move into Ukraine at any stage. There are of course different sorts of (long range) missile and rocket forces, air force ground personnel, various support, logistics, reserve, etc. Not sure what's meant by a footprint regarding Russia and Belarus: Russian military has always had a presence in Belarus, more or less, and more or less officially. There are even Russian bases in the country (and some joint). -88.70.121.115 (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

War crimes article and related page move

Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Why is this a separate article already? Mellk (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

NATO support

Maxorazon As My very best wishes has stated only a few NATO countries have been providing arms or made a pledge to send arms, I think NATO as an alliances should be removed and replaced with the countries that are actually involved. Also further clarification is needed to state the degree of support, which is thus far only limited to providing weapons. Viewsridge (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The head of NATO has pledged to send arms. Please Viewsridge see the Reuters ref in the infobox. "Indirect defensive military aid" is sufficiently soft in my views. Maxorazon (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

NATO is composed of 30 different countries but only about 10 of them afaik has so far agreed to send weapons, clarification is needed here. Viewsridge (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Are you questioning the chain of command and the legitimacy of NATO head? This is a collective mutual defense, even if only one "marginal" state was sending weapons to Ukraine it would be binding. Maxorazon (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Be advised that the NATO leadership decides what is best sent for defense of Ukraine and what is best left for local defense in Europe - it is a matter of who can provide economically and effectively - it would make little sense for Luxembourg to empty its coffers, so to speak, for Ukraine when Germany, for example, can give so much more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.36.47 (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Map

I am concerned about the map. It shows a bunch of red arrows for Russian attacks, but nothing for Ukrainian resistance. Furthermore, Describing Kyiv as "contested" makes sense in a way, but sources say the city is under Ukrainian control. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Adoring nanny: The contested icon also shows cities under the threat of capture, Kiev is still seriously threatened sadly.

I can add the Ukrainian counter-attacks in yellow arrows however I'm not sure where they are taking place due to the lack of references on the matter. If you provide me with some info on that I can add it to the map. Viewsridge (talk) 19:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

According to numerous sources, there was an assault on Kyiv the night of Friday-Saturday, but it was repulsed. That could be a start. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainians are intentionally minimizing the amount of publication of their troop movements, so it might be really hard to tell. The Russians probably are too, but since they're on the attack it kind of becomes less easy to hide. Juxlos (talk) 08:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

invasion map update

suggesting an invasion map update any idea when it will be done? 84.22.60.254 (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

See Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum's reply here. Benjamin112 ☎ 04:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Map of UN security council resolution

Under the reaction section the map incorrectly shows the Republic of China (Taiwan) as being a part of the PRC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.11.122 (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the description of the map: Shouldn'd that read "voted in favour or co-sponsored/supported the resolution"? (https://www.axios.com/un-security-council-vote-condemn-russia-98ff868e-6ee4-412e-b643-36e30061adb1.html) The actual Security Council members are only the P5 plus the 10 elected for a two years period (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council#Members). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.76.67.44 (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Lukashenko: Belarusian troops are not participating in the operation in Ukraine

"Here I read: "At about 5 a.m., the state border of Ukraine in the area of Russia and Belarus was attacked by Russian troops supported by Belarus." The scoundrels are extreme! Our troops are not taking any part in this operation," BelTA.

Recall that Russian President Vladimir Putin said that he had decided to conduct a special military operation to protect people from bullying and genocide by the Kiev regime, demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine, bringing to justice those who committed numerous bloody crimes against civilians, including Russian citizens.

On Thursday morning, Ukraine's military facilities were subjected to massive strikes. The DPR reported fighting along the entire contact line. The Russian Defense Ministry stressed that the Russian Armed Forces do not strike at the cities of Ukraine, the Russian Defense Ministry said. Precision weapons only hit military targets. Later, the Russian Defense Ministry announced the suppression of Ukraine's air defense systems. 185.19.176.100 (talk) 19:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

We can report what he said, but we'll need objective reporting rather than the statements of a tin-horn, murdering, grasping dictator says for a definitive call.50.111.36.47 (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Chechnya

Chechnya is a part of Russia, why is it a part of the belligerents? If they have sent a force outside the Army, maybe the name of the group should be there? As it stands, it’s a bit confusing as to why it’s there but not Crimea, etcAngele201002 (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Not sure, I removed it because it is just silly to have it separate. If Chechnya was to be there, why don't we list all the federal subjects of Russia then? Mellk (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

BBC live update at 7:13 Chechen soldiers join Russian assault on Ukraine They act as if they are independent. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mellk: Because other subjects do not have separate militia like the Kadyrovtsy. They act separatily, of course under Russia's controll, but not the Russian military. Also I mentioned with a tag that Chechnya is a subject of Russia. Beshogur (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Those units can be mentioned, but I don't think that justifies Chechnya as being separate in the belligerents part. They serve under Russia. Putin would have approved their deployment. Mellk (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Mellk, Chechnya is just one of many republics within the Russian Federation just like Tartarstan, Buratya, and Dagestan, it's all Russia and falls under Russia. More than anything this seems like a PR stunt by Kadyrov, which isn't relevant for the belligerents section. The only real reason I would say it's notable at all is because Chechnya fought Russia twice for independence since the fall of the Soviet Union so there is a bit of sad irony in the fact that they're now helping Russia do the same to a foreign country. Alcibiades979 (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

We discussed it yesterday. Kadyrov's troops de facto are subordinated to Kadyrov personally but formally they aren't separate militia (see subsection "Legalization" of the article Kadyrovtsy), they are National Guard Forces Command units lead by Zolotov. I really don't see any reason to designate Chechnya as separate side of conflict. K8M8S8 (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

This is not about Chechnya. If they deployed National Guard Forces or paramilitaries (such as Kadyrovites) that needs to be included, even to infobox, but I did not see much about their operations in Ukraine so far, so probably not yet. My very best wishes (talk) 03:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Russian Major Leonid Petrovich Shchetkin captured

This [6] is only semi-reliable reference I could find of the issue, if anyone else can find reliable references, this could be added under Russian commander with the  (POW) tag. Viewsridge (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't add since it's not a notable commander. Beshogur (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Start Date wrong

The current information box has the starting date as February 24th 2022 but Russia declared the start of military operations on the 23rd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DB Explorer (talk • contribs) 22:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

That's 24 February local time. Daydreamers (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Please check news before posting

This news: A Russian tank from a military column was filmed crushing a civilian car in northern Kyiv, skidding across the road over it. The driver, an elderly man, survived and was helped out by locals.[238][239][240] is likely a fake news as Russian tanks are painted with a white letter (for example the "V"). If you see the video is likely the driver of an Ukranian armored vehicle that lost control. Please check news before posting and mind that in a war the first victim is the truth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.42.32.144 (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this incident was covered in detail and proven to be, at the very least, not a Russian Strela-10

It's not 'fake news' - many Russian vehicles entering the war have no markings, confirmed by many sources. As long as RS's support the incident, so must we. 50.111.36.47 (talk) 00:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Request for map of airspace sanctions

Can someone make a map of countries that have blocked flights from Russian airlines? Similar to the Financial Times's map on [7] (direct image URL, doesn't require subscription). Scale can be kept to Europe (i.e. countries close to the vicinity of Russia and any common flight trajectories). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Split over into Russia?

A section of the location says there is spillover into Russia due to the Ukrainian missile attack on a Russian base but that doesn't count as a spillover in my opinion because the two nations involved in a war will have possible attacks over. You wouldn't say an Ukrainian invasion of Russia to be a spillover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:9300:FC0:0:0:0:4B51 (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

February 27 Map Needs More Updates

Melitopol fell to Russian forces and currently, the map shows it under Ukrainian forces (Battle of Melitopol) & there needs to be an airstrike marker put in Russia for the Millerovo air base attack which was confirmed to have at least destroyed one plane (more not verified yet, but one was). Elijahandskip (talk) 01:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe Russian control of Melitopol has been independently confirmed yet. Jr8825 • Talk 03:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Marca Elijahandskip (talk) 03:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Personally I would call for restraint and stop trying to account for all troop movements at this point, it is unclear (imo) what the exact troop movements are and who controls what (especially at this point of the invasion). In a few days it will be perfectly possible to make detailed maps (about the 27th), but for now I think restraint is in order, especially when it comes to these maps. I will give you 2 reasons for this: 1. All content on Wiki should be based on facts and not estimates or rumours (sometimes even misinformation) 2. Wrong info could have consequences in real life, maybe people will think some areas are safe when they are not, and so on. Kind regards.Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum (talk) 03:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

More clarifications on casualties

Are vehicles destroyed including military personnel?Are soldiers total amount killed? Does that mean russia has lost more vehicles than personnel? 180.241.155.56 (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2022

I have been in constant contact with OSINT and i only want people to know confirmed and correct info i follow and regulary talk to reporters journalists and different telegram channels throught Ukraine i see that the information on here isn't always correct or updated so i would like to fix it 2600:1702:43E0:83E0:15B3:1CCD:5B58:7E47 (talk) 03:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Then you will need to have a Wikipedia account for 30 days and at least 500 edits. WWGB (talk) 03:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you. Aoi (青い) (talk) 03:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Referencing issues

There is one sentence under "Russian accusations" that isn't well supported. It says: Several international organizations, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine, and the Council of Europe, announced they were unable to find evidence supporting the Russian claims. However one ref is just to a list of reports [8] and none of them mention "genocide" except one Council of Europe report from 1 April 2014 [9] which mentions "genocide" once and that there are "no reports of limitations or perceived threats to the use of Russian language in Western parts of Ukraine". However this sentence in the article implies that all of these organizations actually investigated the claims of genocide and made an announcement addressing those claims specifically. Rather it seems like OR. Mellk (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

From my understanding, whoever wrote this meant that previous reports about the human rights situation in Ukraine show no genocide has taken place, therefore recent Russian claims are baseless, but this looks like OR. Mellk (talk) 09:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Archival period

This is a very active page, with many new sections each day. The time elapsed before archiving has bounced around between 6 hours and 3 days. Personally, I think 3 days is too long, as the page grows tremendously within that time, with 50 or more sections, making it difficult to track and read. Is there some kind of consensus on a reasonable time to archive? WWGB (talk) 03:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I think that 12-24 hours should be good, and editors can manually archive other completed discussions. 48 hours is definitely too long. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 03:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

UPDATE: Another random change, now back to 12 hours. WWGB (talk) 06:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@WWGB: It's me. 24 hours is definitely stale, since the discussion after 24h would be very outdated to the current situation. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Why did you add the hidden message "there is consensus that 12 hours is the most appropriate" when no such consensus exists? WWGB (talk) 06:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I want to open an RfC on NATO as a support belligerent. How can I link to existing sections, not knowing, in the span of a few hours, if the section will be archived or not? Some already are. Maxorazon (talk) 08:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Largest European ground war since WWII?

This article's second sentence says the invasion "is the largest conventional military attack on European soil since World War II" and properly cites a reliable source (ABC News). But is that correct? Roughly 180,000 Russian troops have been mustered at the Ukrainian border, not all of whom have yet entered the country. Compare this to the roughly 500,000 Warsaw Pact troops that invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968. I suggest we find a more definitive exploration of this alleged fact before we give it such prominence. PRRfan (talk) 03:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Was that a war proper though? Considering the cited casualties is just 12 military dead from the USSR, which is what the Russians probably suffered between your message and mine. Juxlos (talk) 04:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Per Reuters: "the biggest assault on a European state since World War Two" [10]. Reuters tends to be the gold-standard for factual reporting. Jr8825 • Talk 06:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Pipeline and desire for nuclear arms missing

I notice the article, as the heading suggests, is missing a mention of the cancellation of the Nordstream 2 pipeline by Germany on the 22nd of February, and Zelenskyy making the declaration of his wish to import nuclear arms into the country. Is there a reason for this obvious omission? --Lammmywhammy (talk) 03:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• The cancellation is the first paragraph in 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Economic sanctions. Do you have sources regarding the nuclear arms? BilledMammal (talk) 03:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

That's even worse, because it is out of order. How would the suspension of the pipeline on the 22nd of February be the response to an invasion that took place two days later, on the 24th of February? Unacceptable for an uncyclopedia that prides itself on only pulling facts from reliable sources. What reliable source would make such a grave error? Lammmywhammy (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Sources have described Russian forces entering the Donbas as the beginning of the Invasion. However, if you believe there is a more appropriate section, then please mention it and we can discuss. BilledMammal (talk) 04:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

NPOV issue: background should cover natural gas disputes

The background mostly covers political issues, totally dismissing economic/resource disputes such as the major Ukrainian War#Russia–Ukraine gas disputes, Russia–Ukraine gas disputes. This conflicts with WP:NPOV.CreateAccou4343nt555 (talk) 04:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Political allegiance

I've noticed that the Leftist/Social Justice faction has sided with Ukraine, while the Alt-right has sided with Russia. I haven't prepared any RS, although an initial search seems to confirm this. I'd just like to submit this as a possible theme that could be developed in the article, maybe under Reactions. Just a thought! Xcalibur (talk) 05:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Trimming?

At this rate of expansion, the article can become very long. Perhaps we should remove some irrelevant details, such as "a boy get shot" or "a residential building collapsed"? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The article is currently at 58 kB of readable prose size. The consensus is to take action at 85 to 100 kB, so we still have a bit longer to go. However, there's no harm in starting to re-factor text into summary style. Melmann 07:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2022 (2)

Put Germany in allies of Ukraine because they have supplied Ukraine with military gear.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/major-shift-germany-send-weapons-ukraine-83131834 Sussywussy (talk) 06:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Many countries have provided material assistance. Generally, allies are countries which are willing to engage militarily in the conflict, which is at this point, nobody. Melmann 07:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit request

Romania is mentioned twice, in two different parts of the "Refugees" section. (I believe Poland was as well a short while ago, but appears to have been fixed.) Whomever is editing this section might want to address this. - wolf 06:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

"casus belli" is misspelled "causus" too. i know it's edit locked, but i'm pretty sure this is a simple misspelling

Why displaying UK's numbers?

Why are we showing UK's casuality estimates just under the russian and ukrainian version? Who is UK to estimate? I'm not trying to be political but according to me the only data that is to be quoted should be of Russia , Ukraine and international bodies such as UN. That's it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanraj13 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I was going to ask exactly this question. Why is 'According to the United Kingdom' included in the infobox? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

"See also"s in the invasion section

Currently each day of the invasion subsections have the "See also" to related battles. Are they really necessary, since they're already in the body and campaignbox? They're also all basically the same - the Kyiv Offensive (2022) ones are in all of them. Juxlos (talk) 07:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Acts of Heroism

There are several acts of heroism that are notable and worthy of their own section. Editdone (talk) 07:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

13 guards killed by Russian Warship for defiantly telling them to “Go Fuck Yourselves” after being told to “Lay down your arms” Editdone (talk) 07:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

That has its own article. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 07:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I wrote the same, but also added: It is too small a detail to bear repeating on the overview article which is rapidly becoming burdened (approaching 10,000 words which is the typical marker of an article that probably needs splitting) with the ongoing developments. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit request

Can this death of an Iraki kurdish citizen be included within the civilian casualties? https://www.rudaw.net/english/world/25022022 Wikiman92783 (talk) 08:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Snake Island update

It should probably be included that the Snake Island guards were only assumed to be dead due to radio silence, there was no verification, and that the next day the Russian Defense ministry released photos of Ukrainian border guards held prisoner, stating that among them are the 13 guards from Snake Island. User7355608 (talk) 08:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Millerovo air base attack

Where is Millerovo air base attack on the map? --Мечников (talk) 08:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2022 (3)

In protest section add:

South Korea. DT07 (talk) 08:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

References

RfC - Should NATO be displayed in the infobox as a support belligerent providing indirect military aid?

I advocate for NATO to be displayed as support belligerent in the infobox as it was before last revert.

Overview

There has been edit warring from my side and others's, most notably My very best wishes. There is clearly a divergence of opinions. Among the different WP:RCD venues available, I chose the present Request for Comments modality. I am looking for the emergence of a consensus on this question.

There have been multiple talk sections and users, here, approaching the subject already. I will try to gather most prior views, intellectually neighboring sections, and list them below.

One root cause of the antagonism is that there is no clear WP rule defining, precisely, which parties should be mentioned as belligerents in an armed conflict. This has raised multiple questions already on the inclusion, or the degree of involvement of Belarus, People's Republics in eastern Ukraine, Chechnya.

About NATO specifically, the relevant talk sections are: NATO as belligerent, Belligerent, and NATO support.

Contributions

The richest contributions to the discussion are, as far as I know:

Belligerent

ProcrastinatingReader: "Although, reading the Template:Infobox military conflict guidance, it seems a lot of flexibility is left to local editors (however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) ... may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding ... Combatants should be listed in order of importance to the conflict, be it in terms of military contribution, political clout, or a recognized chain of command. If differing metrics can support alternative lists, then ordering is left to the editors of the particular article. -- providing military equipment (etc) may well be sufficient to list them as 'combatants' in that sense. I think it's subjective whether it improves reader understanding, but I also see unrelated reasons for why it would be a good idea to include them all, so (on rethinking) I think I might lean towards supporting inclusion at this time."

RaiderAspect "Oppose listing parties that are not participating in combat operations. The trend towards listing entities that are indirectly involved in military conflicts is understandable, but it leads to a mess of OR, UNDUE, and sometimes outright misleading information being included. Diplomatic and material support can be discussed in the article text."

Rogue_states_as_official_belligerents?

BlackholeWA: "Now that NATO is added under support with an explanation directly in brackets about military aid (as opposed to a tooltip), I will say that I am actually not opposed to this - although I imagine other Wikipedians will probably have stronger policy thoughts on the matter."

NATO as belligerent

Des Vallee: "Indeed I am aware, however yes vocal support and action is support, and NATO has made it clear they support Ukraine. Stating otherwise and going against what was announced via NATO is Original Research. While can be argued that the support is inefficient, to classify as support. Such nearly all reliable sources state NATO is supporting Ukraine. If we establish a consensus that reliable sources state NATO is supporting Ukraine, and NATO themselves state so stating otherwise is just OR, not only OR but it sets an dangerous precedent of ignoring citations when felt so.

I do however understand the argument that military source is not currently being provided, however we don't classify military support as being the only thing to add to infoboxes. As an example the War in Iraq (2013–2017), another example being the Russo-Ukrainian War shows many countries that supported the campaign but did not aid militarily. If we define that aid support is important then that classifies as support."

To clarify my position

There are two main links that I would like to reference: one directly from NATO head, and one from reuters.

Ukraine has been backed, somewhat informally in the past, by NATO member states delivering weapons, NATO itself has opened the lengthy process of adhesion to Ukraine. Within the last couple of days, a shift has started to appear, the Europeans have increasingly made it clear that they were indirectly supporting Ukraine (regime, military), culminating with the previously linked official statement from NATO head on Feb 25th: "We will continue to provide political and practical support to Ukraine".

The support from NATO is now clearer, it is dishonest to the reader in my opinion to still present Ukraine as a sole belligerent on its side, all the more when Russia has such a number of allied belligerents displayed. The latest reverts on the topic have been quite sheer contradiction in the WP dispute scale.

Please add any talk section, about this invasion article, that I would have omitted! You are welcome to add relevant links to prior WP art and jurisprudence, as I am not a veteran wikipedian. Maxorazon (talk) 09:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments

Oppose based on lack of credible sources. Per WP:NOR we're not interpreting or reading into the sources, we're aggregating what reliable sources actually report. Popoki35 (talk) 09:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Support original research is in my view standing your ground after having read the last official NATO declarations. Maxorazon (talk) 09:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2022 (4)

Please update the infobox, Ukraine said a Russian platoon surrendered. https://news.yahoo.com/ukrainian-ambassador-says-russian-platoon-201138508.html BlackShadowG (talk) 09:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

China's "neutrality"

The colour-coded map currently shows that China is neutral in this conflict. It may be too early to say for sure but this map will possibly need to be updated as events unfold. China's foreign ministry on 24/2 said Russia's presence in Ukraine is not an invasion, that the coordinated sanctions against Russia were "unilateral" and "illegal", and that the US were the "culprit" in the conflict, "heightening tensions, creating panic and even hyping up the possibility of warfare". https://www.ft.com/content/55d86391-2d05-4eb4-869c-83a7878b8942 To me, this doesn't sound like neutrality. 2001:8A0:5D19:2700:F5:1DDF:9E5A:9581 (talk) 09:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Why was Russian reservist number removed?

Right now it looks like Ukraine has an equal number of troops as Russia, which is not true because Russia has a huge number of reserves. The reserves used to be listed for both Russia and Ukraine, but now it shows only Ukraine's reserves. This seems like a misrepresentation of relative fighting strength. Kai robert (talk) 09:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Units, involved in war, in infobox

How's about to display the structure of troops, involved in the war, in infobox? For example:

Ukraine

• Armed Forces of Ukraine
  • Ukrainian Ground Forces
  • Ukrainian Navy
  • Ukrainian Air Force
  • Ukrainian Air Assault Forces
  • Ukrainian Special Operations Forces
  • Ukrainian Territorial Defense Forces
• State Border Guard Service of Ukraine
  • Ukrainian Sea Guard
• National Guard of Ukraine
• Security Service of Ukraine

Russia

• Russian Armed Forces
  • Russian Ground Forces
  • Russian Aerospace Forces
  • Russian Navy
  • Russian Airborne Forces
    • Russian Air Force
  • Russian Special Operations Forces
• National Guard of Russia
• Federal Security Service

Belarus

• State Border Committee of the Republic of Belarus

In the future, we can specify a troops composition and strength. K8M8S8 (talk) 10:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2022 (5)

F aisal (talk) 10:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainians claim 16 Russian Aircrafts were shot down not 14