Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine

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

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)

We can confirm that this is an Unmarked Strela-10 Armored Vehicle, but multiple sources conflict the vehicle’s nationality. Regarding the 2 videos we have here:

- https://vidmax.com/video/211138-wild-video-shows-russian-soldiers-get-ambushed-in-a-parking-lot-in-kyiv-all-3-killed - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDgEJ6mcI6Q

I believe we should consider this as disputed until we receive confirmation from either party. MateoFrayo (talk) 22:46, 27 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)

Now also a Ukraine victory in Kharkiv, with a mop-up operation underway as of https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2022/02/27/ukraine-Ukraine-Russia-invasion-Kharkiv-Kyiv/5961645968790/. I am further concerned that a map with a bunch of red arrows moving into a yellow background is not a WP:NPOV depiction of a situation in which Ukraine is holding in many areas and starting to win in some, such as the above source, and also Kyiv https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraines-defenders-hold-kyiv-battle-for-kharkiv-after-night-of-russian-attacks-11645957216. For this reason, I will remove the current map. I believe there should be a map with this article, but per the above concerns, the current one does not stand up to scrutiny. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Map shouldn't have been removed. Whether the map should be removed should not be based on your personal concerns, but should be based on the opinions of editors through a support/oppose vote. Matthewberns (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Adoring nanny: the map should be kept. You should raise your specific concerns either here or, preferably, over at the Commons talk page. Jr8825 • Talk 17:45, 27 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)

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)

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)

A Spanish sport newspaper for the latest updates in Ukraine – really? Jr8825 • Talk 17:48, 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)

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 [1] and none of them mention "genocide" except one Council of Europe report from 1 April 2014 [2] 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)

There are a lot of people doing manual archiving. There are some discussions of outstanding issues that haven't received enough participation but are ongoing issues nevertheless. I think 12h is too soon and I suppose 3d may be too long. Maybe 1-1.5 days (+ manual archiving as needed)? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

+1 for 1.5 days, the metric should be last date of comment in the section, and not total nb of sections IMO. Maxorazon (talk) 14:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

24 hours should be the bare minimum. While I generally support 3 days or so on other busy pages, that would be very impractical over here. This 11 hours old section already finds itself in the oldest quartile of this page. IMO, 1 to 1.5 days is the most reasonable option. + Manual archiving as and when necessary. ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 14:43, 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" [3]. Reuters tends to be the gold-standard for factual reporting. Jr8825 • Talk 06:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems, a bit sensational though especially when it is in the lead para and the invasion is ongoing. We should move it down from the lead para at least (even though such analysis are better served sometime after the fact I can see its relevance). Gotitbro (talk) 10:39, 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)

I think that this article should not aim to cover the entire elements of the conflict, there is the Russo-Ukrainian War article for that as you mentioned , and sub articles like a possible encompassing Elements of dispute for the Russian-Ukrainian war, or Russia–Ukraine_relations, Russia–Ukraine gas disputes could be factorized better between the invasion and the war ones. I agree that there is overlap, inequality of attention and many Russo-Ukrainian articles. Maxorazon (talk) 17:11, 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)

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.49.6.225 (talk) 10:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

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)

Agreed, I am unsure it needs to be there, but may have "others" and then have an aggregate of all third-party estimates.Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 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)

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)

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

Should NATO be displayed in the infobox as a support belligerent providing indirect military aid? Maxorazon (talk) 12:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Update 22:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC) After 12 hours, in retrospect, I don't think that I did a good job at all summarizing the stakes for this RfC. I mostly enriched my view while doing it. Feel free to close it - it received tremendous opposition. And reopen and new one under a new light. Best and peaceful regards, Maxime. Maxorazon (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

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.

Previous 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."

Further discussion

Clarifying my position (OP)

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

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)

P.S. I am a French taken in sandwich, openly, somewhat engaged, pro-Ukrainian, friend of the Russian people, anti-Putin, friend of the American people. I am against the entry of Ukraine in NATO. I am advocating for EU and Europe to correctly stand its ground between the USA and Russia. I strive for objectivity. Maxorazon (talk) 12:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Addressing the elephant in the room: risks of nuclear holocaust

This cannot stay out of the debate here eternally. I think that it is not acceptable to self-censure in front of the Russian aggressor, Putin having made almost explicit threats of such nuclear strikes. Maxorazon (talk) 12:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Risk is extremely minimal - this is just sabre-rattling. The Strategic Rocket Forces/Command in Russia is very professional and the marshals know what such a use of nuclear weapons would mean - Putin would be 'removed' in some fashion if he's deemed insane.50.111.36.47 (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Right to adversarial arguments

A little part of the intellectual equipment from the pro-Russian position is to be found for example with professor John Mearsheimer's talk, criticizing the current crisis as having been fomented by the US and the West, Russia being in its own right.

Survey

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) P.S. Is the official website of NATO not a reliable source for the position of NATO? Maxorazon (talk) 11:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppose Its tough, but we could have a support section, then I would change to Support, as they are not directly involved in the conflict, in any way.Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. Support does not mean "support" in the literal sense of "supporting" - else the Central African Republic and half a dozen other largely irrelevant states will need to go on the other side. It means the provision of some kind of relevant military assistance which, as far as I am aware, has not been done officially by NATO itself as an organisation (though some states have obviously done so with its blessing). Ultimately there is a common-sense issue to consider - will putting it in the infobox help the reader and represent the importance of the contribution accurately? —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The kind of phrasing "Support does not mean 'support' in the literal sense of 'supporting'" is a little clumsy, with regards to the WP general guideline of staying away from interpretations, don't you think?

I agree that common-sense should be addressed. Which is not the case currently in my opinion. Ukraine's resistance without the US Javelins, military training, and extensive intel during the build-up, could have been much different. And there are several billion dollars coming in support from US and Europe.

A recurring argument, from the Oppose side, is in NATO not being significantly active as an organization. I'd like to point once again that with the article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, if Russia was to attack any NATO member state as retaliation for its country-scale weapon shipments, a collective war declaration would be called upon. This is on top of the last declarations from Jens Stoltenberg, explicitly engaging the organization - not to send troops to Ukraine directly, but explicitly to support the country politically and materially.

I am for what it's worth currently DDOS-ing russian websites from France, and consider myself a belligerent to some extent: etymologically I am waging war, in cyberspace, in some sense. Belligerence is completely subject to interpretations, and currently the views expressed here come a lot from the adversary position. Maxorazon (talk) 11:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC) P.S. I stopped DDOS-ing, having reached a more balanced view on the topic. Maxorazon (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppose Not all NATO members have begun to provide or agreed to provide arms in the future. Countries which are, or will provide weapons should be added with the clarification made on their level of support, such as Arms Supplies: instead of Supported by:. Which should include Germany, France and others. Viewsridge (talk) 11:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose "Supported by" usually implies direct support of an explicitly military nature such as arms, advisors on the ground or access (to bases or to overfly). Apart from the direct belligerents, in this conflict there are perhaps three levels of support from the rest of the world to either side. Belarus appears to be directly supporting the Russians. Other countries are providing various supplies to the Ukraine. Most of the world is supporting Ukraine politically. Some are supporting Russia. A few are sitting on the fence. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is not an extensive list of "who's who in the zoo". That doesn't help anybody and we don't write the article in the infobox. I'm not saying that Belarus should be in the infobox but this appears to be the consensus. Does NATO (HQ - as that very specific entity) reach the same threshold? If the premise of the RfC is that it does, the case is unclear - it is WP:TLDNR (but I did and I'm not seeing it). I could be convinced but I am not convinced.

First signing your vote would be great , second if the infobox is not a "who's who in the zoo", then why are there lilliputian rogue states such as Luhansk, and no mention of a force covering hundreds of millions of human beings? Maxorazon (talk) 12:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Suggest procedural close This isn't listed as an RfC (per WP:RFC) and I would suggest not doing so because a) the above is not exactly a non-neutral summary (not due to lack of trying though, can see that the proposer tried to summarise the debate to date) -- editors should be able to make their own points; b) the situation is highly dynamic and RfCs, being a lengthy 30-day process, aren't really appropriate at this time compared to normal forms of WP:Dispute resolution because it is very likely the entire context backshadowing this RfC will change by the time the RfC period is up, hence making the RfC result invalid (by no longer being relevant). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I edited the RfC content to make it more compliant to the RfC requirements - any wikipedian is welcome to do so. I vocally express my disagreement here again: the current situation is not acceptable in my opinion. It is the choice of the Wikimedia foundation to cover hot topics, it it on the former and the wikipedian's responsibility to make timely resolutions on such editing conflicts. Maxorazon (talk) 12:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC) P.S. I am open to another mode of conflict resolution, provided there is one. Maxorazon (talk) 12:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The issue is the dynamic is changing. Before some NATO countries clearly said they would provide arms supplies I might've opposed anyone else in that part of the table. I'm reconsidering the issue more and more. I suspect if we wait a few days to a week the issue will be more clear, so I would propose we consider WP:NODEADLINE on this issue, personally, as it is not critical and we discuss the issue in the lead and body. The main consideration with the infobox is whether information provided is properly contextualised, and that's what makes me hesitant about this change, lest it be potentially misleading and there not be enough space to explain it properly. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, no deadline, this does not need urgent resolution - yet this is all very misleading to the reader in the current state, hiding NATO under the carpet is ignorant and dishonest at best. Maxorazon (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support procedural close per WP:RFCST, there should be a brief and neutral statement. Also, I agree with ProcrastinatingReader that an RfC is too slow a process given the speed at which events are changing. I suggest proceeding with a normal talk page discussion. Jr8825 • Talk 13:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

There have been at least 3 direct talk sections, and other indirect ones. I vote for ProcrastinatingReader's WP:NODEADLINE. Maxorazon (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I believe PR is citing NODEADLINE to say that an RfC on such a rapidly changing event is a unnecessary and possibly impractical. Regardless, I would oppose including NATO as a belligerent because of the risk that readers could interpret it as direct military involvement, per Pincrete's argument below. Jr8825 • Talk 18:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Only entities participating in combat operations should be included as belligerents. I understand the desire to include ever more information in the infobox, but it is one area where we should be ruthlessly prioritising. Too many conflict infoboxs end up overburdened with minor details, and it simply distracts from the essence of the situation. Ukrainian is at war. NATO is not. --RaiderAspect (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

NATO is one of the main protagonists in this invasion. Ultra-minor facts, such as the displayed allies of Russia, or the names of the commanders of the forces, or even ultra-detailed casualty numbers, are taking orders of magnitude more screen space in the infobox. Maxorazon (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Too many conflict infoboxs end up overburdened with minor details, and it simply distracts from the essence of the situation. agree very strongly here ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppose as per Belligerent...Ukraine stands alone fighting Russia, NATO has 'no plans' to deploy there.Moxy- 15:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppose This is more of a one on one conflict over land. Belarus shouldn't even be listed as support in my opinion.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Only entities participating in combat operations should be included as belligerents. Support in the form of spplying weaponry, aid, political support etc should be covered in the text. Doing anything else is opening the door on a mass of WP:OR. I concur that at this stage Belarus probably should not be included given its present level of direct involvement. Pincrete (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. Because NATO is a pact of 30 different sovereign states—each with a different sovereign power (except for UK and Canada), thus each with its own foreign policy. The secretary general of NATO doesn’t decide for sovereign states, because sovereign states recognize no superior. The bottom fact is that soldiers don’t fight for NATO, nor have they any allegiance to it, which in my case can only go to the Republic alone. Only sovereign states can ultimately mantain control of armies, and in fact only sovereign states can legitimately declare war on other sovereign states without breaking the law, being them bound by no law but their own. --Foghe (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose to including NATO as an organization. However, Belarus is an actual belligerent. Providing your territory to attack another country, including rocket attacks is an act of war. My very best wishes (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Unless boots (or missiles/planes/whatever) are coming out of an entity (while still flying the flag of that entity) into Ukraine, they aren't a belligerent. There are no "NATO forces" or larger NATO mission to Ukraine, therefore they aren't a belligerent. BSMRD (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Sources do not say that NATO, as an organization, is supporting Ukraine. We should list the countries that are supporting Ukraine, not go making our own generalizations. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:26, 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)

 Not done: Until mentioned in a more definite way (currently the claim is solely attributed to the ukrainian ambassador), and covered in a variety of reliable sources I wouldn't say it's met the threshold for verifiability. Pabsoluterince (talk) 11:44, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

.@Pabsoluterince: This infomation has been confirmed by the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine: «Російські окупанти, наткнувшись на тотальний спротив українських захисників, здаються в полон», – Валерій Залужний, I think it's reliable enough. BlackShadowG (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Already done -- Both of the sources named here are dated 24 Feb and refer to surrender of the 74th Motorized Rifle Brigade only. This information is already included and referenced in the article under the subheading "24 February". Additionally the infobox contains a Ukrainian claim of "200 captured" with a citation dated two days later than these sources. In light of these observations I'm marking this request as already complete. Thank you for the request. Please clarify your concern with more details if you need to re-open. --N8 19:26, 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)

China also said that it will try to promote peaceful negotiations in its own way. It seems that China hasn't officially take anyone's side yet, even though we know the two are allies. Of course though, we should pay attention to any developments. -- Sentimex (talk) 12:09, 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)

I assume because it represents only the number fighting.Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 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)

I oppose this as I think it's extraneous information that will make the infobox overly long and harder to edit, without contributing much helpful information for the reader. I think I recall a similar discussion, but about adding more specific military units, and it was pointed out that there's a high risk of WP:OR in determining which forces are involved while events are still taking place. Jr8825 • Talk 17:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I oppose too, I personally do not want the infobox of this article to get as crowded as the one of the Russo-Ukrainian war. Maxorazon (talk) 18:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

A suggestion could be to create a collapsible template under the Russo-Ukrainian war one? Maxorazon (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Causus belli

@Laurel Lodged: I restored because it seems you mistook what I wrote in my edit summary as an actual quote by Putin. Anyway, I think the casus belli is not so clear cut and needs to be discussed first. Thanks. Mellk (talk) 10:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, I think "to provide a casus belli" is OR. Mellk (talk) 10:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I took your feedback on board and amended the statement accordingly. Thank you @Mellk:. The opening paragraphs need context - the "why" of the war. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced these edits are an improvement. As far as I can see none of the sources talk about a casus belli, so I think this is still WP:OR. — Czello 10:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

We can pipelink it to "ostensible reason" if you're uncomfortable with Latin. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Czello, I also don't buy that the cause of war is Putin believing that he's doing a denazification of Ukraine, that's one of his stated reasons but to be fair the Germans listed the Gleiwitz incident as their causus belli for the invasion of Poland though no one takes that seriously. It's to keep Ukraine out of the EU's and NATO's orbits and to try and to reassert Moscow's authority over former Soviet lands. Alcibiades979 (talk) 11:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't buy it either. It's not supposed to be the truth. It's no more than the fig leaf, the pretext for the war. We all know the real reason. Nevertheless, we absolutely need to provide a context, a "why" in the opening paragraphs. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Eventually, we will have enough material to write about the equivalent incident in Mityakinskaya. Not today. Nevertheless, that should not prevent us from calling out a pretext as a pretext. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think "casus belli" should be used here either as it looks like OR. I think we can briefly mention the accusations like "aggression" of Ukrainian armed forces but there was a lot of bullshit that was coming out, we don't need to mention them all or say more than a few words. Troop build up, denies plans of invasion, criticizes NATO, and then such accusations are made. Those accusations should come after, not first. Mellk (talk) 11:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mellk: I think that we are in agreement as to the substance and the need to provide context. Can we agree on the label / pipelinking ?

I am completely fine with such casus belli mention, provided proper sourcing. Maxorazon (talk) 12:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I am content with how the current paragraph is at the moment, with maybe a sentence added somewhere in the middle about the baseless claims of genocide, or towards the end the mention of the "appeal" by separatists for military assistance. Mellk (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Infobox map not displaying

Can someone who understands the technical side of images more than me take a look at the infobox map, as it doesn't seem to be displaying properly. Also has been raised on the Commons page[4] — Czello 11:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

It was broken due to an edit war, repeatedly updating or reverting files in a short span of time will temporarily stop them from displaying, some users were attempting to fix it by reverting too I believe, the issue has been addressed and users notified. Viewsridge (talk) 11:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Adding an edit notice?

There are a lot of proposals on talk that tend to come without sources. I'm thinking it may be worth adding a brief WP:Edit notice that suggests people to provide sources if making edit requests. Wanted to put the idea up for thoughts first though. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Support it seems like half of the edit requests don't provide a source at all or provide an unreliable one, and an edit notice could help with that. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 13:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Support And maybe also "please stop asking for every casualty to be listed, they will be without you asking". Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Done a quick short one, hopefully the shorter it is the more people will read it, so IMO we should keep it 1-2 sentences max. Can see at Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Feedback appreciated. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Independent/visual confirmed analysis of equipment losses

https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html?m=1

Any chance we can include these numbers in the info box? Perathian (talk) 13:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Impeachment of President Putin

Russian web magazine "The Village" reports that Russian citizens signs the petition demanding impeachment of President Putin on his decision to invade Ukraine. At the moment, more than 130,000 people have signed this petition. Shall we add it to the article? K8M8S8 (talk) 13:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Would prefer more RS coverage. Petitions can easily be botted, so would like to ensure this is actually a legitimate petition gaining traction. Also seems like the petition is on Change.org and literally even I'm able to sign it (and I'm not in Russia), so if it's just 100,000 people in the West who have signed it then it's definitely not worth including. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Help needed

At Russo-Ukrainian War, which is receiving far less editorial attention than this page. Jr8825 • Talk 13:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, and there again hiding NATO's influence, not displaying it in belligerents is dishonest. Maxorazon (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

That's not what 'belligerent' means Maxo.50.111.36.47 (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Is it the same ? if so, merge the articles... --90.186.219.179 (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The invasion of Ukraine this week, which is present article, is the result of a crisis/war started several years ago, covered in the Russo-Ukrainian War article. Maxorazon (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

ok, but made me lazy when so much text and made me skip. like more tables and short explanations, thanks. --90.186.219.179 (talk) 15:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Page size

Now grown to 335,369 bytes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

We have had several discussions on this topic already. The byte size does not really matter, it's the prose size which determines if the article should be split. Right now it's at around 64k bytes -- articles don't usually need to be split until they are close to 100k. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 15:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Third time you've posted this. Third time I'll say that you're referring to raw size, not prose size, and there are no restrictions on raw size except that which causes technical issues. The prose size is well within guidelines at WP:SIZERULE. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I've added the section size tracker to the top of the page to help keep track of things. I think it does help to show that the sections on 24 February and protests outside Russia are likely to be too detailed. However, I agree that large-scale cutting isn't currently required. Jr8825 • Talk 17:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

And once again I will respond to you by pointing out that WP:LENGTH (of which SIZERULE is but a part) lists three criteria for determining whether a page is too long; while one is indeed "Readable prose size", "Wiki markup size" is another. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

What issues exist with articles that aren't long in readable prose but are long in wiki markup size? I can think only of page load time, potentially, but 335k bytes is literally 0.3MB, so it's very hard to say there's a practical issue here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Help Needed : Where says Russia Started the Nuclear Weapons On ?

Please, with a so long text could not found this theme. Regards. --90.186.219.179 (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello IP, see the bottom of  27th feb. Maxorazon (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah thanks, found all text too confusing, even this table Per Ukraine, Per Russia, Per UK ( what the hell has UK with war to do ?! ) per etc... anyway, check always with Aviation Security Site, what was gone, let's see if the An225 of Antonov is safe... dreamed that, because of crash, they were doing with rest the fuselage a second memorial airplane in china, above a barge or something... Regards. --90.186.219.179 (talk) 15:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Alleged American involvement

I think this well covered allegation+rejection should be covered at 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Foreign military support to Ukraine. Thoughts? Srijanx22 (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Unsure it is well covered (it's one source) and even if it was what do we say "The USA denied a claim by the Russians the US might be doing something"? Seems to me to be so widely speculative its not worth adding. Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Done. Meanwhile there is no support to simply mention NATO as a supportive belligerent on the above RfC ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (disclaimer I made it) Maxorazon (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

P.S. I changed my view a bit, I think it is important to balance the article with some views from Russia. Maxorazon (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit conflict

@Da Vinci Nanjing: Because of an edit conflict, a lot of additions were undone for... the sake of one sentence? Mellk (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Show countries supporting Ukraine with arms

We should add NATO countries that have sent arms to Ukraine under Belligerent section, similar to how Belarus is shown. 213.166.56.99 (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion about that on this talk page. Link here. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 16:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I think that's a different discussion. It is without debate that the NATO as a whole is not providing arms. Yet it is also without debate that a lot of individual NATO countries have been and are sending weapons to Ukraine. These countries should be listed individually under a "Arms support" section in the infobox IMO. The infobox currently does not match the overwhelming number of WP:RS. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

EU as a whole is going to send weapons and ammunition to Ukraine

Ursula von der Leyen has just told that the EU as a whole, for the first time in her history, is now going to send weapons and ammunition to a country that is under attack (i.e. Ukraine). (major Dutch media). The infobox should be updated. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

1) for major announcements, let's wait for a few WP:HQRS to repeat the same info, because I've seen several times where one source has clearly misread a statement and turned it into something it wasn't (not saying that's the case here, but as a general rule, we need to be careful not to peddle errors, esp given the visibility of this article). 2) discussion on infobox above, there's a dispute as to whether arms supplies should go into the infobox or should be contextualised in the body, and I think we can wait a few days than be going back-and-forth per breaking news stories. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Please contribute to the on-going RfC additionally/instead! Maxorazon (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Desinformation regarding Kazakhstan's reaction

The following information:

Following its intervention in protests against the government earlier in 2022, Moscow requested that Kazakhstan send troops to assist in the offensive, but Kazakhstan refused, reiterating that it does not recognize the Donetsk and Luhansk separatists.

Is false. Please remove this completely. Ministry of Defence of Kazakhstan commented to Stopfake.kz, among other things:

'The request to send Kazakh military personnel to Ukraine or any other country has not been received and is therefore not being considered'

Credibility note: Stopfake.kz is a counter disinformation agency backed by the Ministry of Information and Social Development of the Republic of Kazakhstan. It is used mainly to combat the spread of fakes, such as the one written in this article and published on NBC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fl7wless (talk • contribs) 17:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Why is there no official denial published on anything but fact-checkers? Surely this would have been sent to press agencies if it was an official statement? 18:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

References

 Not done: You want us to take the word of "Stopfake.kz", a source that appears to be written in Kazakh so few if any En Wiki editors can understand it, over the word of NBC News, a perennially reliable source, without anything else to corroborate your position? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

You will have to translate. It is written in Russian which can be easily translated to English on deepl or google. Wikipedia does not prohibit referencing links written in other languages. The source article in NBC does not have ANY references at all. What kind of reliable source is that? See official comment https://t.me/modgovkz/2938 --Fl7wless (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

That is not how sourcing works. NBC News is a reliable source and we will run with their coverage until/unless they correct it. We will not be using Google Translate on whatever potentially unreliable Russian language sourcing is presented. Do not change this to "unanswered" again, it's been answered by me and your previous attempt to add this which has been archived. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

You have an official statement from the Kazakh Ministry of Defence directly contradicting what NBC says and you're saying it is unreliable only because it is written in Russian language. Your actions spread disinformation among wikipedia users reading this article. I have no other comments--Fl7wless (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: No; there is no prohibition whatsoever on "Russian language sourcing", nor on sourcing in any other language. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, did I say there was? No, I said using Google Translate to translate foreign language text is not how to do it. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2022

Update infobox to include statistics mentioned in this analysis based on open source visual evidence. Perathian (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. There's no indication that this is a reliable, published source. Jr8825 • Talk 18:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Casualties

1 Algerian citizen died today in Kharkiv 105.99.14.177 (talk) 18:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done please provide a reliable source. Jr8825 • Talk 18:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I've added it in, but the only source that I can find is the one below. https://news-tunisia.tunisienumerique.com/ukraine-death-of-an-algerian-student-by-a-missile-attack/amp/ Sir Magnus has spoken! (So can you!) 23:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

2022 Russian economic crash

Hello everyone, there are many reports in the press about Russian ATMs being out of cash, long lines at banks, interest rates going up and so forth. I wonder if we need a new article called '2022 Russian economic crash' or 'crisis' or something like it? Victor Grigas (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2022 : Suggestion: Peace talks section

In the last 24 hours there have been developments regarding peace talks, from the Russian suggestion in Belarus (which was initially refused) to the acceptance of the peace talk proposal later in the day in the Belarusian border. News I read regarding this (in no particular order). I think this deserves its own section.
- https://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2022/02/27/7326404/ (google translate)
- https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-rejects-russian-offer-talks-belarus-2022-02-27/
- https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/ukraines-leader-country-ready-peace-talks-russia-belarus-83139629
- https://www.eunews24.com/world/ukraine-president-welcomes-peace-talks-proposals-in-video-message/
- https://www.ynetnews.com/article/h13f1xtxc (not sure whether this source is reliable)
- https://www.axios.com/ukraine-russian-invasion-talks-bedd8c3a-efc7-4549-92fe-b360e0655b5d.html
- https://nypost.com/2022/02/27/ukraine-and-russia-to-meet-for-peace-talks-without-preconditions-zelensky-says/
- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/27/russian-banks-excluded-from-swift-what-we-know-so-far (Mentions peace talk only one paragraph)
- https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-zelenskyy-russia-crisis-putin-peace-talks-b2024252.html
- https://www.itv.com/news/2022-02-27/ukraine-claims-control-of-kharkiv-and-confirms-talks-with-russia-will-go-ahead

Cheers-- FeliciaKrismanta (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jr8825 • Talk 19:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

can someone please replace "talks" (in 27th february section) with Negotiations between Ukraine and the Russian Federation (2022) - thanks ! Pierro78 (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested changes: Adding a "Peace Talks" section, I have linked many sources regarding the matter. Are they considered not reliable? --FeliciaKrismanta (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

If someone could add a Negotiations between Ukraine and the Russian Federation (2022) that would be great also ;) - Pierro78 (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Adding new data related to India and Indian and African students in Ukraine.

As per the latest news, there are more than 16,000 Indian people who are stuck in Ukraine are majorly students. And an evacuation of Indians has been started under operation Ganga. And Several Indian students fleeing Ukraine have alleged that they were harassed, beaten by the Ukrainian guards at the Poland border, and were not allowed to cross over and many Africans have been also stopped to cross the border. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/stopped-assaulted-at-ukraine-border-say-some-indian-students-2793334 Thecybergulf (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Reaction of Latin American countries

I think there should be a section under "Reactions" for the responses from Latin American countries up to this point. I believe this is relevant and of general interest. The region may be perceived as somewhat removed from the conflict but in my opinion should not be omitted completely. A sentence or two dedicated to known responses per country would likely suffice at this moment (I would do this myself but do not qualify).

As a brief overview, many countries have so far condemned the attack, others have refrained from direct condemnation while calling for diplomacy, while Cuba and Venezuela have blamed NATO and seem to align with Russia to an extent. Brazil has shown signs of internal conflict, with the Vice President condemning the attack then later being scolded for speaking out of turn by president Jair Bolsonaro.

Here is an article that can be used as a source which lists some countries & their responses in a similar way to what I think would be appropriate on this page - https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/latin-american-countries-call-russian-withdrawal-ukraine-rcna17685 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CulturaVore (talk • contribs) 18:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposal Add Arrested Russian Protestors to Casualty Section

I propose adding the Anti-War protestors in Russia who have been arrested to the casualty section. I realize that on the face of it this may seem kind of a strange request but I would point two factors, A: a large number of Russians have been arrested in Russia in protests spanning the country, OVD-info estimates 5,000 over the past four days alone. B: As for arrest being a "casualty" I would point out that we do consider prisoners to be casualties and they are currently listed. They are prisoners of war, however there are reports in the CNN and other sources of riot police savaging protestors and inflicting corporal punishment before they are arrested and become prisoners. I think that this would furthermore highlight that this conflict isn't so black and white as to be Russia vs. Ukraine but a more multi-faceted situation. Anyhow I wanted to see what other editors think, and if this could be something that you all think could improve the article. Alcibiades979 (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

They are not casualties.Slatersteven (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine's South: Serious Deficiency in Wiki Coverage

The Russian invasion has thus far made the most progress in taking over the southern part of Ukraine (on and near the Black Sea coast), while Russian forces are typically facing much heavier and more effective Ukrainian resistance in the rest of the Ukraine. Ukraine's economy, which relies heavily on access to the Black Sea, would be crippled indefinitely if Russia takes over Ukraine's entire Black Sea coastline before any potential ceasefire goes into effect. There's plenty of news coverage on the rapidly developing situation in Mariupol, Melitopol, Berdiansk, Kherson, and Mykolaiv, and Russia is currently increasing its focus on taking over Odessa to try to complete it's choke-hold on Ukraine's south. There's sufficient news coverage of the unfolding events in the south as well as their larger implications, but this wiki is still woefully limited in covering that aspect of the invasion. Unfortunately, I don't have time to update the article myself, but thoughts on this are welcome. HKT^Talk 18:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I do agree with you, I'd also add beyond that coverage about the situation in Donbas where there is also alot of heavy fighting, I think the issue however is that the vast majority of reporters are in Kyiv and after Kyiv in Kharkiv and there are few if any in places like Melitopol, Mariupol, and Kherson so we're just not getting the same RS coverage there that we are in the north. Alcibiades979 (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The article surely can be improved, with details on the respective strategies and their evolution. It is not evident to follow suit, since the tactics often change, and WP:HQRS are not legion yet. I have read this article from the institute for the study of war. Maxorazon (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Please remove the statement at the beginning: "It is the largest conventional warfare operation in Europe since World War II.[37]" This is obviously false seeing as this conflict is at this stage nowhere near the scale of the War in Yugoslavia. 41.17.205.65 (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

We have a source saying it is, do you have a source denying it?. Slatersteven (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this is a poor statement from abcnews. It might dwell with frailty on some sort of metrics, such as kilometer.tank, or an integral of border kilometers crossed by enemy forces, but this is clumsy at best, an offense at worst, notably regarding victim numbers. Maxorazon (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure the Wars in Yugoslavia would be considered "conventional warfare", nor would I call them an "operation", same with things like The Troubles in Ireland. Whereas the Russian invasion of Ukraine is conventional warfare and is a [targeted] operation. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Warm can not be compared with green, and red can not be compared with dry. We can compare only things under the same category. Yugoslav Wars can be compared with ethnic conflicts in post-Soviet area. Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022) can be compared with German invasion of Poland (1939). K8M8S8 (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

In the lead especially we might argue this leans toward an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that deserves a higher level of scrutiny. The two sources currently cited don't specifically attribute this claim or provide an analytical basis. It's treated more like WP:Common knowledge or a claim the authors themselves make without further context (reference WP:RSCONTEXT). In contrast, CNN writers of this article attribute a very similar statement to an apparently unnamed "senior US defense official" made while "outlining US observations". Those writers also note how the official elaborated: "We haven't seen a conventional move like this, nation-state to nation-state, since World War II, certainly nothing on this size and scope and scale". Given the dates of publication, it seems at least plausible that our two current references drew from the same event where this official spoke. It might be appropriate to contextualize that claim further, if not in changes to the prose, at least by updating the references to include one quoting a probable primary source. --N8 23:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Russian reserves

Who took down the russian reserves? They should be added back into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.166.137.1 (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Taiwanese Semiconductor Production

Does Taiwan really produce 92% of the global supply as stated under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Other_countries_and_international_organisations? That seems a bit much. 2A00:FB8:6593:A400:F84A:107E:9E93:95EE (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The claim in that wiki is overly broad. The cited Reuters article says Taiwan produces 92% of the most advanced semiconductor chips. However, Taiwan's total share of semiconductor production/revenue is more in the 50%-60% range. [5] HKT^Talk 19:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Removed the figure for now. Jr8825 • Talk 20:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Map differences

Hi, it seems that the map on this page is different from the maps on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021%E2%80%932022_Russo-Ukrainian_crisis and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.225.28.195 (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Azov Battalion putting lard on bullets

Should the info on Azov Battalion coating lard in bullets targeting Chechen muslims that was posted on the National Guard twitter account be added to the article? or wait until it is properly reported in the media.-UtoD 20:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Wait to see if it's picked up by a number of secondary WP:RS, which might indicate its notability. Jr8825 • Talk 20:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Foreign Students issue with leaving

Where would this go in the article? https://www.news24.com/news24/southafrica/news/watch-pushed-shoved-and-shot-at-south-africans-fleeing-ukraine-claim-poor-treatment-at-border-20220227 https://www.indiatimes.com/news/india/indians-students-fleeing-ukraine-brutally-beaten-by-forces-at-borders-563156.html8.48.249.239 (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@8.48.249.239 I have raised the same question, but I don't think any extended user will try to add this is information on this page, currently, I think Wikipedia is also being a place of propaganda-like stuff, surely if everything settles down. I will retry to add this information to this page. Thecybergulf (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

It is hard for a limited number of extended users to execute all requests. Especially if they are not in the form "please add 'this' as per this reliable source link". Becoming an extended user yourself on the other hand is very easy. Maxorazon (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

the losses of Russian manpower

here is a site with up-to-date information about the losses of Russian manpower: https://200rf.com/
Translate info:
At the moment, 4312 people have been killed. Of these, 1169 people cannot be identified. In captivity 768 people. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not clear this is a reliable source. Jr8825 • Talk 20:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Correct typo

Correct typo "materiel" with material Adino1234567 (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done "materiel" is not a typo, it is a separate word meaning "military materials and equipment". >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 21:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Is Ukrinform RS?

Ukrinform is state media of the Ukrainian government. I don't see it on WP:RSPS as either reliable or not. Is there any consensus on it? Personally think it's quite important to be sure as there are articles by them being used as sources in war articles. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• How is media from either side of this war a reliable source - other than what Ukraine claims, etc. Nfitz (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

That's my intended point. If we can't use RT how can we use the state media of any side of this conflict? 24.44.73.34 (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Belligerents

It could be necessary to include in "Belligerents" the prorussian regions of Transnistria and Chechenia. --Nilprat (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done we've had discussions on this topic before. Transnistria is an unrecognized state and there was no consensus to add it, and Chechnya is part of Russia and shouldn't be added as a separate belligerent. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 21:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Spanish aid

It is being reported that Spain is sending tons of supplies to the Ukraine. I'm not entirely sure where this might go in the article, but it may be worth noting. Source here. --Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 21:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Turkey as belligerent?

They are planning to block the straits from Russian warships passing through - a military engagement, yes? (https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/russia-ukraine-latest-news-2022-02-26/card/uDQCa9dMZsNGZLQsfWYg)

Minor second point: Turkish drones are being used, so they should be in arms suppliers at the very least no? (https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/russia-ukraine-war-turkey-drone-strike-kherson-first-ever)Angele201002 (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Per the agreement Article 19, which covers times of war where Turkey isn't belligerent, says Vessels of war belonging to belligerent Powers shall not, however, pass through the Straits. Turkey is relying on that Article. So Turkey's involvement is on the basis of it being non-belligerent. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Chechnya and President Kadyrow is Belligerents too since invasion ! (with 10.000 units ...)

No one should forget who was involved. Sanctions might be appropriate...

Chechnya and President Kadyrow is Belligerents too since invasion ! (with 10.000 units under Chechnya and Russia flag ...)

PLEASE ADD (I do not have the right to edit the articel)

I added it in the german articles... https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russischer_%C3%9Cberfall_auf_die_Ukraine_2022 https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krieg_in_der_Ukraine_seit_2014 --TwentyEighteen (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

But Chechnya is part of Russia, so already included? Dajasj (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

What is the account request to adding Chechnya? 10th? 20th? We discussed it many times, even on current talk page. Chechnya is a part of Russia, and Kadyrov's troops are National Guard of Russia units. K8M8S8 (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Add Poland as Arms suppliers

Hi

Poland is supporting Ukraine but it is not mentioned as Arms Supplier. Please correct it and add Poland 2A02:A314:8547:5100:3965:930A:7C31:FC55 (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Benjamin112 ☎ 23:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Sweden is belligerent

Sweden should be listed as an arms-supplier to Ukraine in the belligerent section of the article. Source is here and here.

Strange-attractor (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done there isn't a consensus to list the arms suppliers in the infobox of the article. Sweden is already included in the foreign military support section. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 23:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Change the color code in

{{legend|#FF6347|Countries that have blamed the invasion on NATO provocation}}

to #ff6600, which is the actual color used in the map file. Currently the color used is more redish than in the actual map files. SixTwoEight (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 22:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

add countries giving arms support to ukraine in the infobox

i don't know who keeps removing it, but there is a difference between adding *NATO* in the infobox as a arms supplier and adding *INDIVIDUAL countries* in the infobox as arms suppliers. EpicWikiLad (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Not really actually. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm Maxorazon (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't Poland be listed as arms supplier in the infobox?

There's plenty sources about it. For. ex https://www.rp.pl/biznes/art35754421-polska-bron-dla-ukrainy-pierwsze-transporty-dotarly-kolejne-w-drodze — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trybald (talk • contribs) 22:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I do not think any weapons suppliers (such as Turkey, Poland or whoever supplied weapons to Russia) should be included in the infobox. In the body of the page or summary - yes, sure. My very best wishes (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Background section needs to be expanded

The background section is in need of expansion to provide the broader context necessary to understand the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. In its current state, the background section provides a very narrow view of the events that led to the escalation of conflict and relies almost exclusively on Western sources which have consistently shown to be unreliable and pursuing a malignant agenda. Secondly, the role of the US in overthrowing the legally elected President of Ukraine Viktor Yanykovicz must be examined, as well as State Department's and CIA's links with extremist elements in Ukraine, including both political parties and militant groups. Thirdly, Ukraine's constant violations of human rights of Russian speakers in the country, the persecution of political opinions on the grounds of it being perceived as 'pro-Russian', and ultimately neutral reporting of the conflict in Donbas, Ukraine's unwillingness to abide by the Minsk Treaty it signed and the constant shelling of civilian infrastructure in Donetsk and Lugansk.

As it is now, the article goes to great lengths to place all the blame for the situation in Ukraine squarely on Russia while ignoring the involvement of Western powers, as well as consistent transgressions of Ukrainian authorities in Donbas and their repression of opposition.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Reollun (talk • contribs) 23:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

References

RfC: Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox?

Should the individual countries that are supplying arms be added to the infobox? - LouisAragon (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• Support as nom. There are dozens of WP:RS making world headlines for more than a day about the millions of dollars worth of (lethal) weaponry that are being sent to Ukraine. In fact, this very article includes numerous of these RS already. In addition, there are numerous articles on Wikipedia which likewise list arms suppliers in the infobox, such as 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War. I don't see why this should be an exception. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• Note: this RfC differs from the one above, in which the inclusion of NATO as a group was discussed. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)