This is an archive of past discussions about Russian invasion of Ukraine. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
There appears no support for this whatsoever from any editor and no prior Talk page discussion of any kind. Possibly consider starting Talk about this and seeing if even a single editor is in agreement. At present there appears to be no support for this request. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The early days of the war were a very complicated time that we could write about in much more detail. Currently, it's just compressed down to a list of events with no big picture and this article is still at 356k bytes. This is barely readable. The actual invasion had a distinct start (February 24th) and end (April 4th) date. In this time, the Russians had a distinct invasion plan that failed. I think we should not mix this up with the consolidation of forces and the war of attrition that has been taking place since; therefore, I propose splitting this article into 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and Russo-Ukrainian War, with the current article at Russo-Ukrainian War being moved to Russo-Ukrainian Conflict. Seriously, random sniping incidents in the Donbas and naval tensions were not a war in the same way as a meat grinder with static front lines is not an invasion. It should not take precident over or even be lumped in with an actual major land war with hundreds of thousands being killed. ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
This would be like if the article Iraq War was about the Gulf war, US funding of Kurdish seperatists, the no-fly zone, and the actual Iraq War with 90s international politics having a bigger section on the article than the actual war and the article US invasion of Iraq being about the entire 2003-2011 period. ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
A slow failed invasion with withdrawals is still an invasion, Russian troops are still in Ukraine. We have to reflect what reliable sources say and none of them are clearly saying "the invasion is over" which is what would be required to make this change. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose. The argument against a split is that there aren't any sources which treat April 4th as the end of the invasion, so it would be based on inaccurate synthesis. Russia's invasion remains an invasion, there's no arbitrary cut-off date. The argument against the page move proposal (Russo-Ukrainian War --> Russo-Ukrainian conflict) is that Russian attacked Ukraine in 2014 and a number of sources can be found which call the conflict since 2014 the "Russo-Ukrainian War". That said, I'm also not sure "Russo-Ukrainian War" is really the common name for the conflict since 2014, and I suspect most current media usages of the term are actually referring to the ongoing full-scale invasion. I think there's a case for such a move, and having "Russo-Ukrainian War" redirect to this invasion article, but that's discussion would belong on that article's talk page and would be highly controversial. Jr8825 • Talk23:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, but a "Russo-Ukrainian war" would imply a war between Russia and Ukraine in some form. See where I'm going at here? Also, an invasion is still an invasion. That part was the first phase, then came the Battle of Donbass, and now we have the counteroffensives. Dawsongfg (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose. Russia invaded Ukraine, failed to make the desired progress and was even repelled, but parts of Ukraine are still under Russian control. Furthermore, there are no sources talking about the initial invasion ending on April 4th, which is original research. So there's no reason to add an artificial split in the middle of the war. Chaotic Enby (talk) 23:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
I believe they're talking about the Kyiv offensive which was abandoned in early April. In other words, not the Russian main goal for the invasion at this time (except that ISW claimed that). Dawsongfg (talk) 00:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree we need to better organise the topic of the Russo-Ukrainian War, but I don't think the split needs to be made from this article, as the invasion is just the latest part of the war. I think Russo-Ukrainian War should be renamed to Russo-Ukrainian War (2014-2022), describing the three main stages starting from Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation (renamed to Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea), War in Donbas (2014–2022) (renamed to Russo-Ukrainian War in Donbas (2014–2022)), and this article (under the current title). This is how we structure it on the Ukrainian Wikipedia [1]. IntrepidContributor (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Interesting suggestion. Those renamings could be supported, instead of a split. There was some chronological detail in the Russo-Ukrainian War article that was lost in rapid edits and summarizing, in the need to write about the more massive 2022 invasion. This led to the elimination of some specific points (2014, 2015, 2016 events etc.) that at the time, seemed WP:NOTNEWS but actually were useful in chronology in a way that would pass WP:TENYEARS especially today and in a few years. For example this early 2021 revision of the Russo-Ukrainian War article. (which is actually more precise/direct about Russian proxies than I remember, as the most key reliable sources were saying.) The old state of the article sometimes highlights surprising parallels between the 2014 smaller Russian invasion and the 2022 Russian full scale invasion. Also to refute the original split idea, the severity of the Battle of Ilovaisk provides significance to the "Russo-Ukrainian War (2014-2022)" category. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 01:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Also I did not mean to say anything too obvious to people who are already experts on the topic, I just like to link everything. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose. I disagree with absolutely everything of the rationale. The war from 24 February to today is the same conflict, and no invasion ended on 4 April 2022. SuperΨDro16:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The initiative of the conflict is starting to switch towards Ukraine with counteroffensives for example on the Kherson-Mykolaiv and Izyum-Kupiansk fronts. With that being said the focus of the war is not anymore on the South-eastern offensive (Second phase of this article). Are these events significant enough to speak of a third phase in this war? I Know I'm Not Alone (talk) 10:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
I think it's fair to say this war has entered a third phase. Outside observers at the end of August were describing the conflict as having come to a stalemate: neither side seemed able to make much headway against the other. (Unless you consider the Russian brutal & costly grind thru the Donbass region "headway".) But Ukraine has surprised everyone by first her advance in the Kherson region, & now her lightning breakthrough north of Izium. The dynamic of the war has changed from Ukraine being on the defensive, trading territory for Russian losses, to Russia on the defensive, needing to respond & contain these two new threats. -- llywrch (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
The international press appears to be moving in the direction that the Ukrainian counteroffensive may have slowed down or stalled following Russian reallocation of troops and reconcentration of forces on the front lines to thwart Ukrainian progress in the counteroffensive. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:31, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
That may be the case in Kherson, but top-rate sources such as Reuters are today describing the counteroffensive around Kupiansk as "threatening to turn into a rout". [2] That said, as always we need to be cautious of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH in characterising this a new phase ourselves, we need to find sources which are saying this explicitly. Jr8825 • Talk13:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Alaexis, I have reverted your addition because the idea that Boris Johnson single-handedly prevented the war from ending is being pushed by Kremlin-aligned sources and does not accurately represent what at least one of the sources you cited says. I cannot access the Foreign Affairs article, but Ukrainska Pravda says the following:
"The Russian side…was actually ready for the Zelenskyy-Putin meeting. But two things happened, after which a member of the Ukrainian delegation, Mykhailo Podoliak, had to openly admit that it was "not the time" for the meeting of the presidents.
The first thing was the revelation of the atrocities, rapes, murders, massacres, looting, indiscriminate bombings and hundreds and thousands of other war crimes committed by Russian troops in the temporarily occupied Ukrainian territories… The second "obstacle" to agreements with the Russians arrived in Kyiv on 9 April."
The second reason, after the atrocities, was the visit of Boris Johnson, who assured Zelensky of the west's collective support. Then Zelensky called for two agreements, one with Russia and one with security guarantors, and then the peace deal fell through. The Ukrainska Pravda article is here for anyone to see who disagrees with my presentation.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
@Ermenrich: While I have been advocating for a "Peace efforts" section above, I agree and thank you for this revert. It might have been completely unintentional on Alaexis's part, but that prose really read extremely distorted from reliable reportings on these events. –LordPickleII (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
@Ermenrich excuse me but what you say is unreasonable. You talk like Johnson is by his own but he is not, he was the British prime minister meaning that he used to represent the British government! So he didn't "single-handedly" interfere in the peace talks as you say.
You said that the article said: "The Russian side…was actually ready for the Zelenskyy-Putin meeting [...]" but I'd like to add that it ALSO said "Putin is a war criminal, he should be pressured, not negotiated with." And the second is that "even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they are not." You shouldn't pick on part and leave the other.
What you've written misses the point. It does not change the fact that he is listed in the article as the second reason for the collapse of peace talks. The first reason was the Russian atrocities. Alaexis's addition did not mention them and was framed as though the West prevented peace (whether intentionally or not).--Ermenrich (talk) 00:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
I'll quote the relevant part of the Foreign Affairs article here for everyone's convenience
“
According to multiple former senior U.S. officials we spoke with, in April 2022, Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement: Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries.
@Alaexis and Super ninja2: Please note that there has been an unresolved discussion above about whether to include a "Peace efforts" section at all. I think the discussion of a "how should it look?" should be postponed until we have clarity about that.
@Jirka.h23, Slatersteven, ErnestKrause, Basedosaurus, and IntrepidContributor: I believe this is actually an issue in favour of having a Peace section here that is actively maintained through consensus, rather than re-added periodically with potentially pointed and undue statements. Is anyone of you in favour of keeping the current section? Because I believe the old one was far superior. –LordPickleII (talk) 09:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
The general approach in the international press has been that there have been three phases in the Russo-Ukraine War since the annexation of Crimea. The first was the process of the annexation of Crimea itself, which was followed by an Interim Period of conflict between Russia and Ukraine mostly in the Donbas region, which was followed by the two phases of the current 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Discussion here on the Talk page should be consistent with the general approach taken in the international press about the Russo-Ukraine War as a whole. ErnestKrause (talk) 12:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
It's WP:BLUDGEON to keep reiterating your point. As Alaexis commented in the above discussion [3], there is no disagreement about the general approach, and it does not refute the argument to include a summary of the peace efforts. IntrepidContributor (talk) 06:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
@Super ninja2: I kinda assumed that ^^ But that probably means you also agree we should have "Peace efforts" section at all, instead of none? Because the other discussion above couldn't decide on that question. –LordPickleII (talk) 13:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Folks, be so kind and do not revert back and forth until a consensus has been found. Try and use all the options listed under Wikipedia:Dispute resolution...but edit warring will only lead to warnings, blocks, protectons etc...for these consequences it really doesn't matter who is right. Consider this a warning to all taking part in the back and forth. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Ermenrich and Rosguill, you both took part in the edit war with Jirka.h23, who unlike you, participated in the #Peace efforts discussion above. According to WP:BRD, you should have participated in the above discussion and addressed the question of whether the section should be included in the page, before reverting two good-faith attemps to write it. There are at least five editors here in favour of including the section, and in a separate discussion about calling an RfC, Giraffedata and S Marshall advised instead to close the above discussion. I didn't see any good reasons not to include a summary of the sub-article in this article, but I have requested a close for an administrator to formally determine that. IntrepidContributor (talk) 06:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
My edit was an admin intervention to restore the stable status quo of an article undergoing edit warring. If Jirka.h23 hadn't been blocked by Bbb23 in the same minute when I intervened, I would have followed up by either protecting the page or blocking them (I hadn't made up my mind yet at the time as to which intervention would be more appropriate), but that action was made moot. I have no opinion about the underlying dispute beyond my estimation that the edit I reverted to is the pre-existing stable status quo signed, Rosguilltalk14:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
WP:SILENCE is not necessarily consensus. I restored the status quo ante while the dispute was ongoing. I don't necessarily have any opinion on whether a peace section should be added (besides that it should not imply that the West/Boris Johnson forced Ukraine to keep fighting, see below).--Ermenrich (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
I spent a lot of time in writing the section and this is how it looks like. I'm keen to hear others' feedback/thoughts. Do you have any suggestions to improve it? I personally think that it does a very good job of accurately and succinctly summarising the sources cited.
“
Peace talks led by Turkey were held between February and July 2022. As of July 2022, peace talks were frozen indefinitely after the failure of both parties to reach a settlement. On April 9, United Kingdom's then-president, Boris Johnson, visited Kiev during the second phase of the peace talks without informing the Ukrainians in advance. Russians claimed that the British prime minister imposed pressure on Kiev to keep fighting. On 5 MAY 2022, Pravda, a Ukrainian newspaper, published an article that it claims to be cited by sources close to Zelensky saying that the British prime minister brought two simple messages. The first is: "Putin is a war criminal, he should be pressured, not negotiated with." And the second is that "even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they are not."[1] Fiona Hill, a veteran US diplomat who served as the US National Security Council’s senior director for Europe and Russia in the Donald Trump administration, published an article on the Foreign Affairs saying that Russia and Ukraine could have reached a peace agreement in April and that the "peace talks were apparently conducted by the Russian side in good faith."[2][3] Experts, such as John Mearsheimer, think that the collective west's goal in the Russo-Ukrainian war is "the conflict will settle into a prolonged stalemate, and eventually a weakened Russia will accept a peace agreement that favors the United States and its NATO allies, as well as Ukraine."[4]
The three articles you cite are all from the small minority of commentators of believe the invasion was the fault of the West. Using that text would violate the NPOV policy's requirement that viewpoints be represented in proportion to their frequency in Reliable Sources. I'd scrap it entirely and start with a clean slate. --RaiderAspect (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
But don't you think that the whole article didn't mention or represent the opinion of those who think this war is the west's fault? This article needs to represent more POVs and I'm working to make it meet this policy's adhered neutrality by adding different POVs. In my opinion, the article without this addition violates NPOV. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 09:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
I'd suggest a few minor changes
“
Peace talks led by Turkey were held between 28 February and July 2022. As of July 2022, peace talks were frozen indefinitely after the failure of both parties to reach a settlement. On April 9, United Kingdom's then-president, Boris Johnson, visited Kiev during the second phase of the peace talks without informing the Ukrainians in advance. Russians claimed that the British prime minister imposed pressure on Kiev to keep fighting. On 5 May 2022, Ukrainska Pravda, a Ukrainian newspaper, published an article that it claims to be cited by sources close to Zelensky saying that the British prime minister brought two simple messages. The first is: "Putin is a war criminal, he should be pressured, not negotiated with." And the second is that "even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they are not."[5] Fiona Hill, a veteran US diplomat who served as the US National Security Council’s senior director for Europe and Russia in the Donald Trump administration, published an article on the Foreign Affairs saying that Russia and Ukraine could have reached a peace agreement in April, according to which the Russian forces would withdraw to the pre-invasion line and Ukraine would commit not to seek to join NATO, instead receiving security guarantees from a number of countries. Hill wrote that the "peace talks were apparently conducted by the Russian side in good faith."[6] Experts, such as John Mearsheimer, think that the collective west's goal in the Russo-Ukrainian war is "the conflict will settle into a prolonged stalemate, and eventually a weakened Russia will accept a peace agreement that favors the United States and its NATO allies, as well as Ukraine."[7]
”
The sentence I struck through ("Russians claimed...") is not needed. We have Ukrainian and Western sources saying the same thing citing sources close to Zelensky. I've also added the terms of the putative agreement - it's clearly important. Alaexis¿question?14:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Don't want to bloat the RfC discussion, but just a head's up @Ermenrich that as extended confirmed, you should be able to access Foreign Affairs via the Wikimedia Library (one of the things the Foundation has managed to sensibly spend money on): https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/
The article by Hill is completely misrepresented, as "peace talks were apparently conducted by the Russian side in good faith." is simply not in the source.
On the other hand, the currently proposed version above correctly cites the article by Mearsheimer, which is rather a poor article. He doesn't acively distort facts, but only gives some select ones: "Contrary to the conventional wisdom in the West, Moscow did not invade Ukraine to conquer it and make it part of a Greater Russia. It was principally concerned with preventing Ukraine from becoming a Western bulwark on the Russian border. Putin and his advisers were especially concerned about Ukraine eventually joining NATO." This is ofc not wrong for the pre-invasion issue, but cherry-picking, since we actually know a bit more.
Hill, much better, writes: "Narratives about NATO have also played a special role in Putin’s version of history. Putin argues that NATO is a tool of U.S. imperialism and a means for the United States to continue its supposed Cold War occupation and domination of Europe. He claims that NATO compelled eastern European member countries to join the organization and accuses it of unilaterally expanding into Russia’s sphere of influence." but then also "But Putin also plays up Russia’s imperial role. At a June 9, 2022, Moscow conference, Putin told young Russian entrepreneurs that Ukraine is a "colony," not a sovereign country. He likened himself to Peter the Great, who waged "the Great Northern War" for 21 years against Sweden—"returning and reinforcing" control over land that was part of Russia. This explanation also echoes what Putin told U.S. President George Bush at the April 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest: "Ukraine is not a real country.""
I think Hill does a much better job at distinguishing "true and false" from "statements and opinions", and we should much rather follow her, an expert under the Trump administration, than a distinguished professor. Huh, crazy times. –LordPickleII (talk) 14:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Update: Upon closer inspection, the article by Mearsheimer is not so bad after all, just more difficult to read. He blames both sides for escalating, which is probably not untrue. But that also means the article can not be used to support a "Russia is innocent" narrative, and was thus distorted in the section suggestion above as well. I suggest people read through them themselves, as I can only discuss them so much. And ofc there are many more articles around, these are just a few. –LordPickleII (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
You're right about the sentence "peace talks were apparently conducted by the Russian side in good faith." Super ninja2, maybe it comes from somewhere else (I'm asking you as your proposed text includes this sentence)? Re the Mearsheimer's opinion, we might want to include it along with other opinions on the peace negotiations to maintain NPOV. Alaexis¿question?17:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
@LordPeterII " the article by Mearsheimer is not so bad after all"
I think that Wikipedia is supposed to summarize the content of RS with attribution (which what I did), not editors' opinions regarding whether the content is good or bad.
@Super ninja2: I didn't accuse you of breaking rules, I only noted that your proposal gives WP:UNDUE weight. It can be difficult to judge that; and I know you probably meant well. Also, the above were simply my personal musings about this specific article (which, again, I don't think is poorly written as I initially thought). The issue is not that your proposal is citing unreliable sources, it's that we need to report primarily what the majority of reliable sources says, which is not that. However, @Alaexis you are right that we could cite the Mearsheimer article – but I would suggest in the main peace negotiations article, not in a very short summary. Because that would give him and his minority opinion WP:UNDUE weight. –LordPeterII (talk) 19:37, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
@Super ninja2: I think you still get me wrong. I didn't mean that Foreign affairs is unreliable. We don't cite unreliable sources at all, except in extraordinary circumstances. But even a reliable source can sometimes have an article that has an unusual view, which does not align with that of most others. This can affect every newspaper, every publication: If they say something that almost noone else says, we must be careful about including it. Please read WP:UNDUE and below, it gives a good explanation! This is also explained in the section WP:BALANCING: An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news. We must first see what the majority says (basically, something like irl consensus), and we can present other, different opinions, too – but not as the first thing, as the most important point (because they are not). As for The whole Eastern World is realist, I don't get what you mean by that? But I read a lot of Al-Jazeera because it gives a fresh view, and they are very neutral mostly, only reporting facts and statements, and not saying they agree anyone is responsible: https://www.aljazeera.com/tag/ukraine-russia-crisis/ –LordPeterII (talk) 20:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
The WP:NPOV policy requires that, where differing points of view exist, that material is presented as a point of view rather than fact.
The world being politically divided only between East (realism) and West(liberalism), I don't the other pov is extraordinary nor minority, especially when taking into account the Chinese population. Western people considering the other side of the world's pov as uncommon and extraordinary, imo, is due to their lack of access to any other media. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 11:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
@Super ninja2: Okay... I understand where you may be getting at, but that is a different discussion entirely. Whether or not the world is divided into two halfs is a difficult discussion at best, and I would personally rather believe we now have multipolarity (US, Russia, China, India, Iran, ...). Basing your argument about what is NPOV on the relative size of populations is something I guarantee will not work on Wikipedia. This is not how NPOV is defined. But I don't want to pick a fight with you about this: It's good to have a broad set of editors, and I've lately seen a lot of editors from the Middle East (Near East in my language ^^) join and be productive on Wikipedia. Can't hurt to have people who think differently than yourself, to remind you there are other POVs around. But I don't think you will be able to completely change the interpretation of NPOV or similar guidelines, as they have for too long be the basis of Wikipedia. China has already decided they want their own version of a state-sponsored alternative, and blocked Wikipedia. I don't think that is a good way of handling things, and I don't believe "the East" and "the West" should desire to become "natural enemies", and remain split. And as for access to other media: I have just pointed out that I read (& watch) Al-Jazeera (arguably only the English edition yet, as my Arabic skills are still meager), and I also watch Chinese and Japanese news (in English) sometimes, for fun. We actually have access to them in "the West"; although it's true, most people don't make use of that. But yeah, now I have derailed after all, and I guess you should be allowed to reply :) Just know that I will not continue this discussion for much longer, as I would rather go back to other things. –LordPeterII (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I just want to confirm that I didn't want nor I am planning to change Wikipedia's rules. You got me wrong. I was trying to prove that John Mearsheimer realism isn't a minority as you previously stated. Thank you for this discussion. It was nice to hear your pov. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 18:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm fine with mentioning Mearsheimer only in the peace negotiations article. Here I would stick to the facts and keep interpretations to a minimum. Alaexis¿question?19:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be a specific article appropriate for an attack - Kryvyi Rih doesn't seem to be involved directly in either of the ongoing offensives. Someone might want to create a singular article for the attack, then. It’s definitely covered. [5], [6]. Juxlos (talk) 05:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't have the expertise or knowledge to edit the article, but I did notice the infobox figure for the number of troops (particularly for the Ukrainian side) are from before the invasion and does not reflect current and past mobilization. I've seen numbers as high as 700,000. I wouldn't know where to begin on adding updated figures, but I feel I should bring it to light. Ohmsteader (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The issue of counting troops has been discussed several times in the history archive of this page. There are the comparison numbers of conscription in Ukraine compared to the actual number of boots on the ground in Ukraine organized into divisions and regiments. Your reliable sources will usually inform you as to which statistics they are estimated for 'troop' demographics. ErnestKrause (talk) 09:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
September 2022: Large number of major changes to structural elements of article including major revision of TOC without discussion
Bold reverts regarding large number of changes being made by User:Jr without Talk page discussion even though many editors are involved in the editing of this article. Talk page discussion is normally required for large scale changes to the article being edited by a large number of editors. One major issue is that Jr wishes to fully drop the distinction of Phase One and Phase Two of the invasion without prior discussion. Phase one and phase two of the invasion are pervasive to the article and should not be changed without discussion first. Phase one and phase two of the invasion is also the preferred distinction for most of the international press reporting on the Invasion. Jr appears to wish to eliminate this distinction for his own 'vision' for what the article should look like. Should phase one and phase distinction be dropped from the article or retained, since Jr appears to wish to drop them entirely from the TOC of the article which has been in place since April 8th 2022. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
@Jr8825 and ErnestKrause: Let's remember to assume good faith: Bold changes don't imply an editor is trying to impose their "own vision" on the article. But I agree, we should better discuss major changes, so let's do it here.
Thanks for creating this thread. I recognise the changes I made to the structure are major. They were made in the spirit of bold, revert, discuss and inspired by the comments about the need for change made in this above thread by editors I Know I'm Not Alone and llywrch. I've no issue with the changes being reverted if others don't see them as an improvement (in fact I'd be surprised if these changes were simply kept). I'm not particularly attached to the new structure, rather I'm hope it offers a launching pad for more discussion. I do think the new structure offers better chronological flow overall and puts some topics in more logical order, but I'm keen to see others' ideas and highly doubt my bold changes are the best possible structure. Jr8825 • Talk22:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
@ErnestKrause regarding the large number of edits, most of these were overdue copy-editing. Most of this article is very rough around the edges as it's being written as events occur. On the whole, I don't think expect much of this copy-editing is controversial. I think wholescale reverts of this major copy-editing isn't presumptive of my good faith, and rather unproductive. It'd be far more preferable if you could simply restore the structure you like. Jr8825 • Talk22:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Currently I cannot undo the last edit in the large sequence which you have added into the article today without Talk page discussion. As a sign of good faith may I ask you to revert this edit which you made in order for good faith discussion to continue on this Talk page here: "Curprev 21:01, 10 September 2022 Jr8825 talk contribs 358,306 bytes −3,600 →Invasion and resistance: bold restructure & heavy c/e". I am requesting this in good faith, that you revert your edit just identified, in order to continue this Talk page discussion on the basis of my BRD request. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
The edits you've reverted so far represent an hour's worth of heavy copy-editing for brevity, grammar and source adhesion, but as you point out, intervening edits means you can't actually click the undo button on the edit that changed the headers. In hindsight, it was rather foolish of me to combine that change with other copy edits as it complicates reversion, and I'm sorry for that – I recognise this was a mistake. You have two options, you can either spend a few minutes of your time manually restoring the section titles to your preferred version, or you can revert all changes since the header renaming by going to the diff before it, clicking edit and then publishing that version. In doing so you will irreparably undo all of the other changes (including several by other editors) that have occurred in the mean time, and it's far more work to manually restore all of the intervening copy-editing (realistically, it won't happen and the changes will be lost). I implore you to choose the first option: restore the most recent version with all of the other improvements, stick {{in use}} on the page and take a few minutes of your time to rename the headers as you wish. Jr8825 • Talk22:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and restored my copy edits as I'd be very disappointed to see them lost, but with "First phase" and "Second phase" appended to the headers "Initial invasion" and "Donbas offensive", which is the primary issue you raised in your initial comment here. Does this ameliorate your concerns? What else do you think should be different about the headers? Jr8825 • Talk22:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Keith D BRD discussion is underway and User:Jr appears to be in agreement to participate until consensus is reached, however, intermediate edits have made it not possible to do an undo of the last edit of the sequence here: "21:01, 10 September 2022 Jr8825 talk contribs 358,306 bytes −3,600 →Invasion and resistance: bold restructure & heavy c/e". May I ask that you rollback the edits to just before this last edit by Jr which I just listed, in order for Talk page discussion to be able to continue in a meaningful way." ErnestKrause (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
User:Jr, you appear to have done the partial revert for your edit which might allow for discussion of this matter to continue at least in part on this Talk page. It appears that you wish to fully remove the distinction of Phase one and phase two from the article and its structural TOC. Your appear to wish to do this even though many parts of the article and its images, and its animation maps, are dependent upon the distinction of these two phases. Further, the distinction of these two phases has been the manner in which the international press has been reporting the Invasion since April 8th. You have done so without any prior discussion and in the absence of any reasons shared with any other editors. Is there a reason for this, and are there any editors that feel such an extensive revision without Talk page discussion should have been done? ErnestKrause (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't have any strong opinions on including "phases". I've restored this language in the latest revision. Have you checked it? Jr8825 • Talk22:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Keith D has no tools you don't in this case: as I explained above, you can simply go to the page history, view the version prior to the structural change (I've even linked it for your convenience), click edit and then publish it. I'll be frustrated by the loss of my contributions, and I'd point to WP:ROWN and WP:REVONLY, but ultimately it's my fault for bundling my changes together and you're free to do this; I won't revert you. Jr8825 • Talk22:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm requesting that you restore the article as a sign of good faith in editing. Otherwise, I'll request that Keith D rollback the article as requested when he returns from the week-end for regular editing of the article to start again, and for any required discussion which you may need at that time. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm not going to self-revert myself as it would involve undoing significant copy-editing, you're welcome to change the headers however you see fit. Perhaps you can explain your other problems with the changes, now that "first phase" and "second phase" have been restored per your request?
I'll run through the changes:
I renamed "Second phase: South-eastern offensive" to "Second phase: Donbas offensive" as it's consistent with the main article, Battle of Donbas (2022), and I suspect this is the most common label in media coverage. I'm happy to carry out a source review to confirm whether or not this is correct. Feel free to adjust.
I removed "Second phase:" from the headers for the Ukrainian counteroffensives and the Zaporizhzhia NPP crisis and promoted them from level 4 headers so they're no longer sub-sections of the Donbas offensive section. I did this because they're outside the Donbas, occurred several months after the main events of the Russian offensive, and, I think, are themselves particularly notable events within the invasion. The Battle of Donbas is what is commonly referred to as the "second phase" of the war. Maybe the counteroffensives & NPP crisis could be labelled a "third phase", although unless sources are found this may be WP:OR. You're welcome to restore "Second phase" to these headers, although I'm personally doubtful there are sources which explicitly say these events are part of the "second phase" of the invasion; if you know of sources which do, it'd be appreciated if you could link the source in this discussion.
I added a date range "(August – present)" to the new level 3 "Ukrainian counteroffensives" header. To explain my thought process, I think this helpfully includes the Crimea attacks and matches the period of time when media sources were widely discussing a possible Ukrainian offensive in Kherson, while events in the Donbas were receiving limited attention and were at a relative standstill. However, I'm not fussed about the date range inclusion, by all means remove it.
I re-arranged the "Fall of Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk" and "Fall of Mariupol" subsections so that Mariupol is discussed first, as it fell earlier (~16 May vs. 24 June-3 July) and the "Fall of Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk" refers to the Mariupol being "almost entirely taken" in the lead up to the Russian assault on these cities, so it makes more sense this way.
I shortened coverage of individual strikes and events in the Dnipro–Zaporizhzhia and Mykolaiv–Odesa regions during this period, and subsumed them under a new level 4 "Other regions" header, as they were away from the main fighting in Donbas, relatively few major developments occurred in them, and there was considerable over-detail; however, all the key events such as the recapture of Snake Island and Kremenchuk mall strike are retained. If you believe these sections should again be level 4 headers themselves, go ahead, although I'm personally unconvinced they can be considered core parts of the Russian Donbas offensive. "Other regions" could be named something like "Outside the Donbas", or these regions could be removed from under the "Phase two: Donbas offensive" header entirely. No strong preferences here, happy to consider alternatives.
The caption of the animated map doesn't perfectly align with the new headers since it continues up to present, but says "Phase 2". It's an easy fix, whichever option is chosen: "Phase 2" can simply be removed from the caption (would be my preference), the animation can be adjusted to end before the Ukrainian counteroffensives, or the header "Second phase: Donbas offensive (8 April – July)" can be changed back to "Second phase: Donbas offensive (8 April – present), which would fit well with the option I suggested above, of removing the date range from the header "Ukrainian offensives (August – present)". I wouldn't object to any of these changes, the point in my restructure is to encourage this kind of problem solving.
That's about it in terms of the structural changes, and again, if you strongly believe all of these changes are bad you can simply edit the current revision and restore the headers as they were in Special:Permalink/1109602196. This link can be put alongside the current revision for ease of comparison. Jr8825 • Talk00:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
I have reverted as requested above, but gone 1 version further as that just added the {{inuse}} template, I have also kept user:Jjmclellan82 change as a seperate addition which you can revert out if you do not want it. (Looks like further discussion taking place since I started this action) Keith D (talk) 01:32, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm really disappointed with this wholescale revert as it undoes lots of uncontroversial cleanup, when it's much simpler to restore the section titles and order while leaving the current prose. I acknowledge it was foolish to carry out such extensive copy-editing at the same time as bold adjustments to the headers, but I'm not going to spend another hour of my time restoring my copy-editing manually. I'll continue to discuss possible structural changes here if @ErnestKrause or others decide to review my suggestions in detail and offer their thoughts on them. Jr8825 • Talk01:47, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
On reflection, I think Ernest's request for a wholescale revert is improper. I made a wide range of substantial good faith edits, Ernest reverted 10 of these in a row and when it wasn't possible to automatically the revert the 11th, requested I manually self-revert it and then asked an admin to revert instead (see Special:History/2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine). This is very poor reversion etiquette. I cited BRD, I'm fine with seeing my bold edits reverted – I ask ErnestKrause joins in the discussion and engages with my proposals when he's able to – but BRD doesn't mean reversion is acceptable in the absence of justification. Ernest hasn't asserted my changes are particularly controversial beyond the header adjustments, despite requesting their reversion in entirety. I've promptly implemented the only specific concern so far raised, and have broken down the header changes above to assist further discussion. However, I'm less concerned with the bold edits than I am the loss of several hours of careful copy-editing and cutting. @Keith D:, I ask that you self-revert to allow me to restore the headers as closely as possible to how they were prior to my edits while maintaining the much larger proportion of my edits which were non-controversial copy-edits. I recognise I bungled things by bundling lots of edits together (in a rush to avoid edit conflicts on this busy article) and will manually restore the status-quo headers in order to save the considerable work I've undertaken today. Jr8825 • Talk02:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
@ErnestKrause:After several hours, there does not appear to be support for your comments – I don't get this. We do not need support for an editor expressing his disappoitment over having his work reverted, nor do we need to expect such replies within hours. Copyediting is tedious work, and there might have been alternatives to a rollback. I'll move on to other places now, but would like to remind you that you do not WP:OWN this article, no matter how extensive your contributions are. Everyone has the right to attempt an improvement of the article, and just because you do not agree with it, doesn't automatically imply that no one does. –LordPeterII (talk) 11:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Your own comment above was to say: "If the press is reporting these phases like that, I find it convincing to keep in line with that." Is this still your position? ErnestKrause (talk) 13:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Here is a brief source review. The "second phase" of the invasion is used to describe the Battle of Donbas and/or Russian offensives in the Donbas/south:
"The second stage of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is ... establishing full control over Donbas and southern Ukraine"25 April
"For 300 miles across Donbas, a new wave of Russian firepower has been unleashed. Ukraine’s President says the second phase of Russia’s invasion has begun"20 April
"Russia says it has begun a new phase of the invasion of Ukraine as fighting raged in the Donbas region"19 April
"Russia said it had begun a new phase of its invasion of Ukraine on Tuesday as officials in the eastern border region of Donbas urged civilians to flee"19 April
""Another phase" of Russia's invasion of Ukraine "is starting now," Russia's foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said ... "The Russian troops have begun the battle for the Donbas," Zelenskyy said"19 April
These usages are concentrated around the beginning of the Russian Donbas offensive in April. A search for results in the last month for "Ukraine war second phase" on Google returns little meaningful journalism or analysis. Jr8825 • Talk14:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Edits from User:Jr appear to be getting highly unreliable. He is stating in his above responses that he sees no appreciable search results ("little meaningful journalism") for a Google search on the four key words "Ukraine second phase war", while my computer screen is identifying dozens upon dozens of articles using the words "second phase" in magazines, newspaper, and video news reports. My search on Google and/or Yahoo gives dozens upon dozens of linked articles: the Yahoo search results, for example, are here: [7]. If statements from User:Jr continue to be unreliable, then it leads to the troublesome question of his reliability/unreliability for his edits to this article about the Invasion. For example, see Reuters for "Second phase of war has started, says Ukraine president's chief of staff" in Reuters here [8], see BusinessInsider here [9], see CBS News here [10], etc. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
You haven't read my comment properly. I wrote that "a search for results in the last month" turns up very few results. Above, I highlighted 5 articles which show the journalists and commentators use the term "second phase" to refer to the Russian Donbas offensive.
Additionally, I've just found an recent Al Jazeera article from 24 August which further supports my arguments that the second phase of the war has ended: "Offensive, redeployment, counterattack: Ukraine has overmatched expectations in all three main phases of this war. During the first month, Russia attempted a blitzkrieg offensive ... On March 25, Russia announced it was redeploying its forces to the east ... on April 18 Russia’s eastern offensive began in earnest [and May and June were] Ukraine’s worst months ... The arrival in Ukraine of high-precision rocket artillery systems ... on June 23 disrupted Russia’s war of attrition in the east."
You appear to be reverting my title for this thread. Wikipedia convention is that the person who initiates the thread provides the name of the thread for use on the Talk page. I restored the original title and stated my reason for keeping it. You then reverted again to your own preference against Wikipedia convention for naming the title of a thread by the person who starts it. I'm requesting that you show good faith and return the title to how it was named when it was started. You previously declined my other request for you to AGF, which you refused to do during your main page edits over the week-end. I'm requesting that you reconsider your previous refusal to edit by AGF, and that you return the original title of this section in good faith to allow discussion by other editors to take place about the title and the associated edit issues. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Returning to the substance of the discussion, after looking at the above articles, what's your view on the sourcing regarding "second phase", and when/if sources indicate that the second phase of the conflict has ended? Following from this, what problems do you see in my proposals to change the TOC (numbered 1-5 above)? Regarding the thread title, the current one is clearer and I refer to my explanation on your talk page. Let's focus on the content. Jr8825 • Talk17:58, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Answered on your Talk page. You appear to be edit warring to force your version the title into this thread for your own purposes. I'm adding my request again that as a matter of AGF, that you return the title to its original form as written by the initiator of this thread. The original title chosen is accurate and I'm requesting in good faith that you restore the original title. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
I can't follow this overly long discussion anymore, but wanted to say that I agree section headers should not be changed, unless in extraordinary circumstances. The current header wording might not have been the optimal choice, but changing it is not a solution, it confuses other editors. –LordPeterII (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 September 2022
Under the heading "Invasion and resistance," fix "Ukrainian forces managed to hold ground and put to effectively use Western arms." It's a small error and looks like it should either read "put to effective use Western arms" or "and effectively used Western arms." Delukiel (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Add a section between Reaction and Polls, namely, "In Film and Media", for the ongoing war already became at least the inspiration of one TV show episodes aired in US. The would-be section goes as follows---
In Film and Media
The ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine started to become an inspiration for some TV show episodes. For example, the last episode of FBI: Most Wanted's 2021-22 season, "A Man Without a Country", featured a Russian oligarch embarking on a killing spree, even to the point of abducting his estranged daughter who stood with Ukraine and even briefly touched upon the infamous Bucha massacre in her press conference before abduction, and the name "President Kimov" is a strong allusion to the current Russian president, Vladimir Putin, and since the episode was first aired on May 24, 2022, whereas Bucha massacre was only exposed on Apr 2, 2022, therefore it was very remarkable that the events made its way into a TV show episode in a short time and some elements already figured prominently in the episode itself. Bf0325 (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
I just provided a link to that specific episode which you can watch yourself, and be careful to the words coming out of those characters, especially the oligarch and his estranged daughter as well as others---they explicitly and implicitly referred to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, such as "the invasion", Kyiv, Ukraine, Bucha, and the like. Bf0325 (talk) 00:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes, and this is the link to that specific FBI: Most Wanted episode--- [11]https://www.cbs.com/shows/video/JQzgrfKsLxIU6MxXjKI75GQHAnF_qBYc/. Commercials were interspersed within the episode itself, but you can watch the whole episode and decide whether my description is correct. Do not just read the synopsis itself, because it's too brief whereas a lot of details are in the episode itself, from the mouths of those characters. Bf0325 (talk) 00:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
@Bf0325: To clarify, you want these changes to be added to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine reactions? Because they would seem overly detailled here. If so, it would have made more sense to discuss this on the other talk page. Regardless, I am not sure if a "In popular culture" section is warranted there just yet, it seems less important than the irl reactions. But others might agree with your suggestion. –LordPeterII (talk) 18:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
No, not as part of Reactions, but rather a whole new section, and indeed it is detailed, but that doesn't mean some other TV shows or movies or documentaries around the world didn't touch upon the war or were inspired partially by it. We may throw in "In popular culture" and see what happens. Bf0325 (talk) 04:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 September 2022
In the section "Phase Two" please update the animated map subtext to say "from 7 April to 5 September 2022". In the section "Phase Three" please add the phase 3 gif with the following subtext "2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine phase 3 from 5 September to 14 September 2022".
I've updated the caption for the Phase 2 animation map. In looking at the new animation map for Phase 3 it is occurring to me that a large portion of the map covering Western Ukraine is not an active part of the map animation, and that it might be useful to focus the map to only go as far West as Kyiv in presenting the animation for the Southeastern invasion of Ukraine. Could that be done by setting a template size or parameters for the map as a global change to that animation file before its added into the Phrase three part of the article (otherwise the map idea for Phase three look like a good idea)? ErnestKrause (talk) 09:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
I could definitely crop the animation to just show the southeast, but I personally think that it is important to show the whole of the country. There is still a chance the Belarus might try an invasion of its own, or Russia might try to attack Kyiv, so showing the whole map is important. I will upload a cropped version as a separate file a little later. Physeters✉18:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
@Polmas: I have no strong opinions about it being in the lede, but I don't think some of the issues you point out are that bad:
The quotation marks are used to signify that those statement aren't facts, so we need them.
I don't believe this is spreading Russian propaganda, specifically because we have words like falsely denoting claims that are refuted.
I can understand what you mean, but as Slatersteven pointed out, we are not at the end yet. Eventually, when this is history, the lede section should certainly be reworked. But right now, we don't even know what it will end up saying (hopefully something better than the other article you linked). –LordPeterII (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree we can’t just quote Putin’s incitement to genocide[12] in the lead without any evaluation whatsoever. The sources cited for the quotation are all about denying its veracity. I’ve added something that might suffice.[13] —MichaelZ.19:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
I generally agree with Polmas that the quotes should not be in the lead as they detract from what should be in a lead. See WP:Lead for a guide on what should generally be and not be in the lead. I also agree that the quotes do have a place in the article as they provide background and information on the leader of Russia. Jurisdicta (talk) 02:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Changing word form of 'demilitarization' which is the one being quoted from the body of the article. Talk page discussion should continue presently in progress to determine if this sentence is to remain in the lead section or be deleted. Current version of the key words is now exactly as quoted in the main body of this article. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
I personally find the new wording too repetitious. We already say the claim about Nazis is false in the paragraph above, so repeating it a second time a few lines later is redundant, and makes it sound like Wikipedia's editors have an axe to grind/Wikipedia is taking a stance. I don't think our educational purpose is impacted by just saying it's false once. I think putting "denazification" in scare quotes is enough myself, although I would agree with Polmas that simply removing Putin's phrasing here is an option too (and preferable to repeating "false", in my view). Putin's stated justification is detailed in the above paragraph, so no information would be lost. Jr8825 • Talk04:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
It can probably be improved. But do realize these are two different things said in two speeches, one announcing “peacekeeping” days before the start of open hostilities, the other a tacit declaration of war and its aims immediately after. What’s still missing from the lead is that one is evidence of a campaign of genocide incitement, the other evidence of genocidal intent.[14] —MichaelZ.13:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
And they are actual quotes denoting the direct, literal quotation of speech, not scare quotes.
And sorry, but I think we have to repeat that it’s false every we quote false genocidal demonizing language. We can decline repeating the whole thing when it’s redundant, but let’s not remove it with the only justification being that we are squeamish about denying its validity. —MichaelZ.14:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
re: "I think we have to repeat that it’s false every we quote false genocidal demonizing language", I think this is more reflective of the tendency to be forthright and engage in rather than describe disputes when covering current affairs, rather than keeping things detached and letting the facts speak for themselves. Our purpose is to inform, not persuade. Adolf Hitler provides a counterpoint. We don't say "false" every time we discuss his pack of genocidal lies, e.g. "stab-in-the-back myth which claimed that the German army, "undefeated in the field", had been "stabbed in the back" on the home front by civilian leaders, Jews ...", "Throughout [Mein Kampf], Jews are equated with "germs" and presented as the "international poisoners" of society. According to Hitler's ideology, the only solution was their extermination", "Hitler's long-standing view that the Jews were the enemy of the German people" etc.. I'm fine with saying "falsely claimed Ukraine was governed by neo-Nazis who persecuted the ethnic Russian minority" (iirc I helped write that sentence early on in this article's history), but saying "Putin's false claim" twice, a couple of sentences apart, in the lead? I think it's too much. Jr8825 • Talk15:24, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Every example expresses doubt in wiki-voice, or at least explicitly contextualizes direct quotations as an opinion: “myth,” “presented as”, “according to Hitler’s ideology,” “Hitler’s long-standing view.” All I am insisting is that a new paragraph introducing a second statement with new propaganda terms “‘demilitarization and denazification’” be treated the same way as your examples. —MichaelZ.16:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
I would much prefer ...when Putin announced a "special military operation". Minutes later... to ...when Putin announced a "special military operation" for the "demilitarisation and denazification" of Ukraine, reinforcing his false narrative associating Ukraine with Nazism. Minutes later...Jr8825 • Talk04:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
@Mzajac: responding to your point about it being two different speeches, one a justification for "peacekeeping" and one a declaration of war, I think that as long as we keep the detail in the second para. (e.g. his false claims regarding the situation/Ukraine "nazis") and the phrasing "announced a "special operation". Minutes later [bombs fell]" at the start of the third, we sufficiently convey that the declaration of war was separate. I do see Polmas' point that it seems unnecessary to repeat Putin's claims again in the third para. Jr8825 • Talk15:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Well I don’t disagree with that. But it is not a merely repeat of the claims. It is a distinct explicit statement of war aims, and it is phrased using propaganda terminology that many entire articles have been written about. It is central to the evidence of genocide against Ukraine, incorporating incitement and intentionality, and integral to an order for execution.
Like I said, maybe it can be written differently, but I think the article would be better by referring to these aspects of the statement in the lead rather than removing it. —MichaelZ.17:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
if it's necessary to keep the quote "demilitarisation and denazification", perhaps we can couch it in terms that make it clearer it's his contentious/cynical claim? I think this is already obvious from the previous paragraph, but wouldn't be against something like "when Putin announced a "special military operation", which he claimed was aimed at the "demilitarisation and denazification" of Ukraine." I'm just unsupportive of adding an additional and repetitive wikivoice assertion/analysis here. Jr8825 • Talk18:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
"New York" on battle map
A town directly north of Donetsk is labeled as "New York" and has been for a few months. Figured this is the only place you can submit a correction as editing is locked to a select few honest fact-checkers 47.23.177.234 (talk) 19:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Donetsk People's Republic and the Russian Government have been known to exaggerate their enemies losses. As can be said for the Ukrainian side. This is an ongoing conflict and misinformation spreads fast through their respective governments and may not indicate true casualties. The Ukrainian losses ( source/tag #598 ) seems untrue and is unclear, as it does not state separately and it is coming from a combatant known to lie.[2]
Neutrality of such forces, even stated as estimates can/are unreliable. [1 1]
Overall, combatant sources in these resective issues should be avoided, as they do tend to be unreliable and not neutral.
http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Casualties110.145.200.26
^Casey, Ralph (7/1944). EM 2: What Is Propaganda?. Minnesota: University Of Minnesota. p. Book. Retrieved 20/9/22. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |access-date= and |date= (help); More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help)
Chronology?
I just read section 3.4 Missile attacks and air war and noticed that the first paragraph gives details of a time after the second paragraph. I think I'm not the only person who would find it easier to read chronologically. Dutchy45 (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
In the section, the estimates for killed civilians from the Ukrainian government state that "28,28,707" have died. The source that the statistic uses does not state such ([15]), and the Wikipedia article it uses as a reference doesn't use this statistic (of the Russo-Ukrainian War). Please fix this obvious typo.
Your link does not indicate the edit you are talking about: what is the meaning of the number sequence "28,28,707" which you are typing here? ErnestKrause (talk) 11:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm still not sure what the notation of a two digit number, followed by a two digit number, followed by a three digit number means {"28,28,707")? What is the number being discussed and what is the 'correction' being requested here? ErnestKrause (talk) 02:28, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
"28,28,707" is not written correctly, as it should be (assuming the number is as represented) 2,828,707, is that the number you want? Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
After looking it up in the "Field casualties" subsection this is what it presents in the table numbers: "7,000–28,708+ killed[604][g]". That number appears to have been mistyped from this table in the article. I'm assuming for now that those numbers are consistent with footnote #604 and footnote (g) as currently presented in the article for accuracy verification. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Source of casualties
Should we even consider Russian Ministry of defense as a worthy source of casualties (both Ukrainian and Russian)? Does it have something to do with reality? DakeFasso (talk) 07:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion in Russian Wikipedia is that "partial" nature of this mobilization is just scam. There are at least 2 reliable sources which say, with reference to recognized experts, that, in fact, this mobilization allows to call to military service unlimited number of citizens.[1][2]K8M8S8 (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
However, at present among the Russian troops the number of boots-in-the-field is still much more limited and far smaller than what a general conscription would result in. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
The text [a] should be rewritten, please compare DPR, LDR. Russia wants to annex the occupied territories and threatens with nuclear weapons. Xx236 (talk) 06:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
No need for a separate article for this. This can quite happily be a section inside the already present article about the overall invasion. Osarius12:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Discussion of the 'mobilization' in the international press now appears to be going in the direction that Putin is defining this term as referring to the enlistment of troops currently in reserve to active service at this time, along with the re-activation of eligibility for ex-soldiers who are still capable of returning to military service. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
If this new mobilization of Putin's goes into effect as I just described Putin's plans, then the boots-in-the-field would effectively double for Russia; that in turn would suggest a direct answer from Russia to the current Ukrainian counteroffensive. (Osarius requested that the associated edit be brought into this article). ErnestKrause (talk) 17:20, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Invasion section structure
I think we should make some changes to how we structure the invasion section for clarity, chronological flow and a better reflection of the sources, and would like to invite feedback. The original thread about this has unfortunately been derailed by a long-winded discussion about reversion and conduct, rather than the substance of the proposals themselves. I'm starting this thread with a clearer breakdown of the changes to facilitate discussion and make participation easier.
A version of the page including the proposed section titles can be viewed here.
The current sections are on the left, in yellow, and the proposed sections are on the right, in blue.
−
Invasion and resistance
—First phase: InvasionofUkraine (24 February – 7 April)
——Firstphase–Northern front
——Firstphase–North-eastern front
——Firstphase–Southern front
——Firstphase–Eastern front
—Second phase: South-easternfrontandcounteroffensives (8 April – present)——Secondphase–Mykolaiv–Odesafront——Secondphase–Dnipro–Zaporizhzhiafront——Secondphase–Fall of Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk
——Secondphase–FallofMariupol——Secondphase–Attacks in Crimea
——Secondphase–UkrainianKharkivcounteroffensive—WesternUkraine
—Air warfare
—Naval warfare
—Russian nuclear threats
—Popular resistance
+
Invasion and resistance
—First phase: Initial invasion (24 February – 7 April)
——Northern front
——North-eastern front
——Southern front
——Eastern front
—Second phase: Donbas offensive (8 April – July)
——Fall of Mariupol
——Fall of Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk
——Other regions
———Dnipro–Zaporizhzhia
———Mykolaiv–Odesa
—Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant crisis
—Ukrainian counteroffensives (August – present)
——Attacks in Crimea
——Kherson
——Kharkiv
—Air warfare
—Naval warfare
—Russian nuclear threats
—Popular resistance
Should we include recent developments, such as the Ukrainian counterattacks and the Zaporizhzhia NPP crisis, within the sub-section entitled "second phase:" (as currently)?
Where should we cover the Zaporizhzhia NPP crisis?
Currently it is covered in "Second phase – Dnipro–Zaporizhzhia front" and "Russian nuclear threats", although I think it may warrant its own brief subsection with a hatnote link to the main article given the amount of coverage. If it's given a subsection, I'm not certain where the best place is to put it, I've initially suggested placing it chronologically between the Russian Donbas offensive and Ukrainian counteroffensives. Jr8825 • Talk10:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
A content-fork on a Talk Page ... please, STOP. Go back to the original thread, and discuss there. Asking for an Admin to hat this thread, please. Jr ... you are acting like you want to 'hide the evidence' of your initial conduct or something. That's 1) not possible, and 2) is pointless in a content discussion - nobody's "out to get you." 50.111.29.1 (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Support – The new layout looks cleaner; I have wondered before why "First phase" and "Second phase" is repeated in each subheading. Agree with I Know I'm Not Alone that the sources seem to support a third phase now. Also, having Invasion of Ukraine as a subheading seems confusing, as that's also the name of the whole article. Initial invasion sounds better there. I'm only unsure if Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant crisis should get a heading on this level: It was a dangerous incident, but doesn't fit into the "three phases" ordering very well. –LordPeterII (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Note: Anachronism of this comparison. The current article format has taken a different direction now in recognizing "Phase 3"; the TOC comparison given in this thread does not seem to match the direction which other editors have moved the article into since this option was presented. Its not clear what editors are Supporting or Opposing in this thread. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm happy to see that after my own changes were wholescale reverted without a detailed explanation, other editors have since gone and boldly implemented the new "third phase" section as proposed here and it has been accepted. However, there are a few more specific issues the above structure fixes: 1) the redundant repetition of "X phase:" before every sub-header, 2) the non-chronological discussion of Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk before Mariupol, 3) coverage of the Zaporizhzhia NPP crisis and, most importantly in my view, 4) the earlier cut-off point for the "second phase" (July, rather than September), which adheres to sourcing in RS (e.g. FP and the sources above) in which analysts and military experts are quoted as describing the arrival of HIMARS in July as effectively freezing Russia's artillery-based offensive in Donbas and ending that phase of the conflict. There's then a limbo-land period in August dominated by the nuclear plant crisis and Ukrainian preparations, before the Ukrainian offensives start at the beginning of Sept. Currently our structure doesn't accurately reflect this. Jr8825 • Talk15:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Strong Support with comment for @ErnestKrause. The structure as it exists is needlessly wordy and confusing. For EK, I am in favour of your phrasing on proposals (1) and (2); I'll abstain on (3) since I honestly don't know enough; and for (4), whatever date is selected for the end of Phase 1 must start Phase 2 -- It's not like everyone went out for a pint for the whole month of August. As for commentary, I find it saddening that the only person who seems to be following Wikipedia editing guidelines is the person who seemed to get spanked for WP:BRD, @Jr8825. To a casual observer, it appears that instead of really addressing the core concerns that s/he raised, folks went down all sorts of rabbit holes and kept using the old, flawed, painful structure. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Note: Anachronism of this comparison. Its not clear which versions you are comparing. The 'old' version presented in the comparison above no longer exists; it has been replaced by the current TOC and article with designations of 'Third phase', etc, as other editors have started it and edited it in the last week. You appear to be discussing replacement of a version of the article which no longer exists. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Recap: When the Jr8825 changed the article under WP:BOLD, s/he got reverted. S/He chose the WP:BRD path and joined the discussion above. That discussion went on so long that some specific details didn't exist, so someone said (metaphorically), "Oh, we've moved on so we don't have to think about those problems." The author came back and said, quite reasonably, "Can we talk about the structure again since it's still terrible? And here are some new problems." This discussion has gone on so long that some of the specific details don't exist any more (sound familiar?) so it's now 'an anachronism'... and we're still not fixing it.
If Jr8825 simply makes the common-sense changes, s/he has every reason to assume s/he'll get reverted again for lack of discussion. Would it be better if I start a new thread that simply says, "Redundant, nested headers are bad and some things seem out of place," and avoid fungible specifics? I'd bet cash money that the very first response will be, "We can't discuss this until you provide specific examples." Last1in (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
current estimates of numerical strength
so in the infobox the strngth estimates are currently given for the start of the invasion, wich is important information. However, this conflict has now been going on for more than 7 months, and the russian number is about to change drastically given the mobilization. So wouldn't it make sense to also include estimates for the current strength in order to better reflect the realities on the ground? Assuming someone finds reliable sources for currently deployed troops. 1234567891011a (talk) 09:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
I found an update to show you, here it is:
In September 23, many Russians are protesting and escaping the country due to Putin's order of mobilize multiple troops to help the struggling campaign in Ukraine. Since then, a lot of videos have emerged on social media that showcases families and friends seeing off young recruits to fight. There are news reports about long lines of cars backed up on Russia's border crossings on each country.2601:205:C001:EA0:BCFD:2E6B:6676:6DCD (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
This appears to be more of a Reaction to the Invasion taking place within the borders of Russia and not in Ukraine. Possibly see the new article for Reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 September 2022
I would like to notify you that "Belligerents" right table is missing countries that are supporting each side. Example it is stated that Belarus is supporting Russia, but it is missing that Ukraine is supported by NATO. Please verify and fix.
During the fog of war, there are discrepancies and inconsistencies between what different sides claim to be casualties. The tables currently are organized to indicate the source of the statistics being presented. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
One table is confirmed minimum counts, the other is estimates of total. The two sets are not directly comparable. —MichaelZ.20:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 September 2022
The first line of the Refugee Crisis section starts with the word "tens" and seems out of place. If this isn't supposed to be there could it be removed? (edit it has been fixed)Jeicex1 (talk) 08:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
could someone send the ruling for "supported by" section?
I want to know what wikipedia's ruling is on listing countries that support. Since I feel this is related to 1973, America floods Israel (like Ukraine) with weapons so they should be included. PreserveOurHistory (talk) 06:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Ukraine is a soveignerty state and a republic. Thandile12 (talk) 10:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Russia aggressively invaded Ukraine.please let me be able to honestly edit this page of the war
Ahh, well I am unsure we need to say that (after all we do not say Russia is one either (We assume any reader unsure will click on the link and read about the country)). Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
There is an image highlighting countries that have sent military support to Ukraine, and an image highlighting countries that have sent humanitarian aid to Ukraine. Small circles are used to represent either small countries or small territories belonging to countries. Every single territory that is represented by a small circle AND was coloured dark blue indicating military support have their circles missing in the second image for humanitarian aid. Every territory that were not coloured dark blue appears to be unaffected by this. Countries that are represented by circles, such as Luxembourg, are not affected.
Shouldn't it be "On the 24th of February 2022" and not "On 24 February 2022"?
Reading through the dates I realized that it's not "On the __th/st" It's just "On __". I feel like I am a bit wrong hence why I'm asking as to why it's said like this. Smotoe (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Well, the current format is used widely. It is common in infoboxes, as this is a convenient way to condense the information. The same goes for the main article text. Just to name an example, Operation Barbarossa states: "Operation Barbarossa (German: Unternehmen Barbarossa; Russian: Операция Барбаросса, romanized: Operatsiya Barbarossa) was the invasion of the Soviet Union by Nazi Germany and many of its Axis allies, starting on Sunday, 22 June 1941...". 2A02:AB04:2C2:E300:E135:355C:BD0:538C (talk) 19:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be "On the 24th of February 2022" and not "On 24 February 2022"?
Reading through the dates I realized that it's not "On the __th/st" It's just "On __". I feel like I am a bit wrong hence why I'm asking as to why it's said like this. Smotoe (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Well, the current format is used widely. It is common in infoboxes, as this is a convenient way to condense the information. The same goes for the main article text. Just to name an example, Operation Barbarossa states: "Operation Barbarossa (German: Unternehmen Barbarossa; Russian: Операция Барбаросса, romanized: Operatsiya Barbarossa) was the invasion of the Soviet Union by Nazi Germany and many of its Axis allies, starting on Sunday, 22 June 1941...". 2A02:AB04:2C2:E300:E135:355C:BD0:538C (talk) 19:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, it is to summarise key points of the article and we don't write the article in the infobox. Accordingly, the article establishes who goes into the infobox, because their significance is established through the article by more than passing mentions. Only the two presidents meet the criteria. Zaluzhnyi has a single passing mention, in which he is reporting a claim and has been attributed for doing so. Being the reporter of record however does not establish any substantial significance to the article. As to bolding, this would be contrary to MOS:NOBOLD. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Well then 1) it is a problem with the article that the military commanders aren’t covered, 2) it seems obvious to me that the supreme commander of each side in a war is basic fundamental information about it, and we should consider it one of the exceptions mentioned in MOS:IB, as amelioration until no. 1 is corrected, and 3) omitting them represents a bias towards information about one side, because public personalities are discouraged under the authoritarian–charismatic Russian leader (I can find sources), and 4) the infobox section head is literally “commanders and leaders” and should have the commanders. —MichaelZ.02:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
For inclusion, the significance of a commander should be evident by their deeds as reported in the article. Whether there is a problem with the article as it exists in respect to this is a matter of opinion. I would note that the presidents are the supreme commander/C-i-C of the two countries and the article does evidence their significance. If additional information is so fundamental, one might observe that it would have been written into the article already. This type of information is not consistent with the spirit and intent of the example exceptions at MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE: key specialised information [that] is difficult to integrate into the body text, which is often better tabulated. I donot see how one might reasonably assert bias exists, when both sides are presently equally represented. As to the heading, it does presently list the commanders. We don't write an article to fit the lead. We do the reverse. The infobox is a supplement to the lead. Similarly, it is axiomatic that we don't write the article in the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
You’re saying the article is finished now? We should stop editing it, because, by definition nothing is missing and everything’s perfect? —MichaelZ.03:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
No. I am saying that if it is such fundamental information wrt other commanders/leaders and on such a high-profile page, one would reasonably expect that it would have been addressed by now and that it isn't (except for the two presidents/supreme commanders) indicates that it isn't so fundamental after all. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
There is no magical “by now” WP:DEADLINE. This article is WP:ASSESSed B class, meaning “mostly complete and without major problems but requires some further work to reach good article standards.” “It’s not in the article now therefore it mustn’t be added” is not a valid reasoning. Our consensus determines the content.
Zelenskyy is Supreme C-in-C but he is not in direct command or making any battlefield decisions, and below him there is a defence minister, military C-in-C, and chief of staff. Putin does meddle in the battlefield, but he also has a defence minister and CoS. This is the main article for the military campaign and should name the military leaders. —MichaelZ.17:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
@Cinderella157, sorry if I let my tone sound combative. My point is that your argument is fallacious. The assumption and logic that everything fundamental “would have been written into the article already” is wrong, and it’s not even related to the substance of the content issue. —MichaelZ.14:16, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
You are correct, There is no magical “by now” WP:DEADLINE. The assertion that some additional commanders are somehow fundamental is an opinion not supported by the body of the article at present. That is the criteria established by WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. When and if the article establishes the significance of additional commanders and their contributions (not just a passing mention that they exist) it will be appropriate to add such commanders per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. This is the guidances and the defined objective criteria for a logical argument to include or exclude additional commanders. Until then, because there is no WP:DEADLINE, we should not try to write the article in the infobox (per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE). Cinderella157 (talk) 09:54, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Docs at Template:Infobox military conflict say this is for “any changes in territorial control as a result of the conflict; this should not be used for overly lengthy descriptions of the peace settlement.” But territorial control is currently contested, and the final result is not yet determined. —MichaelZ.20:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
The 'foreign support' section is a bit problematic
This articles is about the Russian invasion in 2022. But the foreign support section covers NATO support from 2014-2021, that support came in response to Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 and foreign support in Eastern Ukraine at the height of which Russia regular forces and offensive platforms were deployed inside Ukraine. Due to the scope none of the later is covered here and thus might seem to someone unfamiliar with the topic that NATO was supporting Ukraine while Russia was a natural observer. --Nilsol2 (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Could someone add {{Anchor|Casualties}} to the section "Casualties and refugee crisis". This section was renamed this morning, which has broken a load of section links, e.g. the "see the casualties section" note in the infobox. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 12:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC) 192.76.8.81 (talk) 12:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
The material on Darya Dugina is on the Wikipedia page for her. Should this material be covered as part of the Rearguard action on Crimea and the Russian mainland, or should it be excluded from the Invasion article. It appears to have taken place in the transition between the second phase of the invasion and the third phase of the invasion. It is also discussed in the Wikipedia article Killing of Darya Dugina. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Was it part of any rearguard action, if so by who?
Also how is this section even about a RearGuard as these attacks occurred long after Russia's annexation, surely they are counter-attacks? Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Also how would an attack in Russia be a rearguard action, as it is not a result of Ukraine retreating? So even if we have the bomb attack on Ms Dugina it is a counter-attack as well. Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
The rearguard action refers to actions taking place behind the front lines of the 2022 Russian invasion as summarized in the Wikipedia article for Dariya Dugina stating: "Darya Dugina, daughter of a prominent pro-Putin follower, was killed on 20 August 2022, when her car exploded on Mozhayskoye Shosse in the settlement of Bolshiye Vyazyomy outside Moscow around 9:45 p.m. local time." The allegations of Ukraine involvement are also covered in that Wikipedia article. It seems there are many reliable sources for this and that it should be considered for inclusion in this article. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
That is not what rearguard means. A rear guard protects the rear of either a retreating or an advancing force. As Ukraine is neither advancing towards, nor retreating from Moscow, or any other part of Russia the attack on here can't have been part of any rearguard action. At best (and we would need serious proof of this to include it here) it would be part of an asymmetric warfare action. Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
'Assymertic warfare action' might be a little unconventional for Wikipedia readers who can read the general Rearguard action Wikipedia page if needed. More directly, though, what do you think of just calling it 'retaliation' or political counterattack. It seems that either of these might work in this article. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm inclining to think that a better section title might be something like "Counteroffensives in Crimea and within Russia," or something like that. The material on Darya has been extensively covered in the international press with dozens and dozens of articles referring to Ukraine involvement; too many RS from major newspapers to fully exclude from the article. Maybe try your own wording for including some version of the Darya edit. The title to the section would look better in another format since your reference to "Rear" does not sound especially encyclopedic. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Rearguard action or not, I think a very brief mention is WP:DUE, along with a mention of the New York Times report that says the U.S. intelligence believes some elements of the Ukrainian government are responsible and that they would have opposed it had they known in advance [27]. IntrepidContributor (talk) 09:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Correct the list of Beligerents on Ukrainian side.
Ukrainians also use US satellites to aim artillery strikes. It's not just weapons provided, even if you ignore the US being behind Maidan to begin with 94.189.193.233 (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
USA provides satellite imagery of Ukraine to Ukraine: not an act of war. “US being behind Maidan”: Russian disinformation, and irrelevant sour grapes. —MichaelZ.17:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I think, NATO is not actually sending Ukraine anything that is extremely useful. I suppose You could add USA, but the whole NATO is a bad idea Thehistorianisaac (talk) 17:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Causality update
The Moscow Times reports that "over 90,000 Russian soldiers have died, cannot be accounted for, or have suffered such serious injuries that they are unable to return to service". This should be added to the causality estimates.
Infobox shows no support from NATO/USA/EU for Ukraine and it seems that it's intended. Are there any reliable sources confirming that in fact there is no support for Ukraine? Mintus590 (talk) 11:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Agree - Couple of things here. What does the sentence mean '..After the signature..'? Needs a rewrite I suggest. There is a heading 'Rear action in Crimea' and this material really belongs there where there is a brief summary. It's duplication. I'll do it at some point.Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
I didn’t say Ukrainian attack. Your source doesn’t even consider possibilities that aren’t an attack, like an accident or something. I haven’t seen any that do.
I guess it doesn’t hurt to leave it open and say “explosion” when we don’t know the cause, but it would also be irresponsible to give the impression that it might be anything other than an attack, and I don’t have a problem with implying or assuming that the only likelihood is an attack. —MichaelZ.17:29, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
I wouldn't use that report - the first line says "a fire" - many sources described the incident as an explosion, which is the only thing that would have taken out a span of the bridge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.48.23 (talk) 10:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
RfC about inclusion of "Peace efforts" section
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Consensus was roughly for including this section (Question A), but it was against Option 2 of Question B. No one particularly felt strongly about Option 1, so it could be added and refined under the regular editing processes. (non-admin closure) –MJL‐Talk‐☖06:00, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This RfC has now been open for over a month. Perhaps it is time to close it and, if a consensus is believed to have been reached, be bold and act upon it in the article. BogLogs (talk) 04:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Explanatory note: This RfC is composed of two questions, but each is considered independently of the other; so a reply to Question B does not imply that the editor supports Question A. The options suggested for Question B are only initial forms, to be later built upon if neccessary.
Question A: Should this article include a "Peace efforts" section?
Question B: If a "Peace efforts" section was to be added, which form should it take? Option 1 or Option 2(see below)?
Peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine took place on 28 February,[1] 3 March,[2] and 7 March 2022,[3] in an undisclosed location in the Gomel Region on the Belarus–Ukraine border,[4] with further talks held on 10 March in Turkey prior to a fourth round of negotiations which began on 14 March. The Ukrainian foreign minister Dmytro Kuleba stated on 13 July that peace talks are frozen for the time being.[5] On 19 July, former Russian President and current Deputy head of the Russian Security Council, Dmitry Medvedev, said: “Russia will achieve all its goals. There will be peace – on our terms.”[6]
Peace talks led by Turkey were held between 28 February and July 2022. As of July 2022, peace talks were frozen indefinitely after the failure of both parties to reach a settlement. On April 9, United Kingdom's then-president, Boris Johnson, visited Kiev during the second phase of the peace talks without informing the Ukrainians in advance. On 5 May 2022, Ukrainska Pravda, a Ukrainian newspaper, published an article that it claims to be cited by sources close to Zelensky saying that the British prime minister brought two simple messages. The first is: "Putin is a war criminal, he should be pressured, not negotiated with." And the second is that "even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they are not."[7] Fiona Hill, a veteran US diplomat who served as the US National Security Council’s senior director for Europe and Russia in the Donald Trump administration, published an article on the Foreign Affairs saying that Russia and Ukraine could have reached a peace agreement in April, according to which the Russian forces would withdraw to the pre-invasion line and Ukraine would commit not to seek to join NATO, instead receiving security guarantees from a number of countries. Hill wrote that the "peace talks were apparently conducted by the Russian side in good faith."[8] Experts, such as John Mearsheimer, think that the collective west's goal in the Russo-Ukrainian war is "the conflict will settle into a prolonged stalemate, and eventually a weakened Russia will accept a peace agreement that favors the United States and its NATO allies, as well as Ukraine."[9]
@Slatersteven: Can you maybe format this to more clearly indicate on which question you are commenting? Just so it is easier for the closer to evaluate later. Also, it would be helpful to give a very brief overview of your arguments again, as this is not a vote, and the closer might not be able to find all previous points made in the other discussion(s). And again, you may (but don't have to) also voice your opinion on the Options for Question B, even if you don't think we should have a section. Think of it as chosing the "lesser evil", only for the case that consensus would develop to include it. –LordPickleII (talk) 12:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
I have said no to a section, how much clear can I be. I am not going to give my support to something I do not support. If this RFC assumes the answer is "yes we must have a section" it is badly flawed and should thus be withdrawn. Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Yeah sorry, I guess it was clear enough, but anyway thanks for amending. And no, you don't have to vote on the second question. I am just hoping enough people oppose Option 2 so it never happens (tbh I'd rather have no section than it), but I think you have made your point clear on that below. –LordPickleII (talk) 13:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: would you mind briefly summarising the reasons why you're against a section? Alternatively could you point me to which parts of the above discussions are relevant? It'll save me some time trying to understand your argument by scrolling through the rather large discussions further up the page. Jr8825 • Talk16:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
That's not particularly helpful! Skimming through the above threads, am I right in understanding your argument against a section on peace negotiations is 1) that this article is only about a specific "military campaign", not the war itself and 2) that the negotiations are unimportant because they failed? Jr8825 • Talk17:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
I was trying to not create another cluttered RFC with umpteen responses for one post. But OK, I oppose this as this article is about the invasion of 2022, not the wider war, and yes also because they failed, so have had no impact on this invasion. Nor do they tell us anything about this invasion, and any context would best be covered in the other articles. Moreover, it is unlikely that these will be the last negotiations and (even if we accept their presence here) only the last one is really relevant. It is better covered elsewhere, with a see also here. Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
I've continued this thread below in the new discussion section as there are things I'd like to discuss in more detail without crowding out other editors' opinions. Jr8825 • Talk20:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Question A: Support. My primary reasoning is that per WP:SS, this is expected and allowed, and we have Template:Main to link to the main article. The counter-argument of "content should not be duplicated" doesn't make sense to me, and I know of no guideline or policy that would confirm it. And per WP:CORRECTSPLIT, point 6.: Create a good summary of the subtopic at the parent article.
Question B: Option 1. I strongly reject Option 2 as a gross violation of WP:NPOV, as it distorts the facts through WP:CHERRYPICKING from only parts of a few (reliable) sources, while completely ignoring most others. It does also not align with the main article, and so would violate the summary that would be expected. Editors may have suggested it in good faith; but it basically repeats Russian propaganda efforts that "the West" had prevented peace.
I agree with you regarding the fact that Option 2 is kind of cherry picking but I think that the article isn't satisfying the NPOV in the first place. It already chose its position in this issue, picking a side and picking on the other. All the details aren't attributed to the RS as it should. It doesn't represent multiple POVs. Treating Kremlin announcements as disinformation and fake news snd conspiracy theories while the American government's as solid facts. This violates Wikipedia's five pillars. This isn't right. This is not what Wikipedia is made for. Wikipedia is not a propaganda arm for neither sides. I think we all, as Wikipedia volunteers, should respect the reader to make their opinion on the matter by complying with Wikipedia's policies. It's for the reader to pick the side they feel is right. Not us to play their mind by twisting facts to pass our agenda because we think it's right.
Is the Eastern world pov a minority and extraordinary view? There are only two sides in this fight, the west and the east, how is the other side a minority? Formal governmental announcements aren't extraordinary. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 12:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
We aren't to decide that the Western governmental claims are solid facts while the Russian's and Chinese are not. One either equally treat all governments' announcements as facts or fake news. But to treat the side that one agree with differently and say that all other POVs are extraordinary then claiming that they are trying to avoid making false balance is an utter cherry picking and a fallacy. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
There are only two sides in this fight, yes; but we are on neither, we are Wikipedia. As for POVs in the press, there are several: US, European, Russian, Indian, Chinese, Middle Eastern, etc. We do not chose to simply represent the Russian POV because they deserve it. "Not us to play their mind by twisting facts to pass our agenda because we think it's right" – I think that is exactly what Option 2 does, so I somewhat agree with you. Also, this RfC is not about the aricle in general, but about the section, specifically. We cannot achieve a balanced view by presenting one POV in parts, and another POV in others. We need NPOV everywhere; Slatersteven correctly pointed to WP:FALSEBALANCE, which is policy. Feel free to vote for one of the options in Question B, but maybe better give the reasonings in your own vote, not in a reaction to mine (it's more difficult to check later). –LordPickleII (talk) 13:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
@Super ninja2 you object that the article isn't satisfying the NPOV, but I think you're misunderstanding how the policy works. In a nutshell, Wikipedia policy is that we accurately summarize what Reliable Sources say about a subject.
Government controlled news in countries with low press freedom range from dubious to totally unreliable. Russian news organizations have long been established as not Reliable - for good reason. NPOV is that we address all significant views roughly in proportion to their presence in Reliable Sources. If essentially no Reliable Sources report some Russian claim, NPOV is that we do not report that claim. If substantially all Reliable Sources reporting on a Russian claim present it as a false claim, then NPOV is that we present it as a false claim.
If anyone attempts to argue that substantially all Reliable Sources are wrong, biased, or part of a conspiracy, then under policy that is an argument that we must accurately summarize that wrong/biased/conspiracy content. If anyone wants to argue Russian News sources are Reliable, Reliable Source Noticeboard is over here. However I doubt people at RSN are going to be friendly to another frivolous waste of time on that subject. Alsee (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Question 1: support having a section for peace negotiations. We do need a section to summarize the long main article. Readers need this section to decide whether they are interested in reading the main article or settle for the summary in this section.
Oppose. To both options. There are already two articles on Wikipedia which contain this information at 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine reactions#Peace efforts and also at 2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations. It appears redundant to add a third copy of the same material for a third time at Wikipedia in this article. Does Wikipedia need a third version of this section already existing on two other Wikipedia articles. The present article on the invasion is already over 400Kb in size and super-adding a third copy of the same material in such a large article seems a poor choice. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Peace negotiations aren't "reactions" to the invasion. The brief summary at the reactions article (identical to option 1 presented here) should be added here and removed from there. The peace negotiations article is the WP:SPINOFF article that we're looking to summarise in the appropriate "overview meta-article" (to use the wording of the guidance), which in my view is this one. Jr8825 • Talk10:31, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Question A: Support. It is standard to summarise a sub-article in a main article about a subject, just like Zaporizhzhia#Russian_invasion_(2022) in Zaporizhzhia, which is a summary of Russian occupation of Zaporizhzhia Oblast (needs updating). This RfC was called because one editor used abstract arguments against including a section summarising peace efforts. Another editor argued that the peace efforts aren't going anywhere (true, but besides the point). As we enter into the next (and hopefully, final) phase of the war, peace efforts are becoming one of the main issues that sources are reporting on this subject, and that's why we should include them in this article.
Question B: Option 1 is better than Option 2 because the commentary about Boris Johnson is unwieldy and polarising. As Ukrainians, we don't need a Brit to tell us that a peace deal with Putin isn't worth anything, and the earlier claim that we came close to an agreement with Russia in Istanbul [30] was reported as refuted by insiders [31]. I think the commentary from Hill and Mearsheimer belongs more in the main article, and they should be called commentators, not experts. I also think there should be a sentence about Zelenskyy's call on Putin for direct talks, which the Russians have dismissed. IntrepidContributor (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Question A: Strong support. Per WP:SS and WP:SPINOFF, this article is a high-level overview of the invasion and efforts to negotiate an end to the fighting are an important aspect of the topic; a brief section summarising the negotiations (providing an overview of the content at the sub-article) is therefore essential for our readers. This is what hatnotes such as {{main}} are for. There are perennial problems about the overlapping scope of this article and Russo-Ukrainian War, but that's outside the remit of this RfC, and this article remains the main place for content relating to the intensification of the conflict in 2022.
Question B: Weak support option 1, which I think is a suitably succinct summary of the main points, although the text shouldn't be seen as locked-in by consensus, rather as a basic building block. However, I believe the Bucha massacre should be mentioned, as I recall a number of RS stating that its discovery was a significant factor in the breakdown of talks. Strong oppose option 2, which has pretty serious WP:WEIGHT issues to my eyes. In particular, far too much emphasis is put on Johnson's actions, based on one Ukrainian source, which goes against the wider coverage in international press that I've read, which doesn't put anywhere near as much emphasis on Johnson's individual role (and as IntrepidContributor's points out, it could also be seen as devaluing the agency Ukraine has in making its own negotiating decisions, based on an exceptional claim without exceptionally strong sourcing). Additionally, the opinions of two commentators, a U.S. diplomat and Mearsheimer are undue. (I don't recognise the diplomat, but Mearsheimer holds minority views on the conflict, such as arguing NATO was largely responsible for the war, and therefore again due weight applies here – Mearsheimer's analysis is noteworthy but not suitable for a brief, broad summary of negotiations, it is only suitable for the main article on negotiations, and should be given coverage proportional to more mainstream analyses. Jr8825 • Talk16:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Question A: no opinion. I can see arguments for including this, I can see arguments for leaving it out. It ultimately led to nothing, after all.
Question B: support option 1. Option 2 is too long, it implies that Boris Johnson stopped Kyiv from surrendering (excuse me, "ending the bloodshed"), and I see no reason to give Mearsheimer's opinion so much prominence when he's basically been wrong about everything. He continues to claim that Putin doesn't want to take over all of Ukraine when that is exactly what Putin says he wants and completely ignores the fact that Ukraine is a country with agency and security concerns of its own. He can be included in some sort of "reactions" article where we give the "it's-Nato's-fault!" crowd's opinion, but certainly not here in the main article.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Changed vote on Question A Per Cinderella157, this deserves at most a very brief mention in passing, not a dedicated section. If we're including one though I still prefer option 1 for question B.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Where else in this article would you summarise the negotiations? I don't see any existing section where a brief summary would logically belong. Jr8825 • Talk10:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Question A: support, as the peace process is a key part of information about the conflict. Question B: neither option is ideal. Both seem to have cherrypicked quotes that display editorial bias. As a starting point, I would suggest using option 1 but without the last sentence. —Mx. Granger (talk·contribs) 20:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
No both as written. It would appear to me that some editors forget that we should be writing in summary style and that when we have a sub-article dealing with a particular aspect of content, detail like when Putin last farted and what Zelenskyy had for breakfast belongs there. The main article need only mention in passing a WP:SPINOUT - which it does without the need for a separate section. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
@Cinderella157: I only asked as I thought you might be responding to both of the options presented for Question B, rather than both questions. I don't see why summary style/using sub-articles means we shouldn't have a section summarising negotiations. If anything, I see it as a reason for having a brief section, as it ties together this article with the spin-off much better than relegating it to a "see also" link: the guidance at SPINOUT says "when you split a section from a long article into an independent article, you should leave a short summary of the material that is removed along with a pointer to the independent article". Regarding excess detail, this article currently includes miscellaneous minutiae such as the sale of 18 "CAESAR self-propelled howitzer systems, mounted on the Renault Sherpa 5 6×6 chassis" (I'll have a go at cutting the foreign military sales section soon, if nobody else does first, as it's a section I've highlighted in the past, too). This reminds me of the earlier discussion we had regarding the background section; it was sliced up and squeezed into a couple of sentences in order to save space even though there's plenty of less important fat to trim elsewhere. There's plenty of room for cuts that will provide space for a brief summary of the efforts to make (and occasions when) negotiators from both sides sat down. Jr8825 • Talk13:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
@Jr8825: I was just about to write the same, about the SPINOUT quote. Not that you can't be against it, Cinderella157, but your argument seems self-contradictory, with the policy you cited stating that we need such a subsection. This is the same for WP:SS (summary style), which you alluded to, but not linked. Quote from there (specifically WP:SUMMARYHATNOTE): Longer articles are split into sections, each usually several good-sized paragraphs long. [...] Ideally, many of these sections will eventually provide summaries of separate articles on the subtopics covered in those sections. And also: In the parent article, the location of the detailed article for each subtopic is indicated at the top of the section by a hatnote link such as "Main article", generated by the template {{Main|name of child article}}.(my emphasis in bold). This is exactly what's being discussed here, whether or not we should adhere to that. Article size is a concern I understand, but every pointer to policy or guidelines I have seen brought up seems to only support the opinion for a section. –LordPeterII (talk) 14:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Supporting Cinderella and Slatersteven on this. Wikipedia has multiple tools and procedures for dealing with this type of situation. Wikipedia does not need to re-duplicate articles three times in different places merely for the sake of making redundant copies with pointers and redirects to the same information content. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Err... no offense @ErnestKrause, but would you consider acknowledging the points above? Wikipedia has multiple tools and procedures for dealing with this type of situation – yes, those we pointed to above. If you can point to a different guideline that supports your view, it would help your cause! It's a little irritating to constantly hear "clearly, this should not be done", when we clearly have guidelines that disagree. That was a similar issue in another RfC I started, where people would give their opinion, without being able to back it up. You guys have had some valid arguments otherwise, but "article content must not be duplicated" is a really weak one at present. –LordPeterII (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Err... fully supporting Cinderella and Slatersteven on this. Both of them have articulated on this issue clearly and straightforwardly. Possibly you should re-read their statements which are really strong in comparison to your weak reading of their well-stated and well-directed points. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
The various guidance being cited would assume that a spinout article has been created from a section of the main article that has evolved to be of substantial size. This is not the case here. 2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations was created here on 8 March 22. This version of this article (the main article) immediately prior to that creation has no such corresponding section and doesn't even mention the talks as far as I can see. The advice is not consistent with the particulars of this circumstance. Perhaps we should refer to 2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations as a spinoff rather than a spinout. If one were to summarise 2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations into this article it would read: Unsuccessful peace negotiations were held at A [place] from W-X [dates] and B from Y-Z [or similar]. In the greater scheme of things (this, the main article) these efforts to date (by virtue of their lack of success) are litte if anything more than a footnote and should be trated here accordingly. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Why must the peace efforts be successful in order include them as a section here? It won't be possible to lift the sanctions (on which we have a section) until Russia signs a peace deal with Ukraine [32], so it is not a minor detail. IntrepidContributor (talk) 08:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Question A: No per Cinderella and WP:PROPORTION. The failed peace talks were not significant enough to warrant a section the article. I'd suggest a single sentence along the lines of "Unsuccessful peace talks were held between Russia and Ukraine during February and March." instead. Details like the locations and dates of the talks, the number of rounds, comments from either on whether they were open to more negotiations, etc. don't add anything important; the talks didn't produce any results and until another round of negotiations happen there's nothing new to report.
Question B: Weak Support for Option 1 As mentioned, I think the detail's excessive, but if we are going to have a section it's an alright summary. Oppose Option 2 on NPOV and WEIGHT grounds. I agree with Jr8825's explanation of the problems with that option. --RaiderAspect (talk) 07:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Another argument claiming that the the "failed" peace efforts are a "minor aspect" (per WP:PROPORTION) when we have a huge amount of published material on the subject, including the widely reported statements from Putin, Lavrov, Nebenzya and Gatilov dismissing the possibility of a deal. There was also the alleged Abramovich poisoning during the peace talks in March, which gained very wide coverage. Either editors haven't read the WP:PROPORTION guidance, or the published material on the subject. IntrepidContributor (talk) 08:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Question A: support, I fully agree with Mx. Granger (and others). The peace process to negotiate an end to the fighting are an important aspect of the topic. And that it is standard to summarise a paragraph in a main article about a subject with the relevant link. Question B: It doesn't matter so much now, it can be agreed later. I was mainly concerned with returning to the state before the paragraph, which was there for almost entire existence of the article, was removed without any agreement by the two users. Anyway, I think that both have cherrypicked quotes, it would be better with just the facts (like that the negotiations were for now suspended).Jirka.h23 (talk) 06:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Support for Question A: I find correct to cover the attempts to find a diplomatic solutions and it is correct to insert a brief summary in this article. Regarding Question B, I prefer Option 1 : I prefer to stick to facts and leave out comments and conjectures P1221 (talk) 07:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Support for Question A: I'm not in favour of either version as the summary does not cover any of the reasons and the changing events that stalled the talks. There were statements by both sides as I remember. Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Support for question A with weak support for Option 1 though I imagine more information would be added to it in the future. In general I think it's a good idea to have at least a small section in war articles discussing meaningful peace attempts. BogLogs (talk) 12:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
I'd like to discuss the objections to a "peace negotiations" section that Slatersteven raises above, namely: (1) "this article is about the invasion of 2022, not the wider war", (2) "they failed, so have had no impact on this invasion" and (3) "it is unlikely that these will be the last negotiations". I'd like to offer some responses and hear others' opinions on them.
Regarding (1), this article already covers the broader aspects of the war since 24 February (e.g. foreign support, humanitarian/economic impact, global reactions). Its scope is more comparable to our article on 2003 invasion of Iraq, a distinct stage of intense fighting within the broader Iraq War, than it is articles on military campaigns within consistently intense wars (e.g. Operation Barbarossa). The 2003 invasion article covers the prelude, legality, looting, responses etc.; equally, negotiations to end the current fighting in Ukraine, which briefly made up a significant part of media coverage of the invasion for a period of a few weeks, seem within scope here. I recognise the distinction between this article and Russo-Ukrainian War is currently ambiguous (a point I acknowledged above), but that's a topic of discussion for another time – we should be making a decision based on this article as it stands, and the negotiations we're discussing were uniquely in response to the 2022 invasion: negotiations revolved around the occupation of large parts of Ukrainian territory and were very different in substance to previous negotiations centred around the War in Donbas, for example.
Regarding (2), I think if we apply the 10-year test it's likely future readers will want to know about the failed negotiations that took place early in the invasion but quickly broke down for various reasons (accusations of Russian bad faith, anger after the Bucha revelations). The previous negotiations are a part of the history of the invasion, even if they turn out to be a relatively minor part; for example, their failure may represent a moment when it became clear the invasion was developing into a longer-term conflict. They may also impact future negotiations.
Regarding (3), I think the best option is to write a summary of the peace negotiations that took place that we can then adjust when future negotiations take place. It's impossible to predict when and how this might occur, but we can easily reduce the coverage of the previous negotiations to something like "early in the war, a series of failed negotiations took place etc. etc., after XX/XX/2023, negotiations were reopened". Keen to hear others' responses to these points. Jr8825 • Talk20:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
^Roshchina, Olena (28 February 2022). Переговори делегацій України та Росії почалися [Negotiations between the delegations of Ukraine and Russia began]. Українська правда [Ukrayinska Pravda] (in Ukrainian). Archived from the original on 14 March 2022. Retrieved 7 March 2022. Деталі: Переговори відбуваються на Гомельщині на березі річки Прип'ять. Із міркувань безпеки точне місце організатори переговорів не називають. [Details: Negotiations are taking place in the Gomel region on the banks of the Pripyat River. For security reasons, the organisers of the talks did not name the exact location.]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not all blogs are treated the same. News blogs are acceptable sources because their "writers are professionals." So we can say that research organizations' blogs are acceptable sources too since their writers are professionals.
LSE Blogs are good, but should points should generally be attributed in-text to the author of the blog, as it's their personal view as an expert. Jr8825 • Talk15:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
I think given that polls showing the level of Russian support for the invasion have received a significant amount of coverage in reliable sources, it's WP:DUE to include in the article, but it should be briefer, and within the reactions section.
Radio Liberty is generally a respected source and I think acceptable for this purpose. The LSE blog is also not the same as a self-published source, and even it was, they're subject matter experts. I would prefer sources such as the NYTimes or BBC though Tristario (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
ErnestKrause, Slatersteven asked what you support, not who you support. Wikipedia editing is not based on voting and this is the second discussion I've seen you engage what looks like that. If I see you engaging on the talk page in this behaviour a third time, I will report it to the administrators and request your removal from this topic. IntrepidContributor (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Probably another source can just be used then, I don't think that's a big issue. Radio Liberty does not operate in the west so people largely only associate it with its cold war origins and the fact that it's funded by the US government. However, in my experience, its quality is on the level of a WP:GREL source. I have had a look at the reliable sources noticeboard archives and have not seen any substantive objections to its reliability besides the fact it's funded by the US government. Tristario (talk) 12:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
svoboda means liberty in a few different languages. The political party is named after the word for liberty. Svoboda.org is the website of radio liberty Tristario (talk) 13:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
There are already several articles on Wikipedia showing the Russian people's reaction to the invasion, so I'm not sure why the exact same thing should be in the main invasion article. Various opinion polls are used by the Kremlin in its propaganda campaign, which is also why opinion polls are allowed in Russia, unlike independent media. During the Iran-Iraq War, when Saddam Hussein invaded Iran in 1980, no one cared about opinion polls in Iraq because it was seen as Hussein's propaganda. Why is Putin's propaganda so important? There is a dictatorship in Russia, everything is decided by a narrow group of people led by Putin, all the media is controlled by Putin's regime and Russians are informed only about the Kremlin's version of events, people can be imprisoned for up to 15 years for criticizing the war and the Russian army, for spreading so-called "fake news". According to some sources, in telephone polls, a high percentage of people polled don't want to answer questions about the war in Ukraine or President Putin, because these are topics that are subject to prosecution in Russia, so the question is whether these polls can be trusted, even if it's from Levada. It should definitely be mentioned in Wikipedia, but why in this main article? --Tobby72 (talk) 11:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
We won't say the exact same thing, we provide a briefer summary of those things in this article. And we can include caveats as reported in reliable sources. I don't think this talk page is the right place for a discussion about details of authoritarianism and propaganda in Russia, and I don't want to get bogged down in a discussion about that. Ultimately that's irrelevant, we'll just say what the reliable sources say. Tristario (talk) 02:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Kremlin propaganda? What are you talking about? You mean we should hide any information that is used by the Russian side (or any side you don't like) even if it's 100% true and satisfy Wikipedia's rules and policies and mentioned in multiple RS? Your argument is not adequate and doesn't make any sense and therefore is not considered.
There is No consensus for your edit earlier today in the main space for this article on the Talk page here which is still in progress. You have been contacted by two editors on your Talk page regarding this matter and associated edits you have made. Establish consensus on the Talk page here prior to further edits. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
ErnestKrause, your response to Editor:Super ninja2 proclaims a consensus based on a number of editors and like the rest of your posts in this discussion, it did not make any substantive argument for or against the content. Please put a stop to this behaviour lest I take it to an administrator noticeboard. IntrepidContributor (talk) 01:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't mind a summary of polls on main article pages. The problem is when they are conducted under autocratic regimes, when there is a clear self-censoring effect. I cleaned up a sloppily written attempt which made it clear that a) under the Putin autocratic regime, accurate polling is difficult, b) I inserted 'polled' and 'surveyed' to stress that this was the opinion of those polled, not the general population, c) I made clear that the polls covered the period just prior to, and just after, the invasion, i.e., implying they may not represent present opinion. I suggest my revision (http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=1112295639&oldid=1112281240&diffmode=source)is an adequate starting point for further revisions. Full disclosure: I have Rus ancestry, I have visited Russia several times, I was director of a social survey center conducting public polling in countries with both autocratic and military regimes, I have a relationship with a UN peacebuilding NGO, and I have worked with one or more militaries. Johncdraper (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
As I've said I think we should be include polling in this article however it needs to be briefer than what attempts so far have done, this article is not the place for an extended discussion about polling in Russia, and it also needs to comply with WP:NPOVTristario (talk) 00:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
I like Johncdraper's longer version for the Reactions page and your summarised version for this page. It can be expanded and updated as public sentiment in Russia becomes clearer. IntrepidContributor (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
It is so short. The article is so long and contains details on every aspect including a section about foriegn protests which is not directly related to the war. So why this section has to be brief?! If anything, the section about foriegn protests is the one that has to be removed. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Super ninja2 was it necessary to delete the summarised version instead of trying to expand it a bit with some context? Some editors oppose including anything, and some oppose including too much, so a summary seems like a good place to start. IntrepidContributor (talk) 01:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree with IntrepidContributor that JohncDraper's version should be adopted. I believe that given the context of the issue, the depth of the article a more detailed version should be included. This perspective gives justice to the topic and I don't see the downside of more details. Jurisdicta (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
@ErnestKrause This was what was suggested, and no one objected to it for over a week. If you wanted to object to including this, you had over a week to do so. What is your objection to including at least a brief mention of polling in this article? As I said people can expand and adjust it Tristario (talk) 11:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Slatersteven has not objected to including a mention of polling in this article. He had some issues with the sources and we discussed that. What is your issue with this edit? Tristario (talk) 11:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy for Support and Oppose comments is that they stand for the duration of the discussion taking place. It is not a matter of the 'most recent comments' approach which you appear to be wanting to apply. You need to follow WP:Consensus and reach consensus on the Talk page. ErnestKrause (talk) 11:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I would suggest reading through the page you just linked because your understanding of consensus is wrong. Reaching consensus is a natural process where people continually move the discussion forward and attempt improvements and changes which address or make a compromise with other people's concerns, based on policy. It does not mean absolutely everyone that was ever involved in the discussion needs to explicitly agree to a particular edit before that edit is even made. Tristario (talk) 12:03, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
There appears to be no added support for your edits and you appear to be edit warring to force your version of the edit into the article. If you continue edit warring to force your version of the edit into the article without consensus then any editor can submit your name for edit warring. Both Slatersteven and myself are opposed to your edit. Your edit is reverted following Wikipedia policy for edit warring. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
@Slatersteven did not object to the inclusion of information about polling in this article, he had some issues with the sources, and we discussed that. @ErnestKrause You are the only person objecting to any inclusion of information about polling in this article, I haver repeatedly asked you what your rationale is for your objection, and you have not explained. Besides you there is broad support on the talk page for at least some information about polling in the article. You are the one editing against consensus.
Not that consensus is not a unanimous vote. You cannot simply say "I object" and then refuse to ever explain why. Note on WP:TALKDONTREVERT it says "arguments like 'I just don't like it' usually carry no weight whatsoever" Tristario (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Actually yes I can, if I have no more to add, silence cannot be taken as acquiescence. If I do not say yes, it means I do not accept your arguments. But I will say that if we include this it should only be about a line, and must point out how the polls may be biased. Personally, I am unsure what it adds, as these are snapshots that may not reflect the real situation (given the allegations of bias). Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
So you're fine with including information about polling in the article then?
You never said you objected to the inclusion of information about polling. You objected to two sources, one because you thought it was the website of a political party (which it wasn't, and that source isn't in this edit), and the other because you said it was a blog. However, the discussion demonstrated that it wasn't a self published source, and the acceptability of the source was supported by other people. Regardless, that source does not need to be used, anyway. Tristario (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
And as I said "Actually yes I can, if I have no more to add, silence cannot be taken as acquiescence. If I do not say yes, it means I do not accept your arguments.", I objected to inclusion and thus without my withdrawing it that objection should have stood. But you are correct in that once my concerns had been addressed (assuming I agreed they had been) I should have made other objections more clear, I now have. Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
You never objected to inclusion either, though, you just objected to the sources. Thank you for engaging, anyway. I was not inserting the same edit that you previously objected to (which was added by someone else), by the way, it is a substantially reduced edit that also includes concerns about the reliability of the polling. So, to be clear, you do object to the inclusion of this edit? Is there a way that it could be adjusted that would make it acceptable to you? Tristario (talk) 11:32, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean about the past tense, since it's already in the past tense? How is this:
Polls conducted following the invasion in February and March found between 58% and 81% of Russians said they support the war,[1][2] and polling conducted into September continued to indicate support from a majority of Russians.[3][4][5] However, the accuracy of polls may be affected by self-censorship due to a fear of voicing dissent and new censorship laws, as well as concerns about indifference in the population and wording of polls.[1][2][4]Tristario (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Would you like to try writing a couple of sentences on Russian polling that you would accept, even if to state they are unreliable, and why? Johncdraper (talk) 14:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
If pressed on this issue, it might be useful to consider adding a small edit to the current phrase in the reactions section which states, "...public response, media responses, peace efforts,...", and adding the phrase "polling responses" piped to the Reactions article and indexed to the polling section there. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Your source is from July, and it says Ukraine has one million ready to recapture south (and also contradicts itself in the first sentence saying it is massing a million-strong force). Not one million involved in combat, but ready. Something better would be a newer source that says how many troops are / have been involved in combat.
Strength = “the number of people comprising a group.” Ukraine’s military strength is the number in its military, not the number involved in combat. Often military strength is subdivided as to active (ready) forces and reserves, but this may be difficult to pin down as Ukraine has mobilized and has been constantly generating more forces.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What is missing
Good morning. IMHO We need two separate pages regarding:
Targeted killings listing people like Valery Kuleshov, Dmitry Savluchenko, Serhii Tomko, Darya Dugina, Sergei Gorenko and many others occurred in the occupied zones or outside Ukraine (or even their attempts by partisans) I think is needed.
War on cities with the several attacks (and/or retaliatory attacks) occurred to the civilian cities (Mariupol theater; Vuhledar; Kramatorsk; Zapo; Odessa; Kiev; Lviv… and on Russian hand/side like Donetsk; Belgorod etc.) or their infrastructures (Markets; Hospitals; Electic power plants, Railway stations, bridges [eg. Zatoka Bridge ([34]) targeted at least 8 times] etc.) and the use of ballistic missiles (Tochka-U, Iskander) or Kalibr cruise missiles (Moldovan Airspace violation and consequent official protest), use of Iranian drones (renamed Geran 2).
You appear to be editing without reliable sources to draw your conclusions. You are also not answering Talk page comments, while at the same time commenting on other threads on the same Talk page. You need to follow RS, and I have given multiple reliable sources for my edit. I request you explain why you are reverting without any reliable sources, when I am presenting multiple reliable sources. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
There are multiple reliable sources making this report. Russian diplomatic officials have made this claim, and Estonian diplomatic officials have gone on the record as denying it. Also, Ukraine has put forward diplomatic officials to deny the claim made by Russia. Just read the Wikipedia articles for Darya Dugina and Killing of Darya Dugina. Regarding the Crimean bridge incident, I'm not sure what your issue is? What are your reliable sources saying was the cause of the bridge incident? ErnestKrause (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Well we can easily solve the issue using Alleged targeted killing and so on. Moreover War on cities is a fact, nobody else own Kalibr SLCM cruise missiles except Russia. Nicola Romani (talk) 14:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
We have two separate questions asked in the OP, then we have comments about the editing of already existing sections, and not in the creation of new articles (the OP,s question). Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
There are two sections now for dealing with this. If Nicola would like to add further edits to the 'Russia' section such as the one about Rostov, then I'll try to support here: [36]. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
I do not think that Dugina and her death are notable enough to be included on this very general page. She was just a barely notable propagandist. And a lot about her killing still remains unknown. And how she is relevant to this war? The text does not explain it. This is definitely undue on this page. As about other mentioned people (Valery Kuleshov, etc.), I do not see any sources. My very best wishes (talk) 02:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
So, once again, no one knows for sure if assassination was targeting her father ("apparently" does not work here). Moreover, no one knows who was behind this assassination. An unnamed US official saying something was possibly a disinformation, especially because he/she did not provide any details. Overall, the connection of this material to the subject of the page is highly questionable at best; this is certainly undue on this page. Remember, this is main page about the war. Some other pages - yes, no problem, this can be included. You guys need WP:CONSENSUS for including this material. My very best wishes (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
In addition, I do not understand your edit summary here. The Crimea sections are fine, I did not remove them. As about bombings in Russia, yes, there were quite a few of them. So what? My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
You appear to be edit warring on the article main space in opposition to Wikipedia policy against edit warring. You appear to be reverting against two editors in agreement on those related edits. May I ask you to stop edit warring against Wikipedia policy and establish consensus on the Talk page first prior to further edits. You appear to have no support for your reverts. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:47, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
I do not see consensus to include it based on discussion in this thread. To the contrary, you (and only you) re-include this new material [37] without consensus. In addition, you did not respond anything of essence to my objections to include just above. My very best wishes (talk) 22:42, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
The edit under discussion for those two sections were created last week by Steven and myself; which was done when the Crimean bridge explosion was being discussed in the press, and reverbations of the Darya Dugina death were in the international press and in the NY Times. Aleksandr Dugin is a prominent pro-Putin author and any targeting of him or his family has been found to be relevant in the international press and in the NY Times. Targeting high-ranking members of Putin's government and advisors has been covered extensively by RS. RS should be relevant in this article and retained. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
How come? (a) the edit was made by you [38], (b) I do not see anyone supporting this inclusion in discussion above, (c) this text does not say anything about the Crimean bridge explosion (yes, that explosion should be included, and it is included), (d) no, even Dugin himself is not mentioned on this page anywhere (and rightly so), hence mentioning his daughter is even less justifiable. My very best wishes (talk) 00:57, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Keith D There is a current discussion with "User:My very best" which is being interrupted by drive-through editors who are section blanking the edit currently under discussion on this Talk page. I'm not able to respond intelligibly to "User:My very best" without being able to reference the section which is being section blanked by editors who are not participating in this Talk discussion. I request a roll-back of the 'Events in Russia' section to a neutral point from one week ago as edited by User:Steven here:[40]. This would allow Talk page discussion to continue. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
That is not how it works (you get consensus for inclusion, not exclusion we do not keep something that is up for discussion), and you can post the text here for discussion. And do not assume I agreed with its conclusion, I did not (as I said more than once). All I did was to make it as neutrally worded as possible in order to compromise. As at the time is was just a dispute between you and me, and I felt it best to end it. Every one of my objections still stands. Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm requesting that the edit which you made to be restored. Once restored you can then make your pro and contra statements as you prefer; you can side with which ever editor you decide is best for the article. "User:My best wishes" is an experienced editor and I'm requesting to be able to present her with the citations being requested. Once the section is restored, I'll then be able to add the citations being requested in an intelligible manner; then you can state your support or opposition. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Oh no, you are mistaken. This is the opposite. Per WP:CONSENSUS, the initial/default version was one that existed before you inserted your text without having consensus. By removing this text I acted stricktly per WP:BRD. You made "bold edit" (inclusion of new content). I reverted and provided all reasons why. Now it is your turn to get consensus for inclusion. That's why two other contributors reverted your edit. Please respond to my substantial objections above ("How come?" etc.) if you want to convince me and others. Basically, did Dugin play a significant role in this invasion (the subject of this page)? Can you prove this with RS? If not, the inclusion of his daughter is even less justifiable. My very best wishes (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
You need to engage with My very best wishes' objections instead of simply asserting consensus or lack of consensus. As of right now their objection seems well reasoned Tristario (talk) 23:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
I am adding the disputed addition here for reference, rather than reinserting in to the article while discussion continues. Keith D (talk) 21:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Darya Dugina, daughter of prominent pro-Putin follower Aleksandr Dugin, was killed on 20 August 2022, when her car exploded on Mozhayskoye Shosse in the settlement of Bolshiye Vyazyomy outside Moscow around 9:45 p.m. local time.[1][2] She was driving to Moscow after attending the annual festival "Tradition", which describes itself as a family festival for art lovers.[1] The "Tradition" festival is held at the Zakharovo estate,[1] approximately 1 kilometre (0.62 mi) north of Bolshiye Vyazyomy. Investigators said an explosive device was attached to the underside of the car.[3] It is unclear whether she was targeted deliberately, or whether her father, who had been expected to travel with her but switched to another car at the last minute, was the intended target,[1] or whether the intention might have been to kill both.[4]
This is a more or less OK and well-sourced text (it only incorrectly defines Dugin as "pro-Putin follower"), but how is it related to the subject of this page? Cited text does not explain any relevance. Yes, Dugin and she strongly supported the invasion, just as a lot of other people in Russia. Russian FSB claimed this to be a terrorist act by the Ukrainian government, and provided some evidence widely seen as fabricated. Ukrainian government officially denied any involvement. Some said that was a contract killing due to the business dealings by her father. Others said she was killed by Russian political assassins. Yet some others said it was an assassination by the FSB. Who knows? Dugin criticized Putin [41]. Yes, that was possibly something related to the war (we do not really know it), but definitely not deserving the inclusion here. This is main page about the invasion. She was just a barely notable propagandist. This is not blowing up the Crimean bridge. My very best wishes (talk) 01:26, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks to Keith for setting up this discussion in order to move forward. Darya Dugina was the daughter of Aleksandr Dugin, a far-right political philosopher, whose political views and support for Vladimir Putin she shared.[1][2][3] She appears not to have been the primary target, but her father appears to have been the primary target, who had been expected to travel with her but switched to another car at the last minute.[4] See also another report in this citation on whether the intention might have been to kill both.[5]
The list of RS on Alexandr Dugin as an influengtial voice upon Putin and his cabinet is extensive and I can also provide links here if needed. Darya Dugina was also posthumously awarded a medal of recognition by Putin after her death. Given the large number of reliable sources, this edit should be restored to the main article as related to Activity in Russia taking place during the 2022 Russian invasion. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
You did not address my concerns. The number of RS is irrelevant because the issue is the importance of her killing for this page. Did Dugin start this war? No. Did Putin start this war because Dugin convinced him? No, judging from sources I read. But even if he did, that would be a completely different text about how Dugin influenced this war. My very best wishes (talk) 15:30, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Other war info boxes have this, why not this one?
Just a few examples of many that could be used
If the answer is “because it plays into Russian propaganda”, that’s not acceptable. Wikipedia is not censored. If something is true, it should be included where appropriate even if it lends support to someone most users oppose.—Jfhutson (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
In other wars, those indirectly involved are included in the infobox. For example, the Korean War box has Israel because they gave the South Koreans $100k in food aid. I don’t think we have to include humanitarian support, but surely nations providing lethal military aid should be listed as supporters. —Jfhutson (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not playing neutral on this 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022 Russia- NATO war) issue. In many article where other country/group provided military aid they were added in infobox. NATO is playing the main role in this war. They are providing all kind of military intelligent, weapons, money, spy to Ukraine. The United States alone has allocated aid worth $65 billion, over ten times Ukraine's pre-war defense budget and on par with the entire annual military spending of Russia. However giving hundreds of billions of dollars in direct military aid, decisively turning the conflict in Ukraine's favor, should probably be mentioned in the infobox. You don't need to have boots on ground to be a supporter of a belligerent, that is the entire point of a "Supported by" section. I think this page is playing a dual standard. Shahidul Hasan Roman (talk) 20:45, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
So far the discussion has been whether or not to include certain supporters in the article and infobox, which discussion just a couple threads up is covering. For the most part reliable sources do not list most countries providing aid as belligerents or as involved militarily in the conflict. As for other articles, WP:OTHERSTUFF exists. and for every article that has supporters listed this way in the infobox there exists a similar article that does not. No global consensus exists as far as I know regarding the way this is approached. So far, the archive indicates past discussions reached consensus against listing weapons sales or financial support in this manner. King keudo (talk) 23:33, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Its been suggested that an infobox be added to the Military aid subsection of this article, though no-one has developed an Infobox for that section. It seems unlikely that such information will make it into the main Infobox unless a subsection in the Military aid subsection receives such a dedicated infobox first. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Belarus is listed as a Russian supporter for simply allowing Military acess but NATO isn't listed as an Ukraine supporter despite sending massive Military aid?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
They are only selling drones. Selling Military weapons doesn't need a special mention. Every sovereign country in the world does this kind of trade on a regular basis. But the NATO members are providing direct billions amount of free military weapons, supplying direct military intelligence in Ukraine to Fight Russia. This should be a special mention. Shahidul Hasan Roman (talk) 22:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose adding Iran to the "support" section of the infobox for the Russian side for sending drones and trainers, and North korea for sending soldiers to build infrastructure in the annexed parts of Ukraine. We should add NATO and the EU to a "support" section for Ukraine. 2603:7000:3B40:B500:BDB8:F15E:64FD:F7EC (talk) 01:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Add Syria to Russia's "Supported By" section of belligerents infobox
It has been well documented that Syrian mercenaries, and regular military units of the Syrian Army (The 25th Division to name one), have been deployed to and experienced combat in the Kherson region. Syria itself has been added to the infobox of the Kherson Counteroffensive, so it would make sense to add it here similar to how Belarus has been added. DragonLegit04 (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
If it can be shown that regular military units (not mercs) have been deployed, yes we can add them. But we need to see some RS saying it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
The reports appear to be somewhat isolated in the press such as here: [42]. Is the mainstream press covering this story about Syrian troops with RS? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Institute for the Study of War talks about this, including Syrian régime cooperation in recruiting. These reports include reference links to their sources.
March 11:[43] “The Kremlin announced plans to deploy foreign fighters, including up to 16,000 Syrian fighters, to Ukraine”
March 13:[44] “Ukrainian intelligence provided further details on Russia’s initiative to deploy existing pro-Assad units to Ukraine and recruit additional Syrian and Libyan mercenaries on March 13”
March 14:[45] “Russia continues to face difficulties replacing combat losses and increasingly seeks to leverage irregular forces including Russian PMCs and Syrian fighters”
March 17:[46] “The GUR reported that the Russian military ordered its base in Hmeimim, Syria to send up to 300 fighters from Syria to Ukraine daily. The GUR additionally reported that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has promised to recruit 40,000 Syrian fighters to deploy to Ukraine. The GUR reported Russian authorities are promising Syrian recruits that they will exclusively act as police in occupied territories.”
March 23:[47] “Russian efforts to bring Syrian forces into Ukraine may be encountering challenges”
“Russia is attempting to redeploy Syrian units with experience working under Russian commanders to Ukraine to mitigate high Russian casualties”
“Russia began a redeployment of Wagner units and their Syrian proxies from Africa and Syria to Ukraine in early February‚”
“Russian forces are redeploying within Syria in order to recruit and mobilize additional Syrian fighters for a second wave of reinforcements [to deploy to Ukraine]”
“Russia is leveraging its pre-existing relationships with multiple pro-regime units to coordinate the recruitment and select individuals from these units with combat experience”
“Finally, Russia is attempting to recruit and train a wider range of pro-regime Syrian fighters”
April 20:[49] “Ukrainian forces reported the presence of small numbers of Syrian or Libyan mercenaries fighting in Popasna (eastern Ukraine), likely individual recruits fighting under the umbrella of the Wagner Group rather than larger units”
These sources seem more than enough to justify the addition to the infobox as providing support. If boots on the ground, large military units, are sent they should then be listed as a belligerent. BogLogs (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
I am against this. If the NATO member countries that have provided hundreds of billions of dollars of aid to Ukraine, proving a decisive factor in the war thus far, are not mentioned the infobox neither should Syria for sending a handful of mercenaries that will prove inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 19:23, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
The decisive factor is if reliable secondary sources say so.
It doesn’t matter if it’s pennies or billions. Not fighting is not fighting. It is not participation in an international conflict. (“Handful”?)
If these are really only individuals part of Wagner PMC then they are a Russian outfit. But if the Syrian government and military are part of recruiting them, then that may be something else. If it is forming up units and handing them over to Wagner’s command, that is something else too. There’s a reason Western governments are having nothing to do with Ukraine’s foreign legion. —MichaelZ.23:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure officially supporting, while having a plethora of your member nations freely donate hundreds of billions of dollars in direct military aid both counts as "participation" (look up the definition of that word), and warrants a mention in the infobox. That's the entire point of "Supported by" section. Furthermore, noncombatants are listed in the Vietnam War infobox, and is thus warranted here. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 00:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
No, legally that is not participation in an international conflict. States give each other military aid all the time, and that does not create a conflict, so doing it during a conflict that is not participating in one either. Look it up.
I honestly believe at this point you are a case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I and many others have explained to you that they would not be listed as a belligerent, but as supporting a belligerent, which they (NATO) are by their own admission. They are giving copious amounts of military hardware to a belligerent nation in an armed conflict, for the express purpose of winning said conflict. Q.E.D., they belong in the "Supported by" section of the infobox. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 03:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Sorry if I’ve been unclear. Let me spell it out in case you can’t hear me. Belligerent has a legal meaning: participant in an international conflict (a war).
Belarus may belong because – although it is not a participant in the military conflict – it is guilty of the crime of aggression by providing its territory for direct attacks against Ukraine by Russian land forces and Russian missile attacks. It literally and directly supported aggression by criminal acts defined in the UN’s definition of aggression.
“Supporters” on the surface means states that support Ukraine. Going by UN resolutions that could mean 143 states that have condemned Russian aggression. Supporters in this sense are not belligerents. “Supporters” should not be presented as a subcategory of “Belligerents” if it used to mean states that support Ukraine.
Providers of military training, equipment, weapons, and ammunition are not belligerents either. Military provisions are traded and donated all the time, without creating a state of international conflict or war, and so such provisioning does not make a state a belligerent in a conflict. “Supporters” in this sense are not belligerents and the label should not be presented in such a way as to imply that they are. —MichaelZ.17:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Belligerent hasn't been the legal term for a long time. You may be thinking of "party to the conflict". Further, your point about Belarus has to do with whether it can be considered an aggressor, which it can, under the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 definition of aggression. This is irrelevant, though as not all belligerents, or parties to a conflict, are the aggressors. It then follows that not all supporters of belligerents need to be supporters of the aggressive party, nor do they need to be belligerents themselves to be considered supporters. In fact, showing them as supporters implies that they are not belligerents themselves, not the other way around. That's the whole point of the "Supported by" section.
Your argument seems more that Belarus should be considered a belligerent because the UN would define it as an aggressor, or that there shouldn't be a "Supported by" section at all, but it doesn't give a good reason that NATO shouldn't be a shown in that section if the section is there. Look up any definition of support, legal or otherwise. Keeping NATO out of that section ignores the facts, plain language and common sense. entropyandvodka (talk) 10:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Are those comments an example of plain language and common sense? And facts? That's the whole point of the "Supported by" section. Says who? The docs for template:Infobox military conflict explain the whole point, and I don’t see that in them.
Yes, belligerents are parties to an armed conflict. That’s what should appear under “Belligerents,” including legal aggressors and self-defenders.
Yes, it should include the odd case an aggressor that is not legally a party, because it only committed act (f) in the list of (a) through (g) in Article 3.[50]
Tacit in your entire argument is an assumption that Wikipedia should conform specifically to UN legal terms. Can you justify why that should be the case? Should Wikipedia infoboxes only show supporters in a conflict if the UN deems them parties to the conflict?
While there may be no need, in your opinion, for the Supporters byline, that leaves it up to the editors. In this particular case, the scale and impact of NATO support on this conflict is both substantial and well documented, and an at-a-glance picture of the conflict would be incomplete and misleading without it. entropyandvodka (talk) 17:20, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
The huge help Western weapons have given Ukraine against Russia is undeniable. We will have that arms supplies discussion over and over again until they're added to the infobox. Not fighting is not fighting. It is not participation in an international conflict. indeed. Adding those countries at the same level as Ukraine would be a mistake. But the proposal was to make a "Supported by" section or similar. SuperΨDro10:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
If your feelings are drawing you towards looking at this issue, why do you not create an infobox for placement within the section for "Foreign military sales and aid" to list the nations providing such support. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
This is an interesting idea but it begs the question of why we wouldn't simply list the supporting countries in the original infobox again as many other wikipedia articles do without controversy. BogLogs (talk) 04:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
It seems that the sub-infobox in the "Foreign military sales and aid" section would be needed first, in order to attract any serious consideration for the possible later inclusion in the main infobox. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
This is a very bizarre argument. In what other article on wikipedia has a sub-infobox been required for data to be amended in the main info box (much less even for consideration of it as you have written)? That said if you would like to make a sub-infobox as you have proposed and post it here for discussion at the very least I suppose that might move things from a dead stand still and open the way to moving towards a future consensus. BogLogs (talk) 23:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Not completely clear how you have moved from your statement "This is an interesting idea" to your statement "very bizarre" comment. It seems like it would be easier to get your edit into that infobox information in the subsection, before you try to make arguments for getting it into the main infobox. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Your first comment was about the creation of a an infobox for the section for "foreign military sales and aid". While not the outcome I think is best for the article, I do think its an interesting idea and it wouldn't be the worse thing in the world to discuss it. Your following comment that it would be required for discussion of further points is what is bizarre to me. We have already been discussing in depth changes to the infobox, why would a sub-infobox be required for infobox changes much less continued discussion?
That said again, I don't think the original idea you came up with is a bad one by any means, if this is a serious idea on your part why not make an infobox model for the subsection to be discussed further? BogLogs (talk) 09:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Sticking to the original idea then, my concern is to indicate the difficulty factor of doing this. For any editor who wishes to do this, there will be the initial difficulty of getting it first into the 'Foreign military sales and aid" section, then there would be the even more difficult task of trying to transfer it to the main Infobox. Each of these represents added difficulties. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for this reply, I can understand what you mean more clearly now. It wouldn't be my preferred solution but you are correct any change at this point would probably require a great deal of determination and effort by those editors. BogLogs (talk) 11:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
You should absolutely add Syria, Iran, NATO, Transinistra, whatever have been cited to have given any sort of support to any of the sides, these are things that we know by living at this era and time, but in the following years people will open this page and not know which country supported the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.108.243.210 (talk) 20:32, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
"supported the war" and aiding a victim of the Putin regime's aggression are not the same thing
I am not sure. If Russia just recruited a number of individuals from Syria (I thought that was the case), that would not justify inclusion. However, if these guys came as a unit of Syrian army and fought as such, that would be different. What sources say? According to ISW [51], "Russia’s attempt to generate Syrian recruits appears to focus on individual replacements for Russian fighters rather than the redeployment of existing Syrian militias as coherent units." Based on that, I would say no. My very best wishes (talk) 03:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Change Infobox sub-heading from 'Belligerents' to 'Military alliances'
Russia
Ukraine
Countries sending military aid to Ukraine during the 2022 invasion
Russia
Ukraine
Countries sending any aid, including humanitarian aid, to Ukraine
The current structure of this invasion article is based upon a four-part division of the range of support being provided to the countries involved as ranging between military alliances at one end, and political neutrality on the other end. The two additional gradations introduced in the "Military aid" section of the article are illustrated in the demographic map illustrations which are: (a) Countries supplyling aid to Ukraine, and (b) Countries supplying any aid, including humanitarian aid, to Ukraine.
If this four part gradation of the level of support existing between nations is not sufficient for this Invasion article, then it should be discussed here on the Talk page. The four part distinction being used to describe the level of support between nations presently being used in the article can be summarized as: (i) Military alliances, (ii) Countries supplying military supplies or aid to Ukraine, (iii) Countries supplying any aid, including humanitarian aid, to Ukraine, and (iv) Countries which are politically neutral. It might be useful to consider changing the ambiguous designation of "Belligerents" to "Military alliances" in the current main Infobox given the current structure of the article as a whole. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:19, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
I’m opposed.
Regarding alliances, Ukraine is not part of any military alliance. Russia’s military alliance, the CSTO, is not participating in or supporting its invasion. —MichaelZ.14:34, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Both you and Steven appear to feel that there is some gradation between a military alliance, and Countries supplying aid to Ukraine, though you are not stating what criteria you would apply to that unspecified gradation. It would be useful to hear how you could sketch out this unstated gradation between Military alliances and Countries supplying military supplies. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:37, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
The significant part of CSTO is that Belarus has acted as a military ally of Russia by providing safe conduct to Russian troops for the purpose of attacking Ukraine. Belarus is listed in the Infobox largely because of this. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Oppose per Mzajac, Ukraine is not even part of some formal military alliance (such as NATO) and as far as I am aware is not even in an Economic one (such as the EU). Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Oppose. According to the map, the supposed "military alliance" includes Australia, New Zealand, and a few countries in South America and Middle East, along with Europe, USA, etc. That is wrong. Ukraine is not a part of any formal military alliances. Such image, when framed as a "military alliance", promotes the Russian propaganda narrative that Russia was attacked by the "collective West". My very best wishes (talk) 15:44, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
That is the image created by another previous editor; if there is a mistake in it then that editor might be contacted on Commons to try to correct it. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:37, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Comment I would point out that one does not simply just change an infobox and that this infobox only exists as a stand-alone template under sufferance of the broader Wiki community as a temporary measure. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:05, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Comment. This was not meant as a straw poll. My comment stated: "If this four part gradation of the level of support existing between nations is not sufficient for this Invasion article, then it should be discussed here on the Talk page." Both Michael and Steven appear to feel that there is some gradation between a military alliance, and Countries supplying aid to Ukraine, though they are not stating what criteria to apply in order to asses that unspecified gradation. It would be useful to hear from editors about how to sketch out this unstated gradation between Military alliances and Countries supplying military supplies. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:17, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Classification as a belligerent is an absolute, not a gradation. It is a category in international law, meaning a party engaged in a conflict. No alliances are engaged in this conflict. Two states are fully engaged: the aggressive invader and the defender. Additionally, we have added Belarus because it is guilty of the crime of aggression according to the UN’s definition, although it is not directly engaged in fighting nor has invaded Ukraine. Additionally, we should probably add Iran, at it has sent an Iranian military contingent into Ukraine to directly participate in the Russian terror bombing campaign, and has reportedly suffered casualties in Ukraine.
Provision of matériel through trade or aid does not create a conflict where none exists, nor is it participating in an existing conflict. It does not place a party under the category of “belligerents.”
As this is an ongoing conflict – subject to a lot of Russian disinformation about who is involved in it – we must not play fast and loose with these definitions. —MichaelZ.15:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Almost forgot: we have also added Russia’s fake DLNR “republics” under belligerents. IMO, they don’t belong there, because they have never been sovereign parties. Their military formations do belong under “Units involved” and “Strength” because they have always been under operational control of Russian officers in the Kremlin’s chain of command. —MichaelZ.15:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Both the fake DLNR republics are apparently now non-existent as 'sovereign republics' after their annexation by Putin on 30 September; they do not appear to belong in the Infobox. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Facts in law: the International Criminal Court in determining its jurisdiction found that there was an international armed conflict in Crimea by 26 February 2014, and in eastern Ukraine by 14 July 2014. It further found that there had been an armed conflict in eastern Ukraine since at least 30 April 2014 involving the DLNR, and is investigating the possibility that Russian control of these groups made it an international armed conflict from that earlier date ([52]:20¶88, 22¶94–95). —MichaelZ.16:15, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
All of those points are relevant. As far as I count them so far, there are at least several transitional criteria which countries can apply in general in moving from merely providing military supplies to a country in a state of warfare, in moving towards countries that have the equivalent of a full military alliance of shared combat troops in the field. Up to this point in time, this Talk page has included discussion of the criteria of providing boots on the ground, of providing planes in the air, of providing safe conduct for military troops to attack another nation, of providing classroom military training to another nation's troops involved in combat. Actually, this Talk page has covered many of the criteria which fall between outright military alliance and the mere provision of military supplies and equipment. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
So if you accept that so far we are "between outright military alliance and the mere provision of military supplies" then how can we say there is a military alliance? Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Pulling the various points made by Michael and others above into one coherent statement then: Russia and Belarus do have a military alliance (CSTO) and are therefore listed together in the Infobox as 'belligerents', while Ukraine at this moment has no military alliances and therefor is listed alone under 'belligerents' in the Infobox. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
I am really unsure how you come to that conclusion as at least one person has explicitly stated that the fact they are in a military alliance has no relevance here. They are listed together as one attacked, from the others territory. Slatersteven (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
That completely misrepresents me. In fact, I wrote that the CSTO is not participating in this conflict. Belarus has committed aggression against Ukraine by allowing its territory to be used for Russian aggression (UNGA Res. 3314, Art. 3[f]).[53]
This “transitional criteria” is your own WP:original research. Neither trading or donating military matériel, nor conducting joint military training, creates a state of armed conflict, nor does it make a state a participant in one. Nor does condemning aggression in a UNGA resolution. —MichaelZ.20:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps a moot point given the way this discussion has already played out but I'm opposed as well. Simply listing belligerents and their supporters, by whatever definition we can hopefully arrive at a consensus on, is the best way to introduce readers to the article information. BogLogs (talk) 12:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Steven and Michael have been taking a strict position concerning the criteria being used to determine the designation of being a belligerent in the Invasion. At present, they are stating that it falls short of requiring a written military alliance, though the exact criteria are still not spelled out. Apparently, military advisors from other nations visiting in Ukraine or Russia must be in uniform, in sufficient numbers, and be answerable to an established chain of command to qualify as being 'belligerents'. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
No that is not what either of us has said, we have said that to be labeled in a military alliance there has to be a formal military alliance. This is about "Change Infobox sub-heading from 'Belligerents' to 'Military alliances'", not who should be included. Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
No, that’s not what I said. A belligerent is a state that is involved in an international armed conflict under international law: an attacker (aggressor) or defender. —MichaelZ.20:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
I've noted both of your oppositions and am planning to alter this question to wanting to deal with the large number of undue Talk page threads here dealing with NATO. Should the Infobox include a "NATO status" tab under the current "Status" tab towards the top of the current Infobox, to state something like: "NATO status: Ukraine's application for NATO membership was rejected by NATO in 2008; Russian foreign policy is generally antagonistic to NATO." It seems as if something like this might assist in dealing with too many undue threads on this Talk page asking about NATO. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
The data point “Ukraine is not a member of NATO” is out of place in an infobox about a conflict, and putting undue weight on this. Are we going to list all of the other alliances Ukraine doesn’t belong to too? Are we going to list Russia’s alliances? —MichaelZ.23:57, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It just seems odd that the infobox lists "Ukraine" alone as a belligerent. NATO ought to be listed as a supporter as it is providing everything short of direct military intervention, i.e. billions upon billions of dollars of no-strings-attached military aid, both direct and indirect, providing intelligence, military training, etc. Not to mention Ukraine is now officially seeking NATO membership. One might even suggest listing every nation sending aid to Ukraine, as the amount is truly colossal. Many billions of dollars of direct monetary aid as well as military hardware, from a host of countries. What are others' thoughts on this edit?
Then lets having it again, because I can't find a comprehensive discussion in the near-infinitely long archives, and there seems to currently be considerable desire to denote more than nothing in the infobox with regard to Ukraine's foreign support. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
I read the discussion. Sure, many countries are sending aid but the idea that NATO (let alone countries like the United States, United Kingdom, Poland, and the Baltics) aren't "supporting" belligerents at this point is, IMHO, completely ridiculous. So while listing individual countries is excessive, NATO is most certainly a supporting belligerent. 2600:6C40:467F:D7DA:B57A:FD94:1305:FFE5 (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
by definition "belligerent" means the military of said country is actively participating with troops/air attacks/artillery barrages et al - NATO is not a belligerent any more than the USA was in WW2 prior to the Pearl Harbor attack, despite the massive materiel supplied by the Americans to Britain and the USSR prior to Dec 7, 1941 ... 50.111.48.23 (talk) 10:53, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
It's good thing then that the user you're responding to was in no way in insinuating that NATO, The US, etc. should be listed as "belligerents". They were saying they should listed as supporting a belligerent, which they are, both from pretty much any sort of objective analysis, as well as by their own admission. Go to the NATO or US government official websites, and you will see all about how they officially support Ukraine, and are sending hundreds of billions in direct military aid. NATO and a plethora of its member nation are supporters of Ukraine. To deny this is just WP:ICANTHEARYOU at this point. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 07:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
If we have NATO as a co-belligerent, then this would imply that Russia is not only fighting against Ukraine but also against NATO and the West, which would further underline the Russian propaganda and that would be unacceptable. 2A02:810C:4CBF:E144:805A:D21B:A275:B046 (talk) 03:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Does it further Russian propaganda to say which countries are proving support to Ukraine's defense? And even if the answer is yes, if it's the truth as an encyclopedia shouldn't we state it as such? As Russians will continue to make baseless claims regardless why not accurately explain what is happening? BogLogs (talk) 04:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
What a ridiculous argument. Russian propaganda should have absolutely no bearing on whether or not something is included in a Wikipedia article. NATO is quite plainly offering enormous military support to Ukraine. Your suggestion of not including NATO in the infobox because of perceived "Russian propaganda" is a flagrant violation of WP:NPOV. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 08:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Agree with Buzzlightyear99 here, it would be good to at the very least discuss changes to the infobox to include countries which support Ukraine. Since the previous discussion the amount of support has vastly increased and has been shown to be decisive in Ukraine's defense and counter offensives. BogLogs (talk) 04:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
NATO is not involved in Ukraine. The war is outside of its jurisdiction; it is not what NATO is for and not how it is set up to operate. For NATO to make any comment on Ukraine would require all its member countries to agree but no statement has been made and you will not find a citation to that effect in order to include that idea in the article. It is a very important distinction to make between the individual actions of various countries that happen to be members of NATO and NATO deciding to take action. If and when NATO gets involved, this will be abundantly clear and will be a gamechanger. Let us hope that they never have to. Ex nihil (talk)21:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
That is a good point. It is true that there has been no formal comment by NATO announcing joint action (certainly not anything along the lines of sending formal armies, thankfully!). That said if that were to happen NATO or any countries sending forces to fight would be belligerents and we would likely have to change the article title to WWW3 if we still have the ability to do so. The argument here at least for me is that given the amount of war materiel support given by NATO, or at the very least the NATO countries that are clearly sourced as providing large sums of that aid, should be listed as supporters of Ukraine's defense. BogLogs (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply, and you are indeed correct giving aid is not the same thing as declaring war. In fact I think no war has been declared since the end of WW2. But this kind of materiel support deserves some kind of mention. This is the most similar situation I could find with support drop downs in the info box etc etc. Soviet–Afghan War. I think it would be a good model for this page but I welcome other ideas and points of discussion. BogLogs (talk) 03:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
One of the main sections is “Foreign involvement,” right there in the table of contents. Very easy to find for anyone seeking it. For someone who wants the top of the article to prominently advertise NATO as “belligerent,” this would be creating a WP:NPOV problem.
The total in that list is 17 declarations of war, which seems notable. The key phase "conflicts since WWII..." should say something about Pearl Harbor which set a standard for 'acts of infamy' for subsequent generations. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article for casus belli states that there are three exceptions as follows: "In the post–World War II era, the UN Charter prohibits signatory countries from engaging in war except: 1) as a means of defending themselves—or an ally where treaty obligations require it—against aggression; 2) unless the UN as a body has given prior approval to the operation. The UN also reserves the right to ask member nations to intervene against non-signatory countries that embark on wars of aggression." It would be nice if someone would update these other articles from time to time. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Well I stand corrected on declarations of war among quite a few states (Can always learn something new everyday!). A number of the following points given seem quite unrelated to the discussion at hand. The question still stands and will probably be asked here again and again again, Is Ukraine's material support by other countries of such an impact that it deserves to be mentioned in the infobox similar to that of other articles. As the war, and the international politics surrounding the war, is so deeply effected by this aid I would certainly think that it should be listed clearly in the infobox. BogLogs (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
No one is saying it is. However giving hundreds of billions of dollars in direct military aid, decisively turning the conflict in Ukraine's favor, should probably be mentioned in the infobox. You don't need to have boots on ground to be a supporter of a belligerent, that is the entire point of a "Supported by" section. The Vietnam War article is a perfect example of this. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 02:48, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Literally in the first line of the first source I provided (the official NATO website): "...NATO and Allies continue to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence." Ukraine is supported by NATO, if the previous statement plus the hundreds of billions of dollars in direct military aid was not enough to convince you. It does not get any more straightforward than this. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 08:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
The United States alone has allocated aid worth $65 billion, over ten times Ukraine's pre-war defense budget and on par with the entire annual military spending of Russia. This includes economic assistance, massive amounts of arms, training, supply lines just outside of Ukraine's borders, and intelligence sharing from American aircraft conducting surveillance. To not list them (among other countries) under a "supported by" line, when every other article on this wiki (e.g. Iran-Iraq War) gives that distinction to any country that so much as sent a truck full of grenades to a belligerent, is absolutely ridiculous.--Nihlus1 (talk) 04:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
The primary question is whether this (an extensive list) should or should not go in the infobox, noting that there is a section of the article dealing with foreign aid of various types, where prose can capture the nuance of the nature of the aid that cannot be done in an infobox. There have been two RfCs on this already, closed with no consensus. Consensus is WP:NOTAVOTE but determined by strength of argument made against objective criteria (WP:P&G). Given that the RfCs are relatively recent, the question to be asked is "what in P&G has changed such that we are likely to arrive at a consensus different from the status quo?" The answer is, nothing. Continuing to discuss this is just a WP:BIKESHED. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
The infobox is one of the first things readers will see and effects the overall picture of the rest of the article (WP:BIKESHED was an interesting read but I'm not sure it applies here). If the question really simply boils down to is the article improved by including the countries that clearly support Ukraine in the infobox or not these other articles may serve as a good comparison: Korean War, Crimean War, Yom Kippur War, Russian Civil War. Would those articles be improved by removing supporting information from their infoboxs? Of course the reader could go deeper in the articles to find more but clearly the supporting countries listed in the infoboxs are well justified. A similar feature in this article's infobox, listing supporting countries, would be a big improvement to help readers understand the situation as they begin to dive into the article. BogLogs (talk) 10:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Everything you have said has been said and responded to before. My question was: "what in P&G has changed such that we are likely to arrive at a consensus different from the status quo?" A WP:BIKESHED is a time sink. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity and a time sink. How is this not a case of flogging the same dead horse and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? Cinderella157 (talk) 09:23, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Ok, I'll do my best to respond your question as you've laid it out here "what in P&G has changed so that we are likely to arrive at a consensus different from the status quo?". Nothing at least as far as I know.
However I hope you will at least consider the following. First from the Bikeshed page you have mention: This page in a nutshell: Don't get hung up on trifling details. The infobox at the top of the page is not a trifling detail as it informs the reader of the basics of the situation and what to expect from the rest of the article. If you feel it is a time sink to discuss this I would encourage you to consider why this question comes up so often. Also apologies if this is taking any considerable time from you as that really is not my intention.
Secondly, it's only flogging the same dead horse if there is no potential for change. Editors on this page are, I would hope, more than capable of having a reasonable discussion and coming to some consensus. Furthermore consensus can change over time and as was previously mentioned by BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 "The last RfC was 4 months ago, in a currently occurring armed conflict which is only 7 months old." Since that discussion Kiev has gone on two major counter offensives aided with a great deal of outside materiel support.
Lastly, and I'll make this one as concise as possible, using procedure to avoid an honest discussion is a cop out. However these P&G will provide the most basic argument for having further discussion about this matter: WP:CCC, WP:IGNORE, and WP:5P5.
Rather then spending time trying to close discussion why not at least try to engage with it to improve the article? BogLogs (talk) 10:26, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
I am in firm agreement with User:BogLogs. The entire purpose of a "Supported by" section is to list non-combatants who support belligerents in an armed conflict. Should the Vietnam War article have its infobox's "Support by" section wiped? It includes nations that offered only diplomatic support too, not material. And after answering the previous question, ask yourself if said article would be better for it. Your citation of WP:BIKESHED just seems like a convenient excuse to shut down discussion. The last RfC was 4 months ago, in a currently occurring armed conflict which is only 7 months old. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 01:40, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
You are welcome to share who, or perhaps which idea, you support but it would further the discussion more if you provided a short reason or two for that support. This actually isn't an RfC yet (though I suspect it may become one again in the future). In either case giving your point of view and reasons furthers the work of this talk page to providing the best possible article on a subject we clearly all care deeply about. BogLogs (talk) 04:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
NATO should be shown as a supporter. I disagree with @Cinderella157. The primary question here is not whether an extensive list should or should not go into the infobox, it is whether a single entry should, in a "Supported by" byline. Whether other entities than NATO are also listed does not affect the argument of whether or not NATO should be, so let's address that.
Significance. By listing NATO under Ukraine as "Supported by" it would convey a critical piece of information currently lacking in the infobox, which as is fails to capture the situation at a glance. If Belarus supporting Russia is significant enough to include in the infobox, then how is NATO supporting Ukraine not significant enough to include, especially when there is a detialed section of the article expounding on it? Compare the support Russia received from Belarus with the support Ukraine received from NATO. Neither the significance nor factual accuracy of NATO support for Ukraine is under reasonable dispute, thus it should be included.
Infobox Size. This wouldn't increase the size of the infobox, as the opposing column is already longer, so the argument not to include it as a space consideration (ie, because it is extensive list as @Cinderella157 said) is a failed argument. All the member countries need not be listed when one entity can. Nuance need not be captured here, as that isn't the point of the infobox and the rest of the article can do just that. Whether other non-NATO states should be listed ought to be separately argued for or against as @BUZZLIGHTYEAR99's original point was about the inclusion of NATO.
NATO would not be shown as a belligerent. Other concerns were raised in the archived RfC and alluded to here about listing NATO as a belligerent, but, as @BogLogs pointed out, that's the whole reason for a "Supported by" byline listing NATO — to show their involvement without listing them as a belligerent. Since NATO support for Ukraine has been extensively documented, and is even openly declared on their own webpage, in their own words, as @BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 cited, this seems much more reasonable than their absence from the infobox.
Consistency. Similar situations in other articles (the Soviet–Afghan War was a great example from @BogLogs) don't seem to spark this level of pushback, and feature even more complicated infoboxes that are still concise and easy to understand. I haven't seen a coherent objection to this that doesn't seem to want to change other infoboxes to win an argument over this particular one.
Neutrality. The role of NATO in this conflict has been and remains a controversial subject, but NATO support for Ukraine is an absolutely undisputable fact. Leaving NATO out of the infobox can give a reader that only checks that portion of the page an at-a-glance impression that NATO has no role in this conflict, that (in the infobox's current form) the only parties involved are Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. Such an impression would thus violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and the infobox should be updated to better reflect the spirit of neutrality. @Jarlaxll Expresses a related concern in his point.
Unless there are any coherent arguments against inclusion, I suggest we move forward with it and update the infobox. Consensus is reached by force of argument. Holding up a consensus without supplying a valid counterargument is not a valid argument. Citing things like Wikipedia:BIKESHED to shut down debate, or saying something has already been discussed to shut down debate, is not a valid argument either. Wikipedia:Consensus Does not require unanimity, which in this case may not be possible due to the charged nature of the subject. We should be going by force of argument alone, and in here and in the old RfC it looks like the inclusion side has won. entropyandvodka (talk) 00:47, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Having missing elements in infobox (as per other infoboxes) is misinformation. Very important, since some noticed that 70% of users see the infobox first and most check just that. Failing to have a comprehensive list of (at least the most important) "supported by" calls for infobox removal. Either complete it or remove it.
So i support having a "supported by" section. Notice that now with intelligence HIMARS etc, US satellites guide the missiles/ drones and POSSIBLY American hands pull the triggers/ point targets occasionally and have access and planning to actions/ strategy, not to mention US mercenaries being hired directly by US companies in the US with US funds and that the ground of other NATO memebers is being accessed by ukranian military (even if unofficially) for the purposes of this war. Therefore US and UK classify ALMOST as beliggerents. Finally as previously mentioned, this changed dramatically the course of war.
Therefore i suggest to either remove the infobox or have it provide complete information (at least US and UK and Poland as the main supporters).Jarlaxll (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 October 2022
Please add a wikilink to the phrase "deconfliction line" in the first sentence of the third paragraph of section 3.5 'Missile attacks and air war'. Currently, this page is an orphan, so I'm trying to add wikilinks to it. Thank you! Patr2016 (talk) 01:51, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Is there anything special about the speech that warrants it having its own article? If not a sentence on his wikipedia page would probably suffice. BogLogs (talk) 10:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
In this speech Putin strongly reaffirmed again that the Ukrainian state has no right to exist, but he was telling this all the time, hence probably nothing so significant. My very best wishes (talk) 04:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ukraine and Russia have both seen various countries support there respective causes, firstly the Ukrainian side has seen support from the EU, NATO, Columbia, Pakistan, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Australia and New Zealand as evidence by the Wikipedia article List of foreign aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War. Furthermore the Russian side has seen support from it's allies, namely Iran and North Korea; the sources are linked below:
I saw this topic of conversation was closed, but I think we should reopen it, as with all wars or conflicts I have ever seen on Wikipedia, all factions or sides of the conflict are listed, I am surprised this one doesn't seem to be following the same outline, it's not simply a Russia and it's proxies versus Ukraine conflict, both sides have there support and one has it's main support listed. We now have sources as evidence for all parties to the conflict. Let's reconsider expanding the faction listings. 65.211.16.54 (talk) 04:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The invasion was in 2022, and distinguishes it from the invasion of 2014. The fact that the occupation will continue to 2023 is irrelevant. Might change to "Russian invasion and occupation of Ukraine (2022 to present)", but not necessary IMO. — kwami (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Might cause a little trouble for history students in a few centuries, with questions like how long was the hundred years war or the war of 1812, but presently it should be fine with the name as it is now. BogLogs (talk) 10:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree with @Kwamikagami the title reflects when the invasion occurred, and any confusion is quickly mitigated by the first sentences of the lead. This is consistent with general Wikipedia nomenclature. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
I am in agreement. The current title implies there was no violation of Ukraine's borders or conflict prior to 2022. Something along the lines of "2022 escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian War" seems more appropriate. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
The article covers Russian mobilization, but does not seem to mention the volunteer units that were being raised earlier by local Russian regions. Anybody have sources for this? —MichaelZ.20:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Currently, the section dedicated to the air war is longish (21 kB), but missing the forest for the trees a bit: it has a lot of 'On the Ides of Smarch, Y said Z', and blow-by-blow reports of single engagements. The former are liable to be obsoleted as better analysis can be done later with more information, and the latter is valuable in the right context if it's done systematically instead of haphazardly, but maybe the top-level article for the invasion isn't the right place to put it.
I think it would make sense to split the air war section into its own article so that this article can have a much more summarised description, and then the new article can have as much detail and information as needed. Polyphemus Goode (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
"Some missiles crossed into Poland, killing 2 people in Przewodów, which led to top leaders of Ukraine to hold an emergency meeting." I'm pretty sure it's the top officials of Poland holding an emergency meeting, not Ukraine. Also, the source is missing, as it is currently reusing a source about the annexation of Crimea. Underfell Flowey (talk) 21:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The word "likely" gives two readable meanings in a sentence.
Change: "The invasion has likely resulted in tens of thousands of deaths on both sides and caused Europe's largest refugee crisis since World War II"
to: "The invasion has likely resulted in tens of thousands of deaths on both sides and has caused Europe's largest refugee crisis since World War II" Ghost of Kiev(talk)22:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Not only because of the various mainstream news reports of Russian usage of Iranian suicide drones, but the additional reports of Russia purchasing Iranian ballistic missiles as well as the Institute for the Study of War reporting on Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps members present in occupied Ukraine training Russia on how to use the drones mentioned earlier. The arms sales, training, and diplomatic support (“The Ukraine crisis is rooted in NATO's provocations.”, Iranian Foreign Minister, largely echoing Russian messaging) justify the addition of Iran to the “supporting Russia” list in my opinion. DBA78 (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Absolutely not. If NATO and its member countries, which have given hundreds of billions of dollars in direct military aid to Ukraine, is not listed as "Supporting Ukraine", then Iran definitely should not for giving Russia some missiles and drones. To do so would be an egregious double standard and violation of WP:NPOV. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 06:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
By this standard, provision of troops on the ground, acknowledged and in public, Belarus would have to be removed. BogLogs (talk) 09:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Belarus is here because of the military access it provided to russia. But yes, Iran and several Western countries should be listed. SuperΨDro13:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
From a neutral point of view, the Iranians should absolutely count as supporting the war just from the drone training alone. It counts as support when NATO had troops in Ukraine (and now currently have Ukrainian troops on NATO soil for training) on training missions while showing how to use Western arms and suppling. It's a double standard for Iran not to count when they are doing the same thing: deploying troops on a training mission and supplying Russia with arms. It is not violating WP:NPOV. DBA78 (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Why not just add both then? Have NATO supporting Ukraine and Iran supporting Russia. I mean, they are being supported by them, it's not like it's a lie. SusImposter49 (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, adding the countries that provide considerable materiel aid support and/or training should be added to the infobox as supporting their respective parties. BogLogs (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I totally agree: boots on the ground. According to publications, the military personnel of Iran directly guided at least some of the drones from Crimea (an occupied Ukrainian territory). Importantly, these guys remained the military personnel of Iran while performing their duties in another country, just like Soviet "advisors" in old times. If USA were to provide F-16 manned by US Army pilots, that would justify inclusion of USA to the box. However, if they just were to provide F-16 for Ukrainian pilots, then presumably "no". My very best wishes (talk) 03:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
I think that the time has come to add all those countries who are providing weapons under "support". According to the archives, LouisAragon proposed it back in February 2022[56] but the proposal clearly suffered a degree of railroading by those who had no sensible policy based reasoning to oppose the proposal. The only known allegation at this moment is that Iran supplied drones to Russia. But right now it does not deserves to be on infobox unless the aforementioned proposal has been accepted. Segaton (talk) 04:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
I am in agreement. My opposition to Iran added being to "Supporting Russia" is contingent only on the on the plethora of western nations providing copious amounts of aid to Ukraine, and any other relevant party, being added as well. I suspect there will be some sort of RfC regarding this soon. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
I am. I only support adding Iran to the "Supported by" section of the infobox if the basis by which it is is enforced consistently. I.e., if Iran is to be added, so too should all the states sending hundreds of billions of dollars in weapons and military hardware to Ukraine. To say you are against the equal implementation of article criteria is essentially an admission of bad faith. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that equipment and training for said equipment is quite the same "boots on the ground" discussed in previous requests for this type of change. It's one thing to send a drone and the guys who can teach you to control it, and another entirely to send battalions of soldiers in to fight under orders of the supporting government. King keudo (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
There was a large distinction in Vietnam between the USA first sending special forces advisors to provide advice to them, as opposed to when USA later started sending combat troops to do battle in Vietnam. Does this distinction apply to this discussion of Russia's invasion; is the support advisory or is it participation in combat? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm for using that type of distinction when it comes to personnel support. Generally advisors and training staff are labelled as non-combatants, correct? If so, these trainers for using the drones would count not as "boots on the ground". King keudo (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
No, special forces would be boots on the ground. According to publications, these Iranians personnel were not just advisors, but actually guided the drones. And even if they did only training on the occupied Ukrainian territory (such as Crimea), they would still qualify. If they did such training in Iran, then probably "no", that would be just training. That's why NATO countries do not do training on the Ukrainian territory. My very best wishes (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
If supplying weapons as well as military personal to conduct on the ground training and possibility also combat missions does not qualify as "supporting", I'm not sure what does. Iran should certainly be added. JLKlein12 (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. People seem to be conflating supporting with participating. NATO and Iran are supporting, even if they may not be participating in a legal sense. entropyandvodka (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
If Iran is to be added due to selling weapons to Russia, then states which give weapons to Ukraine, e.g. the US, Germany, and a plethora of other states, should absolutely be added as supporting Ukraine. If they are not, then I oppose this. If they are, then I would support adding Iran to a list of supporters. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 18:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
I don’t think the presence of military advisors helping with drone operations makes them any more of a supporter in the war than the US or any other country is. If there’s no consensus for listing the US (and others) as a supporter of Ukraine, then it should be the same for Iran and Russia. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 21:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Well, according to report by Institute for the Study of War, [57], "the Iranian instructors directly control the launch of drones on civilian targets in Ukraine, including in Mykolaiv and Odesa oblasts. The IRGC is notably the primary operator of Iran‘s drone inventory, so these Iranian instructors are likely IRGC or IRGC-affiliated personnel." My very best wishes (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. [1] There are sources like this, there are even high definition pictures of the drones flying overhead in Ukraine. You could cross reference it yourselves with Hesa shahed 136. Unlike Belarus, I would specify Iran (Arms support) in the supported by tab. Kennet.mattfolk (talk) 06:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
I completely agree with this addition, following the recent reports in several reliable sources regarding Iranian troops stationed in occupied crimea. I believe there should be a footnote however, barring future acknowledgement from either Iran or Russia of the postings, that the information is claimed by the US. Pax Brittanica (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
*Support* Iran should be added akin to Belarus due to their servicemen being in Crimea to support Russian attacks on Ukraine in addition to the arms sales. If it were solely arms sales then I wouldn't be in support of including them in the infobox. 71.13.0.142 (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Just my two cents, but per this CBS article, the U.S says Iran is now "directly engaged on the ground" (with trainers and tech support for the Shaheds) in the fighting. If Belarus which has not sent any of its forces as yet to fight in Ukraine is listed in the infobox, I'd say Iran belongs there too. I mean, direct combat support goes a step above basing/overfly agreements and weapon donations. 2603:6000:A640:BB00:E5E9:3C66:7779:48FE (talk) 00:53, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Russia says a lot of things. Russia says Ukrainians are a nation created by a centuries-old international conspiracy against Russia, and their elected president is a Nazi Jew controlled by foreign powers. So please check the sources you are citing before putting your name on a comment. —MichaelZ.14:22, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
There are a number of little subthreads on this and I’m not sure if everyone’s on the same page, so creating a sub-section to take a straw poll.
Facts (from memory): the USA and Ukraine say that a small group of Iranian trainers are in Crimea to provide additional training, and appear to be participating in the operation of Iranian drones that are being used to attack Ukrainian infrastructure and cities.
Based on this, I would include Iran in the “Supporters” subhead under “Belligerents” in the infobox, with supporting text in the article. Support or Oppose? —MichaelZ.23:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Oppose unless America, France, Germany etc. are included for their vast military materiel aid as supporters on the Ukraine side. BogLogs (talk) 23:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
It’s not about material aid. It’s about sending military to participate in the conflict in the war zone. None of those states have done that. —MichaelZ.04:12, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Interesting, How many billions of dollars of military aid did they provide for Russia since the war started? Even back in May the US agreed to send 40 billion dollars alone to support Kiev [24]
Of what you seem to be suggesting is some great amount of aid, did France and Germany justify the aid as being used to defend Russia from an invasion force?
Sending military units to fight directly can be debated over whether it makes those nations either supporters or outright belligerents. Aiding countries with vast military aid, training, etc. to turn the tide of war makes them supporters. BogLogs (talk) 09:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Condemning the invasion in a UNGA resolution makes 143 states supporters. The infobox doesn’t have a “Supporters” field or heading, and its docs don’t have a place for supporters.
Neither $1 or $1 trillion of military trade or aid, either in peacetime or during a conflict, makes a state a participant in the conflict, that is, a legal belligerent.
Then why have a separate list for supporters at all and not simply list them all as belligerents? Or as has been done on conflict page after page on wikipedia(Korean War, Crimean War, Yom Kippur War, Russian Civil War as a few examples) why not list those states whose support are having a materiel outcome on the war? Also I'll just throw it out in terms of money a dollar vrs a billion, Germany donated war materiel to an allied nation that participated in WWII, can you guess which one?, I doubt that would make us question which side they were on.
Also I'm happy to discuss this further with you but wasn't your goal here to make this area a straw poll rather than a new discussion? BogLogs (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Belarus is an unusual case because it is guilty of aggression but not a direct participant. The template doesn’t have a list for supporters, and I don’t believe there should normally be one added. Some of those examples are extreme and confusing: in Russian Civil War, I have no idea what the difference between “supported by” and the second row is, so I have to read the text anyway. But the more specific descriptors like “medical support” are better, because they mean something (“support” could be a type of participation, a strictly commercial relationship, or pure rhetoric).
Yes, straw poll, but it doesn’t hurt to use it to shake out our facts, opinions, and consensus in the meantime. —MichaelZ.21:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Support. The participation of Iran is hugely important for a number of reasons, including the "nuclear deal" of Iran with other countries becoming the history. One should wonder what could force Iran to unilaterally nullify the nuclear deal. Probably a direct transfer of nuclear technologies if not even ready-to-use nuclear weapons from Russia. My very best wishes (talk) 00:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Support: Given that US intelligence alleges that Iran presently has boots on the ground in Crimea providing direct military participation in the form of drone operators, this seems like a fair distinction to the NATO/EU/AUKUS training and materiel support that Ukraine receives, as these supporting parties are not directly participating in the conflict on the ground. If need be, I'd be fine with a "(alleged)" written beside Iran in parentheses. --benlisquareT•C•E02:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Comment We really need to have a set definition for what sorts of activity merits "supported by" inclusion in the infobox, applied consistently on both sides. Iran's "boots on the ground", allegedly even controlling the drones directly, would certainly merit inclusion if the definition requires boots on the ground. But this would preclude Belarusian inclusion. If one further expands the standard of inclusion to include providing one's territory as staging grounds for military logistics, then Belarus can remain, but arguably so should Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania (and NATO, let's be honest).
Right now, there really isn't a consistent standard for what actually merits inclusion and I think that needs to be properly hashed out before we can agree on what to do with he latest news regarding Iran. --haha169 (talk) 07:14, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
I also agree with this. A consistent definition of what constitutes support would clear up a lot of problems going forward. That definition should adhere to NPOV, and should reflect gradients of participation in line with the meanings of the terms "belligerent" and "supported by" such that a reader need not be aware of any special criteria. entropyandvodka (talk) 20:09, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
To be honest, that is nonsense. Ukraine is not staging forces in those states and invading Russia across their borders. Ukraine is not retreating its forces into their territories to escape the battlefield. Ukraine is not firing cruise missiles from their territory into Russia. —MichaelZ.18:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
I think that has been debated on this talk already (see archives) and resulted in the following current consensus for inclusion to the infobox:
Providing weapons to a belligerent (sales or free of charge) - no.
Providing military bases and airfields to attack another country - yes.
The only question in this case if "boots on the ground" should be counted as involvement in the hostilities, and the answer seem to be clearly "yes". My very best wishes (talk) 14:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
And what does "boots on the ground" mean? Because all these Irianain are "advisors", well I seem to recall reading we have advisors on the ground. Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Which means we should focus on Iran (the subject of this thread) rather than on general criteria for the inclusion. Speaking about people, there are different categories. Some individuals are enrolled to the International Legion of Territorial Defense of Ukraine, frequently against advice of their governments. This does not mean the involvement of the corresponding countries (where these citizens belong) as belligerents. By the same criterion, Syria should not be included to the infobox just because their individual citizens have been voluntarily enrolled to Russian army. A very different category would be people who remain in the active military service of their country and were sent by their state to take part in the hostilities. Those are "boots on the ground". For example, if there were US "instructors" operating on the ground in Ukraine to direct Ukrainian drones, that would be an involvement. Of course one could object saying that what difference does it make if they provide an intelligence to Ukrainians and operate from Pentagon? That would be a reasonable argument (and perhaps the inclusion of USA would be justifiable), but it is not so clear cut and possibly needs a separate discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree with the need for a separate discussion about this, and about a NPOV-compliant criteria defining a supporter. Ascertaining intelligence about troop movements and giving that information to a belligerent such that they can destroy or kill enemy units is playing a supporting role in a conflict. entropyandvodka (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
If your second bullet is correct then we definitely need to have a new rfc. The criteria of providing military logistics to invade another country, to me at least, seems specifically designed to include allies of Russia and exclude allies of Ukraine, because only Russia and her allies are "invading another country", as Ukraine and her allies are fighting a defensive war. It is not a balanced criteria. --haha169 (talk) 16:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
I said "attack", not "invade". Yes, it does not matter if this is an offensive or defensive side. Consider an imaginary example of Poland helping Ukraine to attack Belarus from the territory of Poland. That would make Poland a belligerent. I am not saying it would be good/bad, only that it would justify the inclusion to the infobox.My very best wishes (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
It’s not “logistics” (although Belarus does also provide transport and weapons). It’s legally the international crime of aggression when Belarus allows Russian forces to fire missiles into Ukraine from its territory and invade Ukraine across its borders. —MichaelZ.18:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Support: I agree with the above support. Alleged is the correct description for IRGC being a belligerent, as while there is no available proof, there are reputable accusations. As for my opinion addressing "But the West gives Ukraine weapons, shouldn't they be belligerents too?": There is a vast difference between giving Ukraine weapons (such as Western nations are doing) and Ukraine being the sole operator of the weapons in the scope of combat, and giving russia weapons (such as iran is doing) and iran launching of the weapons in the same scope of combat. Matthewberns (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
While that may be true, almost every single article about a war with the support infoboxes uses them to describe support that includes weapons shipments, and sometimes even humanitarian aid. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 18:32, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
As an ongoing conflict, the definition of legal belligerent is important. Those other articles are playing fast and loose with the labels, ignoring what the template docs say (belligerents = “the parties participating in the conflict”), and cramming in as much stuff as they can, contrary to MOS:IB (“the less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose”). —MichaelZ.19:01, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Oppose. There is a significant difference between providing special teaching advisors and providing actual soldiers firing rifles; this historically was an important transition in Vietnam where USA was providing military advisors in one phase, while only later did USA then start sending combat troops for actual fighting. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Sending a military unit to the soil of an invaded country to help operate equipment that intentionally attacks its civilian infrastructure and kills and maims civilians in their homes is participating in the conflict. It should rightly be directly under the “Belligerents” heading, but I am proposing demoting it to “supporters” because they deny being there and supposedly aren’t directly controlling the attacks. —MichaelZ.19:12, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that would be the case if these guys were just doing training somewhere in Iran. However, based on sources, they took part in the actual warfare at the Ukrainian territory. An "instructor" sitting in Crimea: "You hit this button NOW!", then someone hits the button, and a Ukrainian family somewhere is dead. My very best wishes (talk)
Support: I wouldn't even put it below support but directly as a party to war. Under international law, a country is part to the war, when they have troops on the ground in the conflict zone that at least support them.
If NATO had stationed troops on the territory of Ukraine, who trained Ukrainians or provide air-defence, NATO would be a party to the war. So is Iran now. Belarus never had troops on the territory of Ukraine, so they are just supportPettylein (talk) 18:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Support: I believe Western countries supplying weapons should count as supported as well, but the news has reported that Iran has gone further than just providing weapons, training, or intelligence. The Hill says, “We can confirm that Russia’s military personnel that are based in Crimea have been piloting Iranian UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles], using them to conduct strikes across Ukraine, including strikes against Kyiv in just recent days. We assess that Iranian military personnel on the ground in Crimea assisted Russia in these operations.” (The Hill) Troops directly aiding in attacks should count as supporting Russia. That's a step towards more direct support that Western countries have not done in Ukraine. --Pithon314 (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Do you understand that thousands of fighters from western countries have been fighting in Ukraine? Even if this claim from Hill was correct, we are yet to know if those Iranians are playing a voluntarily role or they were officially deployed by the Iranian government. Segaton (talk) 02:44, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
You’re making that up. Sources say they are Iranian military of the IRGC, not that they are volunteers that joined Russian armed forces or mercenaries. —MichaelZ.03:11, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Support. Because Iran has played such a significant, on-the-ground role in this conflict involving training and in some cases operating the drones in this conflict, the IRGC should be considered a supporter. DBA78 (talk) 02:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Oppose: Weird logic. There are many CIA handlers in kiev handling intel [2] and now "weapon inspectors" from USA [3] .
As said on the discussion below, USA, UK, EU, etc may also be added into this article as supporting ukraine, but if we are going to add them, then we might as well add Iran and North Korea in (although NK should have a "(alleged)" note close to it, as it is still not confirmed wheter or not its true that they sold weapons to Russia), SnoopyBird (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Supporr: per the earlier subthread mess, there are now plenty of reliable sources discussing Iranian troops directly stationed in occupied parts of Ukraine both training and according to the US in some cases directly operating weapons.
I think the argument regarding Iranian weapon supplies is diving off topic, and I think the Iranian operations in Crimea should be the main focus of the inclusion. Pax Brittanica (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Oppose I also agree that the sources claiming Iranian involvement are opposing parties and it is necessary for us to first establish a criteria. Segaton (talk) 02:44, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Comment This thread is ostensibly about the infobox and the notion of supported by. It tends to lose sight of WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and it appears to me that many are trying to write the article in the infobox. An infobox is a supplement to the lead, which is itself a summary of the article. Furthermore, an infobox cannot capture nuance. Belarus appears in the infobox because the actions of the country cross a clear line (objective criteria) of committing an act of aggression. Futhermore, this is clearly established by sources. This is the bar that has been set. Iran, providing material and training does not cross this threshold. While Crimea is disputed territory in the greater scheme of things, it was nonetheless held by Russia preinvasion. It is certainly not a clear line that an Iranian presence in Crimea constitutes "boots on the ground" and an act of aggression. I note that the IWS source is circumspect in its report stating: Russian forces may have brought Iranian ... [emphasis added] and describes the Iranians as "training". The information is also attributed to the National Resistance Center of Ukraine. The AP News source is also equivocal in its reporting. The body of our article would state (citing the IWS source): In October, Iranian instructors, likely members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, were reportedly in Ukraine teaching Russian forces and directly controlling the launch of drones against civilian targets. This statement is made in a Wiki voice (as a matter of fact), when a review of the source would clearly indicate this is not appropriate. To alledge that Iran reaches the same threshold as Belarus is a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that would require substantially better sourcing. We should be conservative in such a case. It is better to omit what cannot be confirmed than to report as fact that which may well be false. The corollary of this is: Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:43, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
The point about sourcing is correct, although you omit that the USA and Ukraine have been generally reliable.
But the “preinvasion” idea snuck in there is pure nonsense corresponding to a rather extreme pro-Kremlin POV. Like the UN has already declared the Russian occupation of part of Ukraine and its new borders legitimate, or something. —MichaelZ.14:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
I did not sneak anything in. What I said was: While Crimea is disputed territory in the greater scheme of things, it was nonetheless held by Russia preinvasion. In no way does the statement legitimise Russia's annexation of Crimea pre-invasion nor the subsequent occupations. The response to this is a WP:STRAWMAN argument. It is not up to us to take the reports to date and determine that Iran is an aggressor state similar to Belarus or even a direct belligerent. That would be WP:SYNTH. It is also something that many commenting here do not appear to recognise. Futhermore, to categorise Iran as such in the infobox is a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim in a Wiki voice. Regardless of whether the US or Ukraine sources are generally reliable, they are not WP:EXCEPTIONAL in respect to this particular question. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Oppose The AP source that presents Iran as 'directly engaged' on the ground also brings forth this specific quote: "“The information we have is that the Iranians have put trainers and tech support in Crimea, but it’s the Russians who are doing the piloting,” Kirby said". This does not lend support to the claim that the Iranian troops themselves are actually launching the strikes, and piloting the drones to their targets. This is a difference of teaching how to use the weapons and supervising field tests and combat deployment; not the same as the Iranian soldiers piloting and targeting the weapons themselves. King keudo (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
It would be much the same if foreign soldiers in Ukraine only drove the tanks to firing positions, only loaded the shells into the artillery guns, or only laid the crosshairs on the target, but didn’t pull any triggers.
A foreign military unit that illegally entered Ukraine is making an offensive weapon work against Ukrainian civilian targets. The ISW terms it “to assist Russian forces in conducting drone attacks” and “providing military support to Russian forces in Ukraine.”[60] Iranian soldiers “‘directly engaged on the ground’” in Ukraine are directly engaged in the war. —MichaelZ.20:34, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm not quite convinced that this particular role belongs in this list. The slippery slope of 'only', as you've kindly pointed out, doesn't concern me as we have yet to see a war where armies and troops were used to do everything except pull the trigger, so I think that claim will fail verifiability. Advising still isn't the same as participating, as far as I can tell. I'm still not seeing tons of sources describing the advisors from Tehran as combat belligerents or such. King keudo (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
There is no restriction due to “only.”
Russia invaded and thus is involved in the international armed conflict. So every Russian soldier in Ukraine, even one who only sat in a truck waiting to unload crates of field rations, is a soldier involved in the war.
Likewise, Iran sent its military to Ukraine to participate in the armed conflict. Any IRGC soldier that was ordered to Ukraine to make the drones work is engaged in the conflict. —MichaelZ.16:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Not to say that 'only' is restricting anything; however you were the one relying on the only emphasis to make a point about something that has...never happened in recorded warfare. If I'm wrong about that, please point it out to me. Until such point, I think it's still fair to say that only doing everything for a war except pulling the trigger has never happened, so I fail to see why that argument has anything to do with the fact that teaching isn't the same as doing. In how many conflicts has the US and NATO allies, or the U.N. sent advisors to a conflict zone, and were never recorded as 'engaged in in the conflict' until actual soldiers, with guns, or tanks, or planes, were sent?
There's a pretty significant difference, too, between the Russian soldier in Ukraine, driving a truck of rations and shooting at Ukrainians on Russian orders to capture territory, and the Iranian soldiers from the Geek Squad who was sent as part of the 'paid installation' package to set up the wi-fi routers and show the Russian soldiers how to turn on the computer and launch the 'flight simulator' game. If the comparison seems ridiculous, it is on purpose - you're wanting to compare the Russians actively killing other soldiers, torturing civilians, and forcibly migrating Ukrainian citizens into Russia to the guys who - in all likelihood - gave a power-point presentation, set up some actual flight simulator terminals for training, and then either went home, or stuck around to be the IT guy. Again, I'm not convinced that this equates to 'directly engaged in the conflict' as you want to define it. Based on your description, we should include go ahead and include any and every country that even made a statement about the conflict on one side or another if the bar is so low.
Regardless; I think until RS specifically state that the Iranians sent are considered to be combatants actively supporting Russia through their combat actions, we can't describe them as such, and thus can't add Iran in the way people are arguing for. King keudo (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
That is a reasonable position. But that likely requires judgment.
USA’s John Kirby says “Iran is right now on the ground, involved, engaged in the war in Ukraine,” and I don’t think anyone in the media or in this discussion doubting the US statements.
CNN: “a significant escalation in Iran’s involvement in the war.”[61]
I certainly don't doubt that Iranians are there, absolutely. However, again, there's nothing indicating that any of them are doing more than control training and troubleshooting. Your own source, the Times of Israel, says "It’s unclear whether the Iranians are operating the drones themselves, the Tuesday report said." Also, all reports I can find of this report of 10 Iranians being killed cite a single source, KAN, or the Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation. There's no additional corroboration of this report, and no details. The source of the information apparently only shared that 10 Iranians died in two separate strikes. No other RS has picked this up, and it's been several days since it was first reported.
A "significant escalation" doesn't mean they have troops there killing people; and let's be honest, that's not what CNN reported in that article. "The presence of Iranian personnel in occupied Ukrainian territory would mark a significant escalation in Iran’s involvement in the war" (emphasis mine) - clearly meaning even CNN isn't willing to come out and say that Iran is actively engaged in war in Ukraine.
The Times of Israel source also includes this, very specific descriptor of Iranians sent regarding the drones:
"Russia initially sent its own personnel to Iran to learn how to use the drones, but the weapons were plagued by problems after they arrived in Russian territory. Iran then sent its trainers to Crimea to address the malfunctions, the report said."
Which is clearly offering the stance that the Iranians sent are nothing more than IT guys and mechanics.
I'm looking at these sources, a few of which I'm not 100% sure about the reliability of overall, but they do all provide the same information.
You’re wilfully ignoring the main point that Iran sent military into Ukraine to enable offensive warfare, using misdirection by labelling its soldiers conducting military tasks as “IT guys and mechanics.” The straw man is that only infantrymen, apparently, are part of the armed conflict, and everyone else sent illegally into Ukraine is only decoration.
Incidentally, literal “IT guys” are directly committing mass war crimes.[63] And I wonder how long the invasion would have lasted if the Russians kept in barracks all their truck drivers, supply clerks, fuel jockeys, radio and electronics operators, and mechanics.
Sending a military unit to serve with an invasion force is participating in an international armed conflict on the aggressor’s side. —MichaelZ.18:08, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Bit late to this response, apologies if it's a bit moot at this point;
I'm not willfully ignoring anything. Iran sent people to train on the use of a weapon, and to provide troubleshooting for said weapon. You seem overly set on deciding that identifying the personnel sent as what they have been confirmed to be (literal IT guys) mean I have to agree to label "only infantrymen, apparently, are part of the armed conflict, and everyone else sent illegally into Ukraine is only decoration." which is not only twisting the logic, but assigning to me an opinion or stance I have never taken or suggested.
Your "Incidentally, literal “IT guys” are directly committing mass war crimes.[8]" doesn't even mention Iran, and is talking about cruise missiles. Where does it mention the Iranian solders "directly committing mass war crimes"? What, exactly, does this link have to do with the personnel sent to Iran? What does it have to do with the kamikaze drones? What does it have to do with arguing if the personnel sent to Crimea are engaging in combat or not?
And, finally, what does it have to do with the price of tea in China? Because it's about as relevant to that question, too. King keudo (talk) 13:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
@King keudo, you stated “the Iranians sent are nothing more than IT guys and mechanics,” implying this was significant to the discussion. I inferred you meant that they are not soldiers and therefore the Iranian military unit sent to do things in the invasion of Ukraine doesn’t count as military involvement. I gave a counterexample where it’s undeniable that “IT guys” are integrally involved in armed conflict. Since you’re telling me I misinterpreted, please explain comment’s significance. —MichaelZ.15:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Support. Support including Western countries that have supplied military equipment to Ukraine too, and maybe also Syria. SuperΨDro22:18, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Strongly support. This is because of a MAJOR and FUNDAMENTAL difference between providing training and military equipment to Ukraine than Iranian forces actually commanding drones to wipe out enemy forces. Raymond Kestis (talk) 01:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Raymond Kestis, I will agree with you that there is a major and fundamental difference between providing training and arms and actually piloting a drone strike. However, your source (the Hill) attributes to Kirby:We assess that Iranian military personnel on the ground in Crimea assisted Russia in these operations and they are providing tech support while the Russians pilot the UAVs for attacks. Other reports of the same press release also specifically use the word trainingtrainers in respect to the Iranians. Your source does not state that Iranians are piloting drone strikes against Ukranians. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:40, 24 October 2022 (UTC)Cinderella157 (talk) 22:57, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
The source does not say “training.” It says “aiding” and “providing tech support.” Other sources make it clear that training was conducted in Iran, but the Russians were unable to operate the drones well enough without the presence of Iranian military present in Ukraine, and apparently now in Belarus too. They’re not training. They’re making the weapons work. —MichaelZ.13:14, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
I am in error to the extent that the AP source specifically uses "trainers" and not "training". The correction, however, makes no significant difference to what I said. The AP article also attributes to Kirby: but it’s the Russians who are doing the piloting. This goes directly to the rationale being applied by Raymond Kestis and that their criteria for support is not being met. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Raymond Kestis’s criterion is arbitrary.
An Iranian unit is part of the invasion of Ukraine. Iran’s soldiers have illegally entered Ukraine and are taking part in attacking Ukrainian infrastructure and civilians. Iran’s military involvement is more direct than that of Belarus. —MichaelZ.23:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Mzajac, you are expression a conclusion (opinion) based on some reports in sources (your evidence) and your reading of international law (your criteria). That is fine except that it is WP:SYNTH and for WP to state in a WP voice that the actions of Iran rise to or exceed those of Belarus is a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. I am not defending Iran. I have no issue with prose that report Iran's "involvement", where such claims can be attributed to the source. However, to include Iran in the infobox is to make a claim in a WP voice. When an authoritative exceptional source makes such an assertion, then we can add Iran. Such a source might be a statement by the UN secretary general or similar. However, I am not seeing that such a source exists. If you believe that such a source exists, I am happy to consider it. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
“Boots on the ground” and “didn’t pull the trigger” or whatever have been mentioned by several others. It is completely fair to seek the consensus here that Iran has passed the threshold for direct military participation in this war by sending its soldiers illegally into Ukrainian territory to participate in the Russian offensive drone and missile campaign against Ukrainian civilian infrastructure. —MichaelZ.14:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree with the assessment, that putting Iranian personnel into Ukrainian territory occupied by Russia in direct support of Russia's war, makes Iran a warfaring party. I also agree with the previous post, that this falls under WP:EXCEPTIONAL. So in my opinion, the question is whether there are sufficient sources for this claim. Lklundin (talk) 20:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Support: It has already been claimed that IRGC members are "on the western front," which is quite vague but could range anything from yes, directing drone attacks to participating in active combat. Other supportive arguments do address the difference between sending arms and directing attacks, and contrary to what some of the opposing users have claimed, have set a clear-cut and fair threshold. It is also worth noting that we should (1) establish consistent formatting for this discussion (whether to use bullet points or not) and (2) make this an RfC. Firestar464 (talk) 09:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Support: i think Iran should be included as supporting Russia, as it is pretty obvious by now, per above, that they are indeed not only providing Russia with equipment, but are also training Russian troops on how to use this equipment. SnoopyBird (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Comment: In addition, i also support including North Korea, although with a (alleged) thing, as its not confirmed wheter or not they are supporting Russia. SnoopyBird (talk) 21:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Oppose: There isnt enough proof that Iran have sent instructors and that they are THE ONES operating the drones. If you still want to add Iran regardless of vague sources then US/NATO must be included as well in support bracket. It would be double standards to not include them with how much support in military equipment and training Ukraine got since February and even before that. Nightwolf87 (talk) 17:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Comment: there is another discussion here about adding countries supporting Ukraine, IMO i think that we should add both Iran (and possibly North Korea) as supporting Russia and maybe EU and NATO as supporting Ukraine. SnoopyBird (talk) 23:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Oppose: It would probably be the single largest violation of WP:NPOV in Wikipedia history if Iran was listed as "supporting" Russia for giving it drones, while the US & NATO aren't listed as supporters, despite giving Ukraine hundreds of billions of dollars in direct military aid and equipment, as well as aiding by providing Ukrainians with military training and intelligence. It's laughable that this is even being considered before listing NATO, US, UK, Germany, Poland, etc. as supporters of Ukraine. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Comment: there is another discussion here about including these countries as supporting Ukraine, in addition, Iran indeed supports Russia, not only on sending drones, missiles, etc but also on training them on how to use them, so this is, indeed, support. SnoopyBird (talk) 17:09, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Oppose per my comments elsewhere in this section. There is a lot of opinion being given to support the inclusion but I am not seeing any WP:EXCEPTIONAL sources being cited that would clearly state that the actions of Iran rise to the same level of Belarus and permit us to make a statement in a Wiki voice by placing Iran in the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Oppose unless the US and other Western countries that are military supporting Ukraine with the stated purpose of combating Russia are also added to the infobox for the sake of proper neutral balancing. In addition, so far, the claim of IRGC involvement has solely come from Ukrainian or pro-Ukrainian (US) sources (unreliable) and not verified by third-party sources. EkoGraf (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
self explanatory, i mean sending billions of dollars in aid and himars & javelins on top of that im sure means ukraine is supported by the west.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Adding Polish casualties to the casualties table
Thoughts on adding Polish civilian casualties (of which there were two) to the casualties table? How would this best be done—in a separate row? Compusolus (talk) 11:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Good question. There are probably also numerous third-country casualties who were caught by the Russian invasion. Apparently a Zambian student recruited or press-ganged by the Russians. These could all be mentioned in prose next to the table. —MichaelZ.02:20, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Sure—a number of individuals from other countries have been killed, whilst fighting for Ukraine etc. Was the Zambian student you mentioned a casualty within Russia or Ukraine or in another country?
The Polish casualties were in their own country and killed as a direct result of the war. Thus perhaps they could be added in a new row titled something like 'Casualties outside the fighting zone'? Compusolus (talk) 06:49, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
More participation needed in anti-war activist AfD
Hungary is notable in its opposition to its EU and NATO allies. It has refused to provide military aid, refused to allow transit of military aid, and is now threatening to scuttle the EU’s plans for providing reconstruction aid. Sources have noted that the Hungarian government’s attitude is contrary to its own citizens’, and connected it to Orbán’s sympathies for Putin and to his authoritarian actions (the latest interference is connected to EU relief funds that have been withheld due to the dismantling of democratic institutions in Hungary).
Bears mention in the section on “Foreign involvement,” and certainly since the role of NATO is discussed quite a lot. —MichaelZ.17:51, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Because of the amount of references available on Hungary and the points raised by Michael Z at least a brief mention seems reasonable. TylerBurden (talk) 09:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 November 2022
"Wagner Group mercenaries and Chechen forces reportedly made several attempts to assassinate Volodymyr Zelenskyy. "
there is no need to blame all "chechen forces" for this. There are 3 chechen battalions fighting on the side of ukraine against russia. So this terminology is wrong if the article is to stay neutral. The appropriate wording would be Kadyrovite forces or russian national guard (141st Special Motorized Regiment). Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 00:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Ukraine is not able to conduct any sustained military action across its borders into Russia itself largely because this would invoke Russia to call on its military alliances for its several signatory nations to join the war against Ukraine.
Biden has stated that boots on the ground from the USA shall never occur because it would signal the conditions for the start of a WW III scenario.
NATO cannot at any time send boots on the ground or planes in the air to fight on Ukraine soil since this would immediately open Poland to direct military attack from Russia, as well as any other NATO allied nations with which Russia has a shared geographical border.
The current article does not discuss the balance of power issues in geoplitics as they are related to the invasion; should such a discussion be added to the current article? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Do you have any RS about the general balance of power in this war? Your #1 and #3 ("largely because" and "since") sounds like WP:OR and incorrect. No one will join Russia except Belarus (whose army is now controlled from Moscow). And no, the individual NATO countries like US, UK or possibly even Poland can send boots on the ground or planes and evict Russian forces from Ukraine, probably in a matter of days or weeks. Why they did not is a good question, but this needs to be sourced. My very best wishes (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
The Russian security council has now changed the reason to conquer Ukraine from “denazification” to “de-satanization.” Looking forward to references that relate this to balance of power issues in geopolitics. —MichaelZ.19:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
This is no joke. Putin is deadly serious. Well explained here. It cites one of Russian ideologists of this war said: “Armageddon and the Apocalypse are unfolding before our eyes.” It also cites German Chancellor Olaf Scholz: "They consider their war against Ukraine to be part of a larger crusade, a crusade against liberal democracy." Why do you think Putin started this war? Crusade it is. Why do you think they collaborate so well with Iran? Because they fight against Great Satan. If you know Russian, please check this. My very best wishes (talk) 03:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Where would such a discussion take place? As part of the background, in its own section, or somewhere else? It's an interesting proposal. entropyandvodka | talk20:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Based on your bullet points, you may be more referring to issues of international law than balance of power (ie, USA doesn't want boots on the ground because it would legally make it a party to the conflict, which would escalate things, etc). Balance of power tends to be more theoretical, so I'm not sure how it could (or if it should) be explicitly included in the article, though I'd agree that balance of power and international law both significantly affect the conflict. entropyandvodka | talk21:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
@Entropyandvodka and GiM:: It is meant as a blance-of-powers issue, and the bullet points were just a small sample of the reliable sources available. Russia has been sensitive to the balance of powers issues several times going back even to the Olympics when they planned the timing of the invasion. If you have ideas for the best material to include in an edit to cover balance of powers in international relations related to this maybe you could comment here. ErnestKrause (talk) 12:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't disagree, balance of power thinking is a major factor in Russian decision making vis-à-vis the invasion, and the broader Ukraine conflict, I'm just not sure exactly how to work it in. A good start could be some discussion about it in the background to the conflict, perhaps between the second and third paragraphs. The article in its current form skips from the mid 90s to 2014. In terms of balance of power, the events of 2008 were very important, particularly the Bucharest summit in April, Bush announcing intentions to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, and the Russian response. Among others, you've got Putin saying Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO would be a direct threat to Russia [64], which is pretty straightforward great power politics thinking. It could also be worth mentioning efforts of the EU to bring Ukraine into it, the attempt at a trade deal in 2013 that Russia saw as the West bringing Ukraine into their sphere of influence[65].
It would also be appropriate to present some of the balance of power/realist views in the third paragraph of the background section, or a separate fourth, following the mentions of Russian imperialism and irredentism. Other scholars reject this interpretation of Russia's actions, and view the conflict in terms of balance of power and realism[66][67][68]. entropyandvodka | talk21:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm going to see both of the edits you are describing here as constructive if they can be supported by RS. If you have a 2-3 sentence versions for both of the edits which you described for those two paragraph placements, then I'll try to support you in adding them to the article; or, if you prefer, you can add these edit suggestions here for further possible discussion. Your ideas for doing this seems sufficiently well thought out to try to move them forward. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
The article is edit locked, so we can get them started here. First edit, starting a new paragraph after the first ending in "...would not expand eastward, although this is disputed":
At the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest, Ukraine sought to join NATO, a bid supported by the United States and strongly opposed by Russia on strategic grounds,[69] with Putin calling it a direct threat to Russia.[70][71] France and Germany also opposed Ukraine's NATO admittance, with the French Prime Minister Francois Fillon arguing it would upset the balance of power between Russia and Europe.[72] Although Ukraine was denied membership, NATO pledged their future admittance, with Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, the Secretary General of NATO, saying it was "not a matter of whether, but when."[73] In response, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Russia would do everything it could to prevent the two countries, run by pro-Western governments, from becoming NATO members, and Russian General Yuri Baluyevsky warned of military action if Ukraine were to become a NATO state.[74]
As it's currently written, the second edit would probably be best before or after the final sentence of the second paragraph:
Other scholars rejected Russian imperialism and irredentism as explanations of the conflict. American political scientist John Mearsheimer argued that root cause was NATO enlargement,[75] and that Russia's principal aim was to prevent Ukraine from becoming a Western bulwark on the Russian border.[76]Stephen Walt argued that Russia was motivated by fear of the West, not territorial ambition, and that the crisis began as a result of the United States and EU trying to shift Ukraine into the Western sphere of influence.[77]entropyandvodka | talk21:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Sounds like that would give the section a much more pro Russian tilt and might have issues with NPOV. Are we sure that's how we want the article to read?BogLogs (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
It seems if the article is going to mention interpretations of Russia's actions as motivated by imperial ambitions and irredentism, it ought to also mention that those interpretations are disputed and why, while never asserting either view to be the case in Wiki voice. Only presenting interpretations favorable to one side crosses into bias, in my opinion, and gives an incomplete sense of the background of the conflict.
Just to be extra clear, though, the reason for including these points isn't to compensate for possible bias. It is to cite relevant analysis of the geopolitical background and causes of the conflict. entropyandvodka | talk23:41, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
BogLogs appears to be asking for more neutral sources. Both of your sources Mearshiemer and Walt are offensive neorealists who are not particularly friendly even with the defensive neorealists. Is it possible to reformulate your edit, maybe along the theme of Russian hopes for a land bridge from Crimea to its mainland since the 2014 annexation? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Mearsheimer’s view is borderline WP:FRINGE. We can find more articles criticizing the realist’s views as un-realistic than he has written.
If we present these “realist” arguments, then we should also present concrete criticism, like the fact that Russia has stripped most of its defences adjacent to NATO member states, including in Kaliningrad oblast and along the Finnish and Estonian borders to escalate its war in Ukraine, indicating that balance of power is not driving its actions (sorry I don’t have a source at hand, but it was widely mentioned in news and opinion).
Here’s an alternate balance-of-power take that may deserve to be included: Timothy Snyder on Europe’s provocative imbalance of power, and the importance of the outcome to global balance of power:[78]
At the same time don’t you think that everyone continuously upgrading their armies will result in an even more dangerous situation where the next conflict will be more disastrous?
No. That of course can happen, but the European Union is so far from that. The problem with the European Union is that it has no army. When they had the UK, they were the largest economy in the world. And they have no armed forces. Honestly, that’s provocative. Because the Russian army is not this big huge powerful thing. Before they started this war, the Russians had 50,000-60,000 people who could really fight. What is preventing Europe from having a European strike force of, let’s say, 60,000 people? And then, in February 2022, the European strike force goes to Zaporizhzhia or Kharkiv oblasts and says we are just having exercises with the Ukrainian army. Why not? That’s all that would have taken to stop this war. You can be so weak that it’s provocative.
But what about the nukes? Everyone’s afraid of nuclear war, not conventional war.
But they weren’t afraid of it when the conventional war started. When the conventional war started, all the Germans and all the Americans started to talk about nuclear war because that was a way to make it more about us. If you don’t want to be afraid of nuclear war, then make conventional war impossible. I take your point ‒ there’s such a thing as an arms race, there’s such a thing as too much, but the Europeans were so weak it became provocative. And it makes no sense for them to be so weak. They shouldn’t be militaristic, they shouldn’t want to go back to conquer their old colonies, but they should be able to fight a war if they really have to and not rely on the US. Because we won’t always be there or we’ll make bad decisions, there could be a wrong president or we’ll be on the wrong side. The larger questions about how to prevent the war are about deeper things. It’s about values, it’s about economics. But we can’t overlook the basic military balance.
And the enormous effects on American security:[79]
In defeating Russia’s armed forces and exposing Russia’s weakness, the Ukrainians have both made a larger war in Europe far less likely, and gotten China’s cat’s paw under control. 6/
The Ukrainians have reduced the possibility of Chinese aggression through Russia, and made direct Chinese aggression less likely. They have done all of this just by defending themselves, without making any move against China. 7/
Timothy Snyder is currently at Yale University and is apparently a liberal democrat in orientation who has been critical of the Trump administration. I'm not sure where he stands on the spectrum of geopolitical hawks and geopolitical doves. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
@ErnestKrause Walt is a defensive neorealist, for whatever it's worth. I'd be curious to see more discussion or some sources about the land bridge aspect you mentioned. What exactly is the neutrality issue we're worried about here? It seems noteworthy that two of the biggest realist voices (among others) rejected the notion that Russia is motivated by imperialist ambitions. Here is an article that discusses the causal role of NATO more broadly, and outlines disagreement on the issue. In addition to Mearsheimer, it mentions this piece by Fiona Hill. Note this passage:
"At the time, I was the national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia, part of a team briefing Mr. Bush. We warned him that Mr. Putin would view steps to bring Ukraine and Georgia closer to NATO as a provocative move that would likely provoke pre-emptive Russian military action. But ultimately, our warnings weren’t heeded.
Within four months, in August 2008, Russia invaded Georgia. Ukraine got Russia’s message loud and clear. It backpedaled on NATO membership for the next several years. But in 2014, Ukraine wanted to sign an association agreement with the European Union, thinking this might be a safer route to the West. Moscow struck again, accusing Ukraine of seeking a back door to NATO, annexing Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula and starting an ongoing proxy war in Ukraine’s southeastern Donbas region."
The New Yorker article also mentioned this article by Bernie Sanders (hardly an imperialist sympathizer), who acknowledges Ukraine as a strategic concern of Russia:
"One of the precipitating factors of this crisis, at least from Russia’s perspective, is the prospect of an enhanced security relationship between Ukraine and the United States and western Europe, including what Russia sees as the threat of Ukraine joining the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance (Nato), a military alliance originally created in 1949 to confront the Soviet Union."
"To put it simply, even if Russia was not ruled by a corrupt authoritarian leader like Vladimir Putin, Russia, like the United States, would still have an interest in the security policies of its neighbors. Does anyone really believe that the United States would not have something to say if, for example, Mexico was to form a military alliance with a US adversary?"
It would be sufficient for me for the article to, at a minimum, mention that not everyone agrees with this imperialism assessment and throw in one or more of the sources I provided. On the issue of neutrality and Mearsheimer's points sounding "pro-Russian", this article made some good points on the matter. Again, I don't think the Wikipedia page should endorse a view that the conflict "is the West's fault", but it also shouldn't imply that it can be explained purely by imperialism and irredentism (which it currently does by exclusively mentioning those) or give undue balance to that view, especially when there's a strong case that there were other, if not entirely different, causal factors. entropyandvodka | talk22:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
It sounds as if the 2-3 sentence edit being envisioned should include some mention of Timothy Snyder, Fiona Hill, and Stephen Walt. Is it possible to formulate a 2-3 sentence edit that covers all three? (Incidentally, the Wikipedia article had errors in the lead and Infobox for Stephen Walt which I corrected, since Walt is explicitly a co-author of Mearsheimer on the issue of offensive neorealism, and not defensive neorealism.) ErnestKrause (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Quick aside on Mearsheimer and Walt: Offensive realism is Mearsheimer's theory, put forward in his book The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. Walt and Mearsheimer have co-authored, but on a different book. Here's an article [80] identifying Walt as a defensive realist, though I also found him here[81] saying the following (hence my disagreement with your earlier remarks, though you were right to list him in his infobox simply as a neorealist):
"I’m not a strict “structural” realist like my mentor Kenneth Waltz or my occasional co-author John Mearsheimer because I place greater weight on geography, military doctrines, and perceived intentions than they do. I am sometimes labelled a “defensive realist” based on some of my early writings, but that label doesn’t really capture my worldview completely."
As for the edit, what exactly by Snyder warrants mention? His argument that Ukraine was provocatively weak? Unless he's got another piece disputing the historicity of Russian leadership considering Ukraine joining NATO to be a threat, I'm not sure it's relevant or even contrary to the realist observations. Moreover, we've already got him in the paragraph making the imperialist characterization, which is what the realists were explicitly disputing as causal to the conflict (Mearsheimer points out that characterizations of Putin as an imperialist motivated by conquest only emerged after the annexation of Crimea, meanwhile you've got Fiona Hill and her colleagues telling Bush in 2008 that Ukraine joining NATO would likely lead to pre-emptive military action by Russia). It seems odd for the article to lean selectively on the view of Snyder while disregarding the contrary views of notable experts in the field, especially when Snyder's characterization is already in there, and when the relevant aspects of the realist views contrary to his have been corroborated (ie, by Fiona Hill, Carl Bildt - see below) and reliably sourced.
Here's a New York Times article[82] that also mentions Fiona Hill, and has this passage of note, where you've got Carl Bildt recognizing the events of the Bucharest summit as causally connected to Russian aggression in Georgia and Ukraine:
But NATO’s “cardinal sin,” as Mr. Daalder put it, was the undefined promise made to Ukraine and Georgia in Bucharest in April 2008, the result of a late-night compromise reached by former President George W. Bush when other NATO members, like Germany and France, rejected his proposal to offer the two countries a concrete and immediate road map to membership.
The Bucharest compromise was the worst of both worlds,” said Carl Bildt, the former Swedish prime minister and foreign minister. “It created expectations that were not fulfilled and fears that are grossly exaggerated. It was short-term expediency with long-term consequences that we have seen since then” — in Georgia, which lost a quick and nasty war to Russia four months later in 2008, and in the Russian effort to destabilize and even reassert control over Ukraine.
This article[83] may be better to cite than citing Mearsheimer directly. Here's an article [84] by Walt making basically the same points as Mearsheimer, if he can't be used, but it makes more sense to me to mention Mearsheimer than Walt since he much more famously made the realist case on this issue, plus there's a paragraph dedicated to his argument in the New Yorker article I linked.
With regards to including Fiona Hill, do you mean we should do so in the section toward the end of the second paragraph or somewhere in the first paragraph? entropyandvodka | talk02:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Which part? When I mentioned his argument above (proposed as an alternate balance of power take), I was referring to his statement "You can be so weak that it’s provocative." When referring to the imperialism bit, I'm referring to the background section of this Wikipedia article, which states "American historian Timothy Snyder described Putin's ideas as imperialism" when describing Putin's essay. entropyandvodka | talk04:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Snyder spoke directly to the question of the balance of power, saying the EU was provocatively weak. Please reread my excerpt above, and I suggest reading the entire interview to understand its context.
He also addresses the effect that Ukraine is having on the global balance of power from the US POV, regarding Russia and China. —MichaelZ.19:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Regarding imperialism, he does refer to today’s Russia as the remnant of the Russian and Soviet empires, and to Putin and Russia’s plentiful rhetoric of imperialism.
He also speaks history in terms of empires, of nation-states as exceptional in the context of longer history and not the rule, of the many failures of nation-states, and of the EU as the only example of a replacement for empires (sorry I can’t remember at the moment which article[s] this is from). This would seem to be very relevant in terms of balance of power. —MichaelZ.19:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough. His argument is that the EU was provocatively weak (and presumably Ukraine as well, as it was Ukraine, not the EU, that was invaded) and had they not been it may have prevented the war (assuming the EU was doing joint exercises with Ukraine or had a presence there to match combat-capable Russian forces). Is that the point you're suggesting to include? Also, can you describe the context in which it would appear? My suggested edit was intended to follow the sentences mentioning imperialism and irredentism (but before the final sentence) near the end of the background section.
On the imperialism bit, Snyder also says in that same interview, "I think it’s Ukraine’s job to say that Russia’s an empire and it’s an imperial war, that we are defending ourselves against Russian colonialism." Here's a rundown of a talk [85] he gave, in which he argues that the war is a genocide and motivated by imperialism. The article also says:
...[Snyder] emphasized that this war is a fascist action on the part of Russia, and that Putin is using “atrocity talk” as a cover for white nationalism and violence.
They've also got Snyder comparing Putin to Hitler. If you don't see any NPOV issues in citing Snyder's imperialist characterization in the background section of the article (which implies the information is relevant or causal to the conflict), without the article reiterating his claim in Wiki voice, what is your argument against my suggested edit, or perhaps a slightly shortened or reworked version? Note that I'd be open to reworking it to include mention of Fiona Hill, who establishes that her and Bush's advisers were making this same argument to Bush before the 2008 Bucharest summit. You've also got Putin threatening[86] openly to Bush during their talks in 2008:
...Ukraine would “cease to exist as a state” if it joined NATO. In that case, Putin hinted, Russia would encourage secession of the Crimea and eastern regions of Ukraine.
You may consider Mearsheimer's argument that the crisis is the fault of the West as fringe, but I'm not suggesting the article make that claim (and I assume you wouldn't suggest citing Snyder to say in Wiki voice that Russia's invasion of Ukraine is a fascistic and genocidal war of conquest). Rather, I'm suggesting the article mention his core argument (which was appropriately qualified in my edit, just as Snyder's currently is) that Russia's principal aim in the conflict was to prevent Ukraine from becoming a Western bulwark on the Russian border. The idea that Russia is motivated by strategic interests, however criminally, murderously, or foolishly, is not a fringe view, as the sources I've provided establish. entropyandvodka | talk03:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm also thinking that Mzajak's comment on related geopolitics issues with China might be relevant to mention in the short 3-4 sentence edit being discussed here (when Mzajak states "...the US POV, regarding Russia and China). There is a significant distinction in Biden stating that he would not send boots-on-the-ground to Ukraine because of pertinent WW3 threats, however, Biden has also stated that he would commit US military to defend Taiwan in case China were to invade it. That's a strong dividing line between American geopolitics and foreign policy for Ukraine as opposed to Taiwan, which might deserve some comment. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:20, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
It seems like that may be more appropriate in a different section than the background, but I'm open to seeing the proposed edit. The question here is what's in the scope of understanding the background of the conflict. For example, I refrained from mentioning Georgia in my other background edit suggestion, even though from the realist perspective it's further evidence for their point, because I was trying to keep it focused on Ukraine. Georgia entering NATO was also a red line for Russia, both were promised membership in the 2008 Bucharest summit, and Russia threatened and carried out a military response in both cases. In the case of Georgia, Russia immediately moved to recognize (and considered annexing) Abkhazia and South Ossetia immediately after the Bucharest summit, and took military action that same year. Remember, France and Germany opposed Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO because Russia would view it as an existential threat. To this day, the Russian military presence in Abkhazia and South Ossetia has confounded Georgia's NATO accession, though ideas have been floated of them joining while forgoing being able to make an Article 5 invocation on those regions.
Side note: when you changed my proposed edit, you worded it such that the reason France and Germany opposed Ukraine's accession to NATO was that it would upset the balance of power in Europe. This seems inaccurate or misleading. The reason they gave was that Russia would see it as an existential threat,[87] that it would be an "unnecessary offense" to Russia.[88]. The countries opposed were France, Germany, Italy, Hungary, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, though it probably makes the most sense to list France and Germany. entropyandvodka | talk18:47, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Since you bring it up, another relevant opinion from a realist in geopolitics (who is not a neorealist) is Henry Kissinger who has given the opinion that Ukraine should begin negotiating the best outcomes it can obtain by way of concessions to Russia in light of its recent losses to Russia. It seems like the 3-4 sentence edit being discussed here for the Background section would need to mention a representative voice from both the hawks and the doves on this issue of the geopolitical responses to the Invasion. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:22, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
There is a sentence in the Reactions section at the end of the first paragraph:
Reactions to the invasion have varied considerably across a broad spectrum of concerns including public response, media responses, peace efforts, and the examination of the legal implications of the invasion.
It would be reasonable to expand there (though how much I'm not sure, as there's a separate article on peace talks). Hawk and dove responses to the invasion probably shouldn't be in the background section, but the relevant (and very different) analyses of the crisis leading up to the invasion, which may fall on hawkish and dovish lines, should. Observers who believe this is an imperialist conquest (Snyder) and those who believe it is a reaction to NATO expansion (Mearsheimer, Walt, Hill, etc) offer a totally different understanding of the background (and consequently they offer different proposals for peace, like Kissenger). I've seen Kissenger's comments after the invasion, but am not aware if he made any remarks or analyses of it before the invasion. That NYT piece by Fiona Hill, however, was published very soon before the invasion. entropyandvodka | talk20:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure that I'm supporting you on this if you are stating that it might be a good idea to include this edit on the related article at Reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. You also would be justified to do both versions of your edit there, for the 'before the invasion' opinions on the geopolitics, and then the 'after the invasion' comments about the geopolitics of the invasion. As I recall a number of commentaries spoke of the cynical aspects of Russia being asked by China to delay its invasion until the conclusion of the Beijing Olympics, and Russia acquiescing to do this. Mentioning China might be good to add to such an edit and the Reactions page I just referred to is not page protected for your edits to work. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the support. Perhaps the best spot for the delay of the invasion requested by China would be in the "Prelude and declaration of military operations" section? It may need a qualifier like "according to a Western intelligence report" (the sources discussing it similarly qualified it) so as to not assert an unpublished intel report as fact in Wiki voice, but I support mentioning it; Russia-China relations have been strongly affected by Russia-NATO relations in terms of balance of power.
I think our next step would be to organize what information we can agree on in each edit and the placement of each edit. We're talking about one (or possibly two) in the background section of this article, one in the Prelude and declaration of military operations section, one in the related article Reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, and then also a condensed version of that one in the reactions section at the end of this article? entropyandvodka | talk21:07, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm supporting your going ahead on the Reactions page with both of the sections discussed above; one for pre-invasion geopolitics and one for post-invasion geopolitics. Once that's done a new thread can be opened here as needed and all editors should be able to refer to the new sections on the Reactions page once they are edited and added in the Reactions article. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Here are the requested RS for the above items:
Biden's sources on WW3 scenario are the following for the LA Times here [89], for Bloomberg News here [90], and a third one here [91].
Poland's retraction of plans to provide planes in the air being thwarted due to geopolitical tension is from CBS here [92], from WION in New Dehli here [93], and again from WION in a separate report here [94].
The Wikipedia article for the linked CSTO lists the six countries in military alliance with Russia in the event that Russian soil is under threat from foreign adversaries.
I'm not sure about your quip about Satan, though Putin is known to go on holidays to visit the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow where he is greeted by Patriarch Kirill of Moscow who describes Putin's rule as a "miracle from God".
That seems like a reasonable number of reliable sources for adding something on the Geopolitical balance of powers involved in the Russian invasion to the article about the invasion being discussed here on this Talk page. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Given the story about 11 Corps from Kalingrad, I am unsure if Rusia is in a position to attack Poland anymore. So we really need RS talking about this to add it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
1. "idea that the US is going to unilaterally use force to confront Russia invading Ukraine is not on the cards right now." - bold mine
2. There wasn't retraction, US halted that idea as reported here [95] and here [96]
3. There's ongoing conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, yet I haven't heard about any CSTO members helping
4. Patriarch Kirill is also suspected to be ex-KGB agent, so not the best source to back up any claims
I meant that there are no explanations for this war in terms of “balance of power” (and that should be the number one fact to source in terms of geopolitics for the article).
It is rooted in the Putin régime’s need for external conflict and his desire to restore a Russian empire, especially his obsession with Ukraine. Piled on top of that are a panoply of propaganda lines including “NATO,” “genocide,” “denazification,” “de-satanization,” and all the rest, which become reasons for it after they are introduced and accepted by the targets of the propaganda. —MichaelZ.19:31, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks to GiM for his thoughtful comments; my short answers follow:
1. Its been over 6 months and there is still no discussion about any type of boots on the ground action by the USA.
2. Planes in the air are not being sent to Ukraine in any appreciable manner; it would be seen as overly provocative as a spur against Russian.
3. Signatories of CSTO are required under the treaty to invoke activation of the military alliances; in the absence of such diplomatic invocations of the treat then it will not be activated.
4. Kirill is so old at this point in time that is difficult to see him as an agent of anything; are there any reliable source on this?
To go into depth on the issue in a meaningful way would likely require a lot of depth and space. Rather than possibly over bloating this article perhaps it might be better to make a new article about balance of power issues if editors are interested in doing so. BogLogs (talk) 00:38, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
User:Entropy has not signed in since the 4 November, and if someone might have a suggestion for the 2-3 sentence edit he was suggesting for describing current Russian geopolitics in Ukraine, then it might be useful for someone to add it below for discussion on this talk page? ErnestKrause (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
My very best wishes: It looks like User:Entropy had a good thought for where to place this geopolitics edit; if you can figure out a 2-3 sentence edit which works for it then I'll try to support you for adding it. Once its added, then it will be easier to decide how to add it to other articles like your World War III article as well? ErnestKrause (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Mearsheimer is a full professor at the University of Chicago and an endowed chair; are editors allowed to speak of him in a non-neutral tone? From the interview you linked it appears as if he hung up on the interviewer at the end. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:22, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
@Mzajac Do you have evidence that he's a charlatan? It seems like you're going for an ad hominem purely because you don't like or disagree with his view. In the interview you're referring to, it appears the interviewer agreed in advance to what the scope of the interview would be, then attempted to go outside of that scope after being warned not to. If this speaks to anything, it's a lack of professionalism or a hostility on the part of the interviewer in this particular interview. Perhaps you ought to read The Tragedy of Great Power Politics rather than making snap judgments here. Otherwise, if you have an issue with his arguments or the relevant facts brought up here, how about providing an RS disputing those specifically? entropyandvodka | talk18:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Could the two maps be merged together as they show nothing conflicting. Simply adding the dark blue nations to the "Even humanitarian support" map and merging the two captions could do it. Mitch199811 (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Time of the declaration of the invasion of Ukraine
I think that the exact time of the declaration should be listed as being 10:00 PM February 23rd, 2022, based on when news articles announcing the declaration broke the news, as well as p. 12-13 of UN SC log S/PV.8974. Also, it should be mentioned in the article that, just before the invasion, at around 9:00 to 9:15 PM Feb 23 2022 (ET) , that missiles were being fired towards Ukraine (I do not know if they were armed or not, but I remember videos of these missiles circulating around Twitter before 10 PM ET). Bst9jkj (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Addendum: I believe the missiles fired around 9:15 were the reason that the UN Security Council S/PV.8974 was held in the first place Bst9jkj (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Addendum: I believe the missiles fired around 9:15 were the reason that the UN Security Council S/PV.8974 was held in the first place. Bst9jkj (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
ET (Eastern Time in North America) is not directly relevant. Dunno if that’s the same, or if daylight savings affected the relative times on February 24, but the article says “on 24 February, before 5:00 a.m. Kyiv time,” based on the cited source.[98] —MichaelZ.20:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Well Daylight Savings wasn't in effect on Feb 24 of this year, it started around March and ended this November. But 10:00 pm on Feb 23 was 5:00 am Feb 24 for them. And in UTC, the time should be 3:00 AM Feb 24, I think. Bst9jkj (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 November 2022
Replace "2022 Crimean Bridge Explosion" with "Crimean bridge explosion" under "Events in Crimea", because the main page is called "Crimean Bridge Explosion", not "2022 Crimean Bridge Explosion". Bluehalooo (talk) 21:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
the US estimate cited in the causalities section of ~100k dead or injured Ukrainians is literally General Milley saying there have been about 100k russian casualties and "probably about the same for the ukrainians". Does that in any way seem like a good enough source? Its probably not that far off, but the way its stated here makes it seem like some sort of official estimate and not an offhand remark. --jonas (talk) 10:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
RUSI report
Here’s an invaluable retrospective report on the first five months of the war. It summarizes a lot of thing in an encyclopedic fashion and brings new information to light. Written by British and Ukrainian military experts working for the respective states.
Ukraine has many volunteers from north caucasian peoples, especially chechnya-ichkeria, but theyre part of the ukrainian forces, not a separate force, so i see no reason for inclusal. 187.183.72.200 (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Additional map border of the Russian-claimed regions cf frontlines
Could there be an additional border added to the map of the zones that Russia has "officially" annexed. It could be interesting to note this compared to current frontlines without cluttering the map too much.
The borders of the Russian-claimed oblasts are actually shown, but not labelled. Russia has made conflicting statements about the actual boundaries of the territory it claims (Russia can’t say where “Russia’s borders” are).
See the FAQs at the top: A5: There is currently lack of reliable data about mobilized reservists in Ukraine and the separatist republics, and about additional reinforcements sent by Russia, so infobox currently reflects initial 24 February 2022 strengths based on the best available information. This may change in future when more information becomes available. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:31, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The estimates of troop strength at the start of the invasion were made by satellite confirmations of the massing of troops on the Ukraine border while the Beijing Olympics were taking place. This information from satellite images is generally seen as accurate and was reported as accurate in the international press. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Ukraine's right to exist claim
This might be odd for me to talk about here, but I notice that there is mention in the article that Putin addressed the world decrying Ukraines right to exist. This did not happen, and in fact he promoted the right of Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics to exist. Is it not improper to make things up out of nowhere? If someone can quote Putin with those wordings, I won't delete the wording. Not like it will matter, Wikipedia will just restore the edit, but I feel that it is my right to protest. I won't comment on the rest of the article, but this was too much. Can someone with more authority than me delete the ridiculous comment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:6503:C500:D4A:15AF:5B9F:720C (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Can you point out where in the article it is detailed Putin decried "Ukraines right to exist"? I show in the lead where Putin addressed Ukraine's rightto Statehood and other claims he made, and these appear to be sourced reliably. I show no quotes or otherwise attributed to Putin like this; however I only used a quick Ctrl+F search, did I overlook something? King keudo (talk) 15:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
But I have read the original text, and it really does claim that "Ukraine can be called Ukraine of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin" (as in an epithet) and that "it was created by the Bolshevik, Communist Russia". Similarly, Putin claimed this: "Ukraine is an inseparable part (emphasis mine) of our (Russian. - note) own history, culture, and spiritual space" (духовное пространство - his favourite phrase). The full text can be found here (in Russian). 2A02:AB04:2C2:E300:8443:DD37:C24D:6F5F (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes, Putin plainly casts doubt on Ukraine’s right to exist with disinformation about its origin and nature. There are plenty of secondary sources testifying to this about his speech, and some are cited in our own article about it, “Address concerning the events in Ukraine.” The same can be said about his 2021 article “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians,” although our selection of cited sources evaluating that one are relatively soft-spoken.
Both the essay and the speech have been cited by experts as part of “laying the groundwork for incitement to genocide: denying the existence of the Ukrainian group.”[99] —MichaelZ.17:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=1> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=1}} template (see the help page).
Done But I failed to attribute the change to you, Delukiel. Sorry, I didn't know until now that I was supposed to do that :/ But it's fixed :) –LordPeterII (talk) 21:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
.gif)
Not done It's the correct label. Tartan357 (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
![[54]](https://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/Russian%20Federal%20Subjects%20Generating%20Volunteer%20Units%20As%20Of%20August%2012%2C%202022_1.png){kind=link}
![[55]](https://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/Russian%20Federal%20Subjects%20Generating%20Volunteer%20Units%20As%20Of%20September%2015%2C%202022.png){kind=link}
