Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Belarus

[edit]

I think it's time to remove Belarus from the infobox, here [1] is my reasoning. Rolando 1208 (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There's no doubt Belarus significantly supported Russia in the initial invasion, but that was two and a half years ago and to say that Russia is still substantially supported by Belarus now is misleading. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that was two and a half years ago and to say that Russia is still substantially supported by Belarus now is misleading
I thought that but found out that fresh academic sources still mention Belarus as belligerent so our article should follow sources. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NOT again, have we just to come out of one of these discussions? Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have we though? The last RfC was 9 months ago!! I think it's time to reconsider it. Rolando 1208 (talk) 12:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, lets have another RFC. But word the question carefully, as not everyone who took part in WW2 was there form beginning to end, but are still listed as belligerents. Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how RfCs work. I'm just leaving this is in here so that a more experienced editor can start one. Rolando 1208 (talk) 12:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is an RfC really necessary? Does the explanatory footnote specifying that Belarusian support was really only during the initial invasion not suffice? Removing the mention altogether wouldn't be much better as Russia was substantially supported by Belarus early on, and thus deserves a mention, just not as a full "always has supported". Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean it's mentioned in the rest of the article isn't it? But to have it in the infobox seems like too much. Rolando 1208 (talk) 12:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is mentioned in the rest of the article, otherwise it wouldn't be in the infobox; why is having it in the infobox "too much" as long as the footnote clarifying support being largely exclusive to the initial invasion remains? Though it is definitely misleading to have the mention if the reader doesn't read the footnote, there is no "initial Russian invasion of Ukraine" article where Belarus would instead be an obvious inclusion, so any support which was given in the initial invasion should be given more weight in my view. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 13:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a good solution to this problem was given in the preceeding discussion. We can simply add (2022) around where we mention Belarus' support, as that was when they allowed Russia to invade through their territory. Gödel2200 (talk) 14:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To illustrate, direct military support only logistical maybe not now, Terratorial support not now, support in committing war crimes maybe, political support yes, economic support yes. THere may be other areas they still offer support as well. Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Economic support how? Belarus has a much smaller economy. It's actually the other way around, Russia gave money to Belarus to support their economy. I'm not sure what you mean by political support? Belarus hasn't been involved in the war for more than two years. And Belarusian people don't seem to support this war either. Most importantly the army hasn't joined the Russians during this whole time. Basically the involvement only happened in 2022, after that, Belarus has been a neutral party in this war. Meanwhile you have other countries who currently sell weapons to Russia and they're not even mentioned in the infobox. Rolando 1208 (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OLd, but this is what I mean [[2]] have to arms sales and coperation ended? Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Less old [[3]], neither of these are usable, but they do not give the impression there is still ongoing cooperation, in the military, economic and polcrial fields. Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have one for 2024? Even the "less old one" doesn't seem very conclusive. Belarus' involvement is very clear in 2022 but after that the most we get is speculation (and possibly even original research). I'd say we remove it from the infobox, if Belarus gets involved again, we can put it back in there. @Kashmiri and @SaintPaulOfTarsus, what do you think about my proposal? Rolando 1208 (talk) 18:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and @Ybsone too. Rolando 1208 (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Belarus made it into history, they should stay, for history's sake. "Russia attacked from territory of Belarus" is a historical fact and as such should not be removed, nor should the supporting side. YBSOne (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the infobox implies Belarus is still involved. Don't you think that's silly? Rolando 1208 (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As long as over 10 Russian divisions are in Belarus - a de facto occupation - Russia will use the territory as a jumping off point if need be (again). 2603:6080:21F0:AB60:4D0E:9735:CDD4:BB18 (talk) 22:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't. Just as the map shows past conflict areas, so can infobox, clearly noted, show past (and/or present) supporters. YBSOne (talk) 22:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Territory is irrelevant. The fact that the US has used military bases in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan to launch attacks on Afghanistan did not make these two countries belligerents. The UK firing ballistic missiles at Syria from its Akrotiri base did not make Cyprus a belligerent. What matters whether a country's government and military take part in hostilities; not whether alien forces are able to operate there. — kashmīrī TALK 23:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • History articles are an overall picture, not a snapshot of a particular point in time. Consider how things should appear if the event occurred 100 years ago and was not an ongoing current event. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I get that, however I think it's silly to single out Belarus but then the other countries who are currently supporting Russia aren't even mentioned. It seems to go against NPOV. Rolando 1208 (talk) 00:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undue Infobox to be usable should be short and sweet. Belarus support for Russia is not one of the most noteworthy aspects of the war. (t · c) buidhe 04:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly agree with the inclusion but there is an affirmative consensus by RfC several times. We should only go down that path again if something has changed such that there is a reasonable prospect that the consensus would be overturned - otherwise, just starting up a new RfC might reasonably be considered disruptive given the history of the issue. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't the last RfC nine months ago? The more time passes, the less relevant Belarus' actions in 2022 become. If not, we should be consistent and include all parties, NATO, North Korea, Iran, etc. Why single out Belarus? Rolando 1208 (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As said at the time, because no one else allowed attacks from its soil, which has not changed. Slatersteven (talk) 19:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[[4]], yes Belarus is (in effect) an indirect theater of war. Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that the United States should be listed as a supporter of Israel on the Israel Hamas war page? The standards on this website for the enemies and foes of the united states are completely different, and this uneven application of the rules creates a systematic pro-US bias. 90.102.72.109 (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should we add Ukraine’s incursion to the map?

[edit]

I know that we have another article about that, but the incursion is still part of Ukraine’s efforts to fight back against the Russian invasion, so I feel like we should update the map to feature the incursion.

Source: https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-kursk-fighting-80671ef80c36b94dc1114506770cdd56 LordOfWalruses (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, as this is not about any invasion of Russia. Slatersteven (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is about the invasion of Ukraine (as this is a Ukrainian attack meant to strike back at and stretch out Russia’s forces invading Ukraine). LordOfWalruses (talk) 21:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I came here for this very reason--to see what they were going to do about that map. I think Ukraine's response is well within scope, and they should add a 4th color. I propose green, for no other reason than it looking good with the other colors. 2604:2D80:CC12:0:E8CE:E6E4:D343:FC06 (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on all points; all I would add is that the shade of green should be the same general shade as the other colors on the map. LordOfWalruses (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although they didn't use green, they did add the incursion in light blue and I find this satisfactory. It achieves the goal of showing the incursion, its size, and location in context with reclaimed and occupied territory. The border is sufficient to distinguish Ukraine-occupied Russia from reclaimed territory. 173.22.131.171 (talk) 06:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's too soon. Let's wait a bit to see how it unfolds. Plus, as mentioned in the thread above, there's an article about the incursion in Kursk already. Rolando 1208 (talk) 21:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. LordOfWalruses (talk) 21:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Mention Russian demand on NATO expansion in lead?

[edit]

Should the lead mention Russia's pre-invasion demand for a ban on future expansion of NATO to Ukraine? A proposed wording: "In late 2021, Russia massed troops near Ukraine's borders and issued demands including a ban on future expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to Ukraine." — Goszei (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prior discussion of this topic on this talk page can be accessed here, here, and here. — Goszei (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The current version of the lead mentions two of the reasons which Putin has advanced for Russia's decision to invade Ukraine: (1) a Russian irredentism based on denying Ukraine's right to exist as a state, and (2) overthrowing its alleged neo-Nazi government (which we correctly identify as a falsehood). Equally important and relevant as these are Russia's pre-invasion security demands, issued on 17 December 2021 in the form of an ultimatum to the West, and whose most pertinent item was a ban on future expansion of NATO to Ukraine. Mentioning this point does not imply that it is the genuine reason behind the invasion, to the exclusion of the other reasons, but presents it as one among several, as the reliable sources do.
In reflection of the reliable sources which it cites, the current article body mentions NATO more than 30 times, mostly in the Background and Prelude sections. Here are representative sources which identify NATO expansion as one of the causes of the war, both within and beyond this article:
  • News "explainers" from major outlets, which all describe in detail the history of the collapse of the USSR, ensuing NATO expansion, and how this process caused increasing tensions between Russia and Ukraine over decades; all of these sources also describe the December 2021 security demands when discussing the causes of the war. For examples, see NYT, CNN, BBC, Al-Jazeera, Vox, Bloomberg, US News, and NPR. Most of these mention the "irredentism" and "denazification" points on either equal or lesser footing to the NATO expansion point.
  • U.S. think tanks including the Council on Foreign Relations: "Why did Russia launch a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022? [...] Some Western analysts see Russia’s 2022 invasion as the culmination of the Kremlin’s growing resentment toward NATO’s post–Cold War expansion into the former Soviet sphere of influence. [...] Other experts have said that perhaps the most important motivating factor for Putin was his fear that Ukraine would continue to develop into a modern, Western-style democracy that would inevitably undermine his autocratic regime in Russia and dash his hopes of rebuilding a Russia-led sphere of influence in Eastern Europe." See also this article, which is specifically on the NATO point.
  • International relations scholars including both John Mearsheimer, a leading figure in the realist school, and Joseph S. Nye, a leader of the liberal school. Mearsheimer puts more emphasis on NATO expansion (see [5]), while Nye puts less but still examines it at length (see [6]: "the intermediate cause was a refusal to see Ukraine as a legitimate state [...] The prospect of NATO enlargement was a lesser intermediate cause").
I support the proposed wording. — Goszei (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Goszei – You might be better served by presenting your proposed wording with the RfC question. It gives concreteness to the change that you are hoping to effect. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. — Goszei (talk) 14:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Doesn't matter if you disagree with it or think it's a pretext. The reality is that it is an aspect discussed heavily in reliable sources (as demonstrated by Goszei above), perhaps more than any other individual causative factor, and thus warrants inclusion in the lead. I will add another source in as a datapoint, a book I am currently reading, The Story of Russia by famed historian Orlando Figes released in 2022 following the invasion. The following is on p. 292-293.
"At the Bucharest conference in 2008, NATO had declared that, along with Georgia, Ukraine would become a member of the alliance once it met the necessary requirements (among them better measures to combat political corruption and ensure the rule of law). The declaration was opposed by several NATO leaders, especially the German chancellor Angela Merkel, who warned that it would be seen as a dangerous provocation by Russia. But George Bush forced the measure through. In his final months in the White House, he was desperate to leave a legacy of promoting US interests and democracy in the former Soviet Union. He was supported by the east European member states, which were most alarmed by Russia’s growing aggression. They saw Ukraine’s NATO membership as ‘an important historic opportunity to cage the bear’, in the words of Lech Wałęsa, the former Polish president.
NATO’s involvement in Ukraine set alarm bells ringing in Moscow. After the invasion of the Crimea, the alliance gave $3 billion in military aid to the Ukrainian government, helped it to modernise its weaponry and trained its troops in joint exercises in Ukraine. The war had strengthened Ukraine’s national unity. But it also gave rise to a violent hatred of Russia reflected in the cult of Stepan Bandera, the Ukrainian nationalist leader who had fought on the Nazi side against the Soviet army in 1944–5. Bandera streets and squares were newly named. Statues of the partisan leader were erected in cities such as Lviv and Ternopil. The Bandera cult was a gift for Moscow’s propaganda about the threat of ‘Nazis’ in Ukraine.
Putin saw the role of NATO in Ukraine as a direct military threat. In an hour-long address to the Russian people on 21 February 2022, he claimed that Ukraine would ‘serve as an advanced bridgehead’ for NATO’s forces to attack Russia unless Moscow intervened. Under the guise of its training missions, NATO, he declared, was building bases in Ukrainian cities like Kharkiv, near the Russian border, from which its nuclear missiles could reach Moscow in a few minutes. ‘It is like a knife to our throat,’ he said. From a Western point of view this seemed mad and paranoid. NATO, after all, was a defensive alliance and had no reason to attack Russia. But as Putin saw it, it was the conclusion to be drawn from his reading of the history of Russia and Ukraine." JDiala (talk) 00:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes the NATO (a defensive alliance) is such a threat that we have to invade Ukraine so now we (Russia) can border with 9 NATO countries instead of 5. "Putin saw" is clearly his pretext not a "causative factor". YBSOne (talk) 08:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why didn't Putin invade Finland for their accession in NATO? No "advanced bridgehead"? No "alarm bells"? NO "dangerous provocation"? Weird right? Almost as if Kremlin didn't work on destabilisation and propaganda against Finland. YBSOne (talk) 09:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In a new book, the historian Orlando Figes argues that the war on Ukraine is only the latest instance of a nation twisting the past to justify its future. YBSOne (talk) 09:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to read more than just the by-line. The reviewer criticizes Figes for blaming NATO’s expansion for creating “the very problem it was meant to counteract” because in Feifer's view it goes against his own case for the importance of invented enemies to Russia’s self-image. It's clear from that review that 1) Figes does place emphasis on NATO's role in the conflict and 2) that Feifer disagrees with that analysis. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. My point is that just because a historian reports what is Russia/Putin saying does not mean it is a causative factor. When we know that Putin just wants to recover/recreate his belowed Soviet Union and any sovereign states like Ukraine not sharing his idealistic vision need to be punished for their independence and forced into submission. Also on the outside they need to create fake image of being the ones in the right, "fighting nazism", "rescuing russian-speaking civilians" Allegations of NATO provocation and aggression etc. YBSOne (talk) 12:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Putin didn't invade Ukraine in 2022 because he feared NATO. He invaded because he believed that NATO was weak, that his efforts to regain control of Ukraine by other means had failed, and that installing a pro-Russian government in Kyiv would be safe and easy. His aim was not to defend Russia against some non-existent threat but rather to expand Russia's power, eradicate Ukraine's statehood, and destroy NATO, goals he still pursues".105" YBSOne (talk) 12:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting that now quoting a source that quotes a beligerent (Russia, Putin) is a reliable source, but when a source quoted an Ukrainian official it was not reliable. Interesting. YBSOne (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So think tanks which form part of the "reliable sources" as you put it Goszei have provided above are reliable when providing reasoning for Russia invading Ukraine, but not when questioning Russia's great power status.
Hopefully whoever closes this RfC will take such editor inconsistencies into account when evalutating the input of said editor. TylerBurden (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bizarre personal argument, especially in an RfC . Address the content, not what I may or may not have said in an unrelated discussion. To address what you wrote, note that Goszei provided a number of sources including standard newspapers, which no one disputes are reliable, in addition to scholars like Mearsheimer and Nye. The CfR source was just among many. On the issue of think tanks, the most important thing for me is consistency. If we're going to accept think tanks are reliable for anti-Russia material, then to be consistent it makes sense to accept them for anti-NATO material. JDiala (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You speak about consistency? You've proven to be anything but, which is exactly why I added this analysis so that the closer knows how you present sources differently based on motive. TylerBurden (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, but in case of inclusion it needs to be stated that it was just a pretext to feed the zombified masses ie disinformation, and real reasons were different ie Russian imperialism. YBSOne (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, its a blank cheque, what is it we intend to say? Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had asked Goszei to place their proposed wording with the question. They want to introduce a sentence to the lede approximating: In late 2021, Russia massed troops near Ukraine's borders and issued demands including a ban on future expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to Ukraine. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I answer the question as it is still asked. Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the proposed wording to the RfC text. The mention should certainly be no longer than a sentence clause. — Goszei (talk) 14:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"vote" now struck. Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is part of the war's background. See the well-developed article World War II, where there's a dedicated section on the developments up to several years prior to the war's outbreak, including German demands. — kashmīrī TALK 14:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our WWII articles do not give dues to Nazi Germany's pro-war propaganda, as is being proposed here with Russia's pro-invasion propaganda. Unless most RS view Putin's demands on Ukraine's NATO bid as legitimate, we shouldn't treat them differently from Hitler's violations of the Versailles and Locarno treaties. IntrepidContributor (talk) 05:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. A significant number of high-quality sources, as detailed by Goszei and JDiala, suggest that Russian fears over NATO's eastward expansion may have contributed to the origin and (with the 2022 invasion) to the escalation of the conflict with Ukraine.. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
lol. The "conflict" as you call it led to the fact that Russia recieved +750 miles border with Nato Devlet Geray (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if supported by reliable sources. No matter whether Russia meant their demands or not, including them is notable and encyclopedic. If reliable sources say that the demands were disinformation, of course that should be added, but I don't see that as a reason to remove the demands entirely. JSwift49 00:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes To me, it is irrelevant whether Russia actually considered this to be a cause of the invasion or not. If we mention that Russia massed forces in late 2021, we should also mention the demands Russia made accompanying that buildup. Gödel2200 (talk) 02:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No because this claim by Putin was pure propaganda and disinformation. It had nothing to do with the actual reasons he decided to attack Ukraine. As the Institute for the Study of War frames it [7]:
Russian President Vladimir Putin didn’t invade Ukraine in 2022 because he feared NATO. He invaded because he believed that NATO was weak, that his efforts to regain control of Ukraine by other means had failed, and that installing a pro-Russian government in Kyiv would be safe and easy. His aim was not to defend Russia against some non-existent threat but rather to expand Russia’s power, eradicate Ukraine’s statehood, and destroy NATO, goals he still pursues.
My very best wishes (talk) 23:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which statement are you claiming is disinformation? That [i]n late 2021, Russia massed troops near Ukraine's border ... or that it ... issued demands including a ban on future expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to Ukraine? Mr rnddude (talk) 00:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Russia ... issued demands including a ban on future expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to Ukraine.. The demand for a ban on the future expansion of NATO was disinformation/propaganda by Russia/Putin because it was framed as a reason to attack Ukraine. It was not a reason at all (see quote from the ISW above). Now, we uncritically repeat the same in the lead without saying it was disinformation/propaganda, thus giving it some legitimacy, which misinforms a reader. This is not a good summary of content on the page, but rather placing an irrelevant propaganda claim to the lead. Yes, such claim was made by Putin, but it does not belong in the lead, especially in such context. My very best wishes (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's ISW's opinion only. The hard fact is that such a demand has been put forward and has been widely publicised in the sources as well as responded to by governments. We're an encyclopaedia, mind you. — kashmīrī TALK 11:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Putin publicly demanded a ban on the future expansion of NATO. He did it long before the invasion. It was merely a demand, not an ultimatum, because Russian government publicly asserted they have no intention to attack Ukraine. But why on the Earth this should be included to the lead? That would make sense if it were an actual reason for the invasion. But it was not - according to many RS, including ISW, which probably one of the best sources for such claim. My very best wishes (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quotes from the ISW source you have cited: "Putin then issued an ultimatum to the US and NATO in December 2021 that aimed to force the West into surrendering Ukraine’s sovereignty on its behalf and abandoning partnerships on NATO’s eastern flank. [...] Putin's 2021 ultimatum to NATO and the West was an actual ultimatum, not the basis for a negotiation." — Goszei (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it uses such wording, in the most general meaning of the word, i.e. demands with threats, rather than a specific demand with a specified timeline for specified consequences. More exactly, as this source says, Putin published an essay saying that Ukraine has no right to exist unless it will be a puppet state of Russia, etc. Yes, true, that is what Putin said and what he meant. But it was all about subordinating Ukraine to Russia, not about membership of Ukraine in NATO (which would never happen as Putin was well aware about). Why include NATO to the lead? My very best wishes (talk) 19:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should mention NATO in the lead because it has been conclusively demonstrated that the subject dominates discussion of the war's causes in reliable sources (newspapers, think tanks). We can argue back-and-forth and present sources which disagree on the degree to which it was pretext or propaganda, but the truth is that reliable sources do not simply dismiss the topic out-of-hand. Reliable sources, including the ISW article, instead fully engage with and examine the topic from a historical and scholarly perspective, which is all that is required to mention it here. — Goszei (talk) 18:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see: it probably suppose to replace the phrase In late 2021, Russia massed troops near Ukraine's borders but denied any plan to attack. That sounds good and true. Indeed, they denied any plan to attack. But it means there was no any ultimatum by Putin as the proposed change about his demands misleadingly implies. My very best wishes (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Why the lead, according to OP's proposal, should mention only Putin's NATO demand, without its assessment by secondary RSs, and without other, maybe more notable, reasons for the invasion? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMO this would fall under WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and would risk throwing the lead off balance to add too much context to an overview of the article. To the best of my knowledge, that is the most notable demand that was made. Those should absolutely be (and I believe they are adequately) articulated in their appropriate sections in the article. Adding secondary analysis of a statement or saying something like "Although Professors of political science John Smith and Jane Doe dispute the veracity of the demand and state that the demand was to create pretext for invasion" may be useful as an addition, but I would be careful with how much is added given it's for the lead. DarmaniLink (talk) 11:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To the best of my knowledge, that is the most notable demand that was made.
It may be, or it may be not. Sources need to be analysed and a summary should be made to reach such a conclusion.
Now, why is the desire to include demands, but not the reasons for the invasion, into the lead? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ask the proposer.
We do not know, nor can we be certain of the true reasons.
All we have is what russia said (which is possibly false) and speculation (which are effectively opinions, and you know what they say).
I think the proposed change is a net positive. DarmaniLink (talk) 03:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong NO. No, this is just a propaganda trick, not a real demand. And you are substituting concepts. Russia has put forward a deliberately impossible demand for NATO to return to the 1997 borders, and not at all about further non-expansion. Including those funny "demands" neither encyclopedic, nor notable - Wikipedia is not the place for any-country propaganda. Devlet Geray (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So-called "CIA involvement" is WP:FRINGE, see Orange_Revolution#Outside_Ukraine In Russian nationalist circles the Orange Revolution has been linked with fascism because, albeit marginally, Ukrainian nationalist extreme right-wing groups and Ukrainian Americans (including Viktor Yushchenko's wife, Kateryna Yushchenko, who was born in the United States) were involved in the demonstrations; Russian nationalist groups see both as branches of the same tree of fascism.[85] The involvement of Ukrainian Americans lead them to believe the Orange Revolution was steered by the CIA.[85] You are spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories jumping to far-reaching conclusions based on rumors. Ukraine was not under USA nor CIA occupation and their voluntary willingness to be part of NATO/EU was and still is voluntary. YBSOne (talk) 12:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chechnya as a belligerent

[edit]

Chechen republic ichkeria (at least as a government in exile) has had forces fighting for Ukraine in the war, should they be added as a belligerent? They also have a ministry of defence if I am not mistaken The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall there had been some of the garrison troops in Kursk, but avoided real combat. I think we need some good RS to say they are now active combatants. Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not just in Kursk, but within Ukraine itself. Forces loyal to the Chechen republic of ichkeria (not the subjugated [[Chechnya|Chechen Republic]]) have been fighting alongside Ukraine in important battles like of Kyiv, Kharkiv, and bakhmut. Though as a state it has been defeated 24 years ago, the armed forces continue to operate in-exile and use the weakening of Russia in the war to possibly reestablish their state
https://thechechenpress.com/video/16908-naznachenie-komandira-obon-vs-chri-v-ukraine.html
https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-chechens-common-enemy-russia/32136592.html The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 12:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So they are mercenaries? Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn’t say mercenaries. The best way I could describe is that the armed forces of the country are fighting alongside Ukraine, but their country itself is occupied and has been for 2 decades The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 13:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Valid point. Chechen Republic of Ichkeria and chechen opposition is important to the war and fighting against putinism and its own independence. Link to their involvement in the war, both since 2022, and 2014.
Read more: On 18 October 2022, Ukraine's parliament recognized the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria as a temporarily occupied state. AlasdarVan (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The Chechen Republic of Ichkeria holds no territory, is recognized by no country except for Ukraine, and there's no more than several hundred volunteers fighting under its name. It's not significant enough for the infobox, but can be mentioned in the body. — Goszei (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak yes - We already have de facto states as beligerents, and we would be doing a disservice to our readers to make an exception here. If Luhansk PR and Donetsk PR are included as belligerents despite being de jure part of ukraine, I think this should be included as well, for the purpose of encyclopedic consistency. If those two are removed, then (should this be included), this should be removed along with them. DarmaniLink (talk) 06:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Time for others to chip in. Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren't Ukraine's supporters listed?

[edit]

Ukraine has so many nations which support it directly in the war trough arm deliveryes. Why are those not listed? For example Germany the US the UK and so on. These arm and also munition deliveryies are vital for the AFU i think these should definitly be listed. Waranalyst (talk) 11:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are listed - see the Ukraine support section. If you mean being listed in the infobox, there have been many discussions on that, but they were not in support of including them in the infobox. Gödel2200 (talk) 11:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
see FAQ. Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Listing all of Ukraine's supporters on the infobox will make it unnecessarily long and difficult to navigate -- 00101984hjw (talk) 03:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request - Wrong location of a Paragraph

[edit]

Hello, fellow Wikipedians

I have noticed that the fourth paragraph in the section Prisoners of war talks about barrier troops and has little to do with the text before and after. It seems to have been missed when the previously existing section Prisoners of war and war crimes was split apart. I would suggest to move the entire paragraph over to the next section, War crimes and attacks on civilians. Unfortunately, I don't know how or where it would fit.

There is also something I wanted to hear opinions on: Whether if even constitutes a war crime, and if there's a better section it would fit in. Using coercion and/or force on your own military to make them fight in a battle or the war is, at the end, "just" another (and very unethical) military tactic and up for that country to decide. If anything, I would say it's closer to being a crime against humanity, similarly to how (I assume) mass executions of 'disloyal' soldiers and citizens would count as one. Of course, all of that is assuming it's not explicitly listed in the rules of war. Thanks for the time! ShadowOfThePit (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

on the last part, that reads like wp:or, and as far as I know there have been no such accusations leveled against other armies that have used conscription in war time (for example). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs) 13:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 September 2024

[edit]

I request to change the line "The invasion, the largest conflict in Europe since World War II,[13][14][15] has caused hundreds of thousands of military casualties and tens of thousands of Ukrainian civilian casualties." To "The invasion, the largest conflict in Europe since the Balkan Wars, has caused hundreds of thousands of military casualties and tens of thousands of Ukrainian civilian casualties." Mikituu (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Singular conflict should not be compared to "Balkan Wars" a multiple conflicts. Hence it is compared to a single conflict, WWII. YBSOne (talk) 14:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would propose an alternative wording, "the largest military intervention in Europe since World War II". This would distinguish it from the civil wars that comprised the Yugoslav Wars (not the Balkan Wars that took place in 1912 and 1913). Peaceray (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to qualify the statement that the war in Ukraine is the largest armed conflict in Europe since WW2. About 130,000–140,000 people were killed over a 10-year period in the former Yugoslavia, compared to 250,000+ in 2 years in Ukraine. There has also been at least double the number of people displaced, and a participant here being a permanent member of the UN Security Council with nuclear weapons certainly adds to its magnitude and historic nature. In addition to the sources used for the claim right now, I found the Council on Foreign Relations and RAND Corporation describing this war with the same phrase. — Goszei (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. TylerBurden (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&oldid=1246585663"