![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
![]() | This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change:
Escalation (21–23 February) In the evening of the 21st of February, at 22:35 (UTC−5),[147] Putin announced the recognition of the Donetsk and Luhansk people's republics.
To:
Escalation (21–23 February) In the evening of the 21st of February, at 22:35 (UTC−5),[147] Putin announced the recognition of the Donetsk and Luhansk people's republics. In the same presidential address Putin also claimed that Ukraine never had "real statehood" [1] and was part of Russia. Historian Timothy Snyder argues that is a myth that Putin used to justify the invasion [2] [3]. Similarly, according to Ukranian correspondent Olga Tokariuk, the speech "was perceived as a declaration of war on Ukraine" by Ukranians [4]. 213.31.111.73 ( talk) 21:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Not done: This is giving
undue weight to Putin's justification of the war in a section about escalation. The article already mentions that Putin believes that Russians and Ukrainians were "one people" and that he expressed Russian irredentist views.
Pabsoluterince (
talk)
22:59, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
References
Double redirect (Southern Front Offensive -> Southern Front offensive)-- 2600:1700:4579:B80:AC93:64D2:7D79:C19E ( talk) 20:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Ukraine has announced that 9,000+ Russian soldiers have been killed, Please do not change this into casualties or losses without a reference. @ EkoGraf: Confirmed Twitter accounts of NBC News correspondents should not be considered unreliable, just because Twitter is being used as an intermediary of nbcnews.com. Viewsridge ( talk) 17:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
1st report - 2,800 "lost"
[3];
2nd report - 3,500 killed
[4];
3rd report - 4,300 "lost"
[5];
4th report - 5,300 losses/killed and wounded
[6];
5th report - 5,710 lost/killed and wounded
[7];
6th report - 5,840 lost
[8];
7th report - 6,000 killed
[9];
8th report - 7,000 killed
[10];
9th report - 9,000 killed
[11].
The figures are consistent during their rise, but the 4th, 5th and 6th reports stand out that they do not refer to them as killed, but actually killed and wounded or lost. I also find it interesting that whenever its reported exclusively "killed" it comes from the President's office, but when they say it refers to killed and wounded it comes from the Ukrainian General Staff. In the same day that the General Staff reported 5,840 Russian soldiers were lost (which they previously showed to mean killed and wounded) Zelensky claims nearly 6,000 killed. Due to this uncertainty we should use neutral language until the situation becomes more clear so to not let any potential propaganda information be presented as factual information. I think the best course of action would be a compromise solution that was found for the War in Donbass back in 2014. We agreed then to not include potentially unreliable figures in the infobox, only self-admitted casualty figures or figures presented by a 3rd neutral party. We still included the potentially propaganda claimed figures in the article, but in its main body in the casualties section. EkoGraf ( talk) 21:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
@ EkoGraf: Ok, that makes sense. Thanks. Viewsridge ( talk) 07:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Judging by the "detailed map of the Russo-Ukrainian War" which is referred to under the main map shown at the top of the main Wikipedia page here, the main map seems to be quite a bit out of date. For example, in the detailed map of the Russo-Ukrainian War, this morning it was showing Russians encircling about 3/4ths of Kiev, but the map on the main page shows Russian presence in only about 1/3rd of Kiev's outskirts. Does anyone know the reason for this apparent issue? Ianbrettcooper ( talk) 14:39, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
look I'm a stinky american could we get links to the oblasts when they are mentioned same with the cities. Yes it's me being lazy not wanting to spend an extra 45 seconds to look up where they are on the map. I would be bold and do it my self however this article is under reasonable protection, if its done thank you if not... oi Bruvlad ( talk) 16:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Russian police detained 7-11 years old children who wanted to lay flowers at the Ukrainian Embassy in Moscow. Police juvenile inspectors threatened their parents with deprivation of parental rights. [1]
It's fucked-up! I feel like a character of dystopia. K8M8S8 ( talk) 12:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template.
Pabsoluterince (
talk)
22:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)References
Please change the map or its provider. The Russian army does not control the rear and much of the territory in which they advanced. Example of a correct map at the link: https://t.me/ssternenko/3990 Block Baby ( talk) 19:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the Feb 25 section should be removed. It was most likely included because it was seemingly a case of friendly fire... but friendly fire is bound to happen in all wars. However, if one reads the third (and final) source it can be seen that it is hardly mentioned amidst all the other reporting done by CNN. If the press does not see it as a major incident then we should not either. If it is not agreed that it should be removed, at least change the first sentence to read that there were many blasts heard, not just two. Sectionworker ( talk) 21:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
I want to ask all of you: Who the fuxk made this map? Russians are not occupying whole territories, they are just moving through Ukraine. 195.205.75.1 ( talk) 06:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Board of directors decided to liquidate Echo of Moscow. [1]
References
Does anybody know how to archive all references to Echo of Moscow contained in Wikipedia's articles in automatic mode? Otherwise all these links will become dead. K8M8S8 ( talk) 12:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
According to President Zelensky, 16,000 foreign volunteers have arrived in Ukraine to fight in its defense. Should this number be added to the infobox? Viewsridge ( talk) 11:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
I have removed the section below as I believe it contains trivial information that do not belong to this overview article. It was also weirdly placed in the ramifications, at the level of 'sanctions' and 'economic impact'. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Following Russia's annexation of Crimea, Ukraine blocked the North Crimean Canal, [2] which provided 85% of Crimea's drinking water. [3] On 24 February, the first day of the invasion, Russian troops advancing from Crimea established control over the North Crimean Canal. [4] Sergey Aksyonov, the head of the Republic of Crimea, told local authorities to prepare the canal to receive water from the Dnieper river and resume the supply of water, which was planned for the following day. [5] On 26 February, the concrete dam was reportedly destroyed by an explosion and the water supply was resumed. [6] Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
References
What about the "russian tank" (not a tank, nor russian, nor a "military column") that crushes the vehicle? It has been debunked by analysts, but is still being shown in the article. Some example by the press and fact checkers: [13] , [14] , [15], Even those who see the complete videos, the place, the facts and the moment in time it happened, realize it and comment about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.55.154.178 ( talk) 15:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
to include photographs of Russian military equipment captured and destroyed, to include photo of Scuttled Ukrainian flagship in the harbour, to include more information on weapons being provided by the west, to provide more detailed timeline of events in areas within Ukraine. 81.2.177.196 ( talk) 20:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
In the introduction paragraph it says:
including new sanctions imposed on Russia, triggering a financial crisis.
It isn't clear from the sentence that Russia is suffering a financial crisis. It could say ", triggering a financial crisis in Russia."
It could also say the sanctions are causing widewspread financial uncertainty to many countries, due to the sanctions, but that would likely need a lot of citations etc. to document then impact on imports, exports, etc.
MeekMark ( talk) 20:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Today's changes removed much of the material about the invasion itself, replacing it with unsourced summaries. While some structure other than a chronological one is indeed needed, could perhaps someone more capable do it? Thanks. WikiHannibal ( talk) 21:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Example : Snake Island Go Fuck Yourself Shirts
Not sure if this should be added to the press template at the top of this page (and/or others?):
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 20:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Just to put some balance to the investment withdrawals, heres qatar. Oddly al jazeera has been markedly different from the govt itself, but this is off al jazeera, which ive not seen there.
Also, "see also" can use a link to the Georgia war since this is eerily parralel in the build up, entrance and sakkazhvili/zelensky reactions changing from agressive to defensive. 78.109.69.246 ( talk) 11:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Why is {{ cbignore}} being added to every ref? ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 11:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
An alternative approach may use {{bots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} at the top of the article, rather than a tag for each archive reference.Ah yes, i forgot about this. IAbot can't even run properly on this article anyway, so I can do this later today. Rlink2 ( talk) 17:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Saw that someone said they updated the Air and Naval section-they did but as with their comment the link to the frigate now links to a random sailing yacht. 2601:802:8180:3790:89F1:EEE9:A3BC:24DD ( talk) 23:24, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Source: https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/putin-personality-disorder/
This may have already been discussed... but is there any available & reliable information of any Ukrainian refugees that have travelled/fled to Belarus...? 81.108.244.153 ( talk) 01:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, did anyone ever hear anything of this??
Translation from Russian:
"The video message about the forced evacuation of residents of the occupied territories of Donbass, which was made public today, February 18, by the leaders of the terrorists, was recorded in advance. Public figure Sergei Sternenko announced this on Telegram."
""I discovered that, according to the metadata, the video about the 'evacuation' with the head of the occupation administration of the Russian Federation in the occupied part of the Luhansk region, Pasechnik, was recorded at least 2 days before publication, on February 16, 2022. That is, even before, according to the Russian version, February 17 "Ukraine launched an attack," Sternenko said and noted that this proves that this forced displacement of the population is a pre-planned operation of the Russian occupiers."
-- Whydoesitfeelsogood ( talk) 01:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
(1)Please add this information in "Foreign military support to Ukraine" section: On March 2, Ukrainian defense minister Oleksii Reznikov announced the arrival of additional TB2 drones. [1] The Gentle Daffodil ( talk) 07:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
References
Done-- TZubiri ( talk) 17:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
The conflict started less than 1 week and 1 day ago, but the infobox claims it's been going on for 1 week and 2 days. Sunkcaves ( talk) 00:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
What time would you claim the conflict started? I can find out what time the infobox is based off.-- TZubiri ( talk) 07:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I propose adding that Russia and Ukraine are making a deal to allow civilians to pass through humanitarian corridors to evacuate. They have both agreed on a need to create the corridors in their talks. It seems notable and has been reported in several independent media outlets. [1] [2] [3] Perhaps we could add a sentence about it under the "Humanitarian impact" section, perhaps under "Refugees." Perhaps we could say "On March 3, The Russian and Ukrainian governments agreed on the need to create humanitarian corridors for civilians to evacuate. [4] [5] [6]" I would welcome any suggestions of how better to word it, or general thoughts on whether we should even include it. JMM12345 ( talk) 06:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)JMM12345
References
I think my previous topic was not clear. So, I'll limit this to a specific case: if Belarus is listed as a supporting party, then the U.K. should as well.
![]() |
![]() | |
---|---|---|
Stationed Ukrainian/Russian troops in their territory | No | Yes |
Stationed their troops in Ukrainian/Russian territory w/a military function | Yes [1] [2] | Maybe |
Trained Ukrainian/Russian troops | Yes [1] | No |
Gave recon support | Yes [3] | Yes |
Arms Support | Yes [4] | Maybe |
Financial Support | Yes [4] | Maybe |
References
For these reasons, if we're going to list Belarus as a supporting party for Russia, then we should be listing the United Kingdom as a supporting party for Ukraine. Fephisto ( talk) 00:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
References
Country | UK | Belarus |
---|---|---|
Sent their own citizens to die in the war? | No | Yes |
Your table is missing this. Unless I am terribly mistaken Belarus is directly a belligerent, more than a supporter. UK is a supporter, although it may be contested.-- TZubiri ( talk) 07:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
In the intro of the article 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, update/change:
The invasion received widespread international condemnation, including new sanctions imposed on Russia, triggering a financial crisis.
to:
The invasion received widespread international condemnation, including new sanctions imposed on Russia, triggering a financial crisis in Russia and a massive international boycott of Russia and Belarus.
Thank you. S 0524 ( talk) 08:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I recently added a Dec. 3 2021 WaPo article [16] about an accusation by US intel that Russia was planning to invade [17]. This was reverted [18]. I think it's important to show that the accusations started by at least that date. Adoring nanny ( talk) 13:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I am talking about the page "2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine". I find that, from the first lines (description, introduction the point of view is clearly NOT neutral. And I understand, it is hard to make it neutral, when it is about war. Each country "knows who's right". The page is presented in a "Russophobic" point of view ("Indeed ... frequently engage in strategies of manipulation through deception involving exaggeration, omission, and misdirection") The Wikipedia is written by people. Just volunteers. They write what they think. But I think it would be more neutral to say (in a visible place!) that this is the point of view of a country (US, in this case). Also I want to say that it is wrong to lock that page (or parts) as if 100% certain and known by all. Even proven facts in neutral articles (f.e. blue is a colour, Tchaikovsky is a composer, the Sun is a star...) aren't locked. 2A00:1FA1:8262:30AA:0:60:51B8:1B01 ( talk) 07:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I have already reverted three times on this page, otherwise I would have reverted this already. I am interested if this sentence should remain in, be removed or edited. 2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Russian_military_build-ups:
'V' has been spotted as well. [1]
Pabsoluterince ( talk) 05:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Shouldn't we mention this in a way or another, despite nothing being official? Here are English and Romanian sources. I added it yesterday, but it got deleted despite one user at first accepting it and making some corrections.
https://news.yahoo.com/belarus-president-lukashenko-appears-stand-101548955.html
Lupishor ( talk) 15:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
EU just sanctioned 22 Belarusian officials and military for involvement in Russian invasion of Ukraine.which is relevant to an alleged future invasion of Moldova how...?
It is not good to tell 'germans' instead of 'nazi'. In the same way it is not good to tell 'russian invision' while it is just one president's army. Russians are in most keep anti-war side. But most scared to declare their position. Simple russians does not see ukraine enemy. Sory my bad english. PavelSI ( talk) 23:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Am sympathetic, and I would be in favour of making the title more specific: “2022 Russian Federation invasion of Ukraine,” making it clear that it is the Russian state, under its government, that is persecuting this war, and not the Russian citizenry, or the ethnic nation, or something else. However, the great majority of reliable sources use “Russia” for the name of the state, and our guidelines are to follow RS’s. — Michael Z. 06:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't think this would be a great change, per WP:COMMONNAME the most recognized name of the country should be used, not the 'official' name. I don't know about you, but I personally have never heard "Russian Federation" in a conversation, and the vast majority of news sites use "Russia" or "Russian Invasion", almost never saying "Russian Federation" MutantZebrea999 ( talk) 15:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Why? Naming it after the nation appears to be the usual practice, ie precedent. Example: /info/en/?search=German_invasion_of_Denmark_(1940) and /info/en/?search=United_States_invasion_of_Afghanistan A 'compromise' would be to do as here /info/en/?search=2003_invasion_of_Iraq and call it "2022 invasion of Ukraine". But is there a point to that change? It would seem that the invasion of Iraq was called "2003 invasion of Iraq" because it was done by a multi-national coalition (even though the US was the dominant party in it) And if anything, that article should really be called the 2003 US invasion of Iraq regardless because of how dominant the US was in the coaliation. Here however, there's only Russia and Ukraine. 78.78.143.46 ( talk) 20:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I've started cutting down some of the reactions section, but there's a ton of stuff with questionable relevance to the article. I propose that we whinny it down to the reaction of the US, EU, China, NATO, UN and India and get rid of the rest. It's wonderful that Transnistria believes in peace and that Kazakhstan has offered to mediate but I'm not sure if this is relevant to the article, especially as the article has gotten too long. Alcibiades979 ( talk) 16:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Add “Munitions support from NATO” please 130.184.252.76 ( talk) 18:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
There is no NATO request that Germany deliver anything. NATO is a defensive alliance. No NATO state was attacked. There were also no official NATO supplies delivered from Germany to Ukraine. Germany's deliveries are not NATO deliveries. Some of the weapons come from very old stocks.
The German government (as well as the opposition) distinguish between types of ammunition and types of weapons. Weapons are supplied that were optimized to destroy war equipment, but not weapons that were optimized to kill as many people as possible directly. A distinction is made also between Putin's war against civilians and military units. It is assumed that the delivery of small arms could lead to escalation in Russian army's dealings with civilians. It was decided to supply armor-piercing weapons and anti-aircraft weapons, but not small arms.
Already delivered (officially): Response of the 'German Ministry of Defense' to an inquiry from a public television station ('Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen', Public broadcasting TV; March 2, 2022, translated from German): Germany's announced arms deliveries for Ukraine have arrived. The material has been handed over to the Ukrainian side, a spokeswoman for the German Defense Ministry said Wednesday in response to a request. The German government had announced over the weekend that it would deliver 1,000 anti-tank weapons and 500 surface-to-air missiles. Source (German): https://web.archive.org/web/20220303034308/https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/cherson-kiew-russland-ukraine-krieg-100.html
And (current discussions, March 4, 2022); There are currently discussions about 2,700 "Strela" anti-aircraft missiles, which originate from old NVA stocks. : The Ministry of Economy has approved the delivery of 2700 "Strela" anti-aircraft missiles. However, these old weapon systems are said to have quality deficiencies. A Bundeswehr press release from January literally says: "The missiles of the type 'Strela' have been blocked for use since 2012." There is talk of micro-cracks in the propellant charge of the ammunition, of mold on the packaging boxes. Source (German; „Tagesschau“, Public broadcasting TV, March 4, 2022): https://web.archive.org/web/20220304093458/https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/europa/ukraine-deutschland-waffenlieferung-101.html
NATO; EU; Schengen; private people: To divide the world into NATO, Non-NATO or states in general is a far away from living in Europe. Switzerland (e.g.) is located in Europe, but is not part of the European Union, which was also founded to overcome nationalism. The borders between nation states are open. There are no border controls within the European Union and other states caused by Schengen Agreement. European Citizens are not locked up. You have to distinguish private citizens from state initiatives because the state cannot know what individual citizens are doing. (e.g. See: Mathias Rust) No government or NATO can control every private individual.
For example, the Ukrainian border is only 700 km away from Germany. There are currently a number of privately-organized convoys driving through Ukraine, consisting of a few vehicles, each taking a few dozen private Ukrainian women and children out of the country in private cars. At the wheel of the car is sometimes a German priest on a private mission, bringing refugees from Odessa to Germany. These private persons will probably not have informed the German government, nor have they probably "officially" approached the Ukrainian government, and they probably have not asked anyone, because the Ukrainian government certainly has quite different problems at the moment. (Where to register officially in southern Ukraine? Is the building where an office of the official 'Ukrainian tourist information' was located still standing?)
Another example: There are many millions of private handguns and rifles in the European Union. The state authorities will probably not be able to influence their whereabouts. Therefore, many rifles or pistols from the European Union will probably turn up in Ukraine sooner or later. If a European hunter tells you he lost his gun in some forest, no one can check the story anyway.
It is important to note, however, that so far no handguns from state stocks have been officially delivered from Germany to Ukraine, and no state-organized groups are operating in Ukraine. But of course: No European state is likely to be able to control small-arms shipments from private individuals to Ukrainians. (E.G.: Switzerland (NON-EU) or Austria are not part of NATO but accept of 'Schengen-agreement'. Anyone can drive from a 'Schengen country' to an Ukrainian border without beeing controlled) -- Eneliting ( talk) 10:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I see it exactly the same way. That is why I have given sources that quote "German ministries". In Germany, there are no statements available on NATO deliveries, only on arms deliveries explicitly provided by the Federal Republic of Germany. Regards (Sorry, but my post slipped because I didn't find a "reply button".) -- Eneliting ( talk) 13:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
One of the sources saying the city is occupied by the UAF is from a pro-Ukrainian news outlet whose source is a blogger? That doesn't seem very reliable. Nebakin ( talk) 01:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Belarus allowing foreign military access for the purposes of an invasion is an act of war on behalf of Belarus. As is allowing missiles to be launched from Belarusian territory. In addition, Ukraine reports Belarusian soldiers in Ukraine.
This point has been put forward numerous times on this talk page and there was consensus that Belarus was a belligerent. Please change Belarus from "supporter" back to "Belligerent" in the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lluq ( talk • contribs) 21:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
References
"On 3 March, three Personal Representatives of the OSCE Chairmanship: rabbi Andrew Baker, dr Regina Polak and ambassador Mehmet Paçacı condemned the Russian missile attack on Babi Yar.[442]" /info/en/?search=2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#International_organisations_2 The article seems to make no mention of the strike (was it cut?), then just drops this reaction. So the event isn't mentioned.. but the reaction to it, is?
I know this was earlier claimed to have been hit, bit this claim that it was hit seems to have been rather premature & it was actually a nearby communications tower that was targeted and hit: https://www.ynetnews.com/article/sk8byetx9 "Ynet reporter in Ukraine says Holocaust memorial is unscathed despite three missiles being launched toward nearby communications tower, which suffered great damage". "The damage was caused to nearby Kyiv's communications and television tower complex, some 300 meters (400 feet) away from the new memorial and a kilometer (3,000 feet) from the old one."
Unsure how to treat this, it seems most strange to include reactions to things that are not even mentioned in the article. Yet at the same time, the strike should not be added in if it didn't actually happen. Should the reaction be moved to the timeline article instead? (Where one could also then add that it was not hit, despite initial claims it was etc)
78.78.143.46 ( talk) 02:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
The casualty and loss section in the infobox is getting very long, especially via mobile view. Additionally, the massive amount of information makes it a bit convoluted, which I believe goes against WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Clearly much of the information is disputed between countries and organizations, perhaps we summarize the info. KD0710 ( talk) 09:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I suggest that 1.) Get rid of material losses. This is a war and each material items lost will likely be forgotten in relatively little amount of time unless it is something of major significance. 2.) Change the personnel losses to a range such as Russian deaths 498-10,000/Ukrainian deaths 110-2,800. Then change this to UN numbers once they announce them. KD0710 ( talk) 14:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I removed the materiel losses from the infobox. (reverted) Phiarc ( talk) 15:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Information from interfax a Russia controlled site is completely unreliable and cross fact checking leads to a lack of credibility support for information posted there. Many interfax post are clearly just Russia government propaganda stated as is with no additional information or statements and how much or how little is actually fact is completely questionable at best. 96.58.103.123 ( talk) 11:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Information from interfax a Russia controlled site is completely unreliable and cross fact checking leads to a lack of credibility support for information posted there. Many interfax post are clearly just Russia government propaganda stated as is with no additional information or statements and how much or how little is actually fact is completely questionable at best. 96.58.103.123 ( talk) 11:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I request that alongside the mention at the top that "Various states provided foreign aid to Ukraine both prior to and during the invasion, including arms and other materiel support.[71]" a quick sentence should be added that this war has triggered one of the first ever people-funded donations directly to a military, via crypto and bank transfers to the Ukrainian Armed Forces. This is a very important distinction to make, both since it is very unique in world history and because it is directly contributing to the war.
Donations are now running at a rate of $3 billion USD a year ($55m a week) which is one third of Ukraine's entire defence budget. This is a highly highly important distinction to make with lots of high-profile trusted sources reporting on this. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanponciano/2022/03/02/crypto-donations-to-ukraine-top-52-million-as-funds-pour-in-from-bitcoin-ether-polkadot-and-nfts/?sh=6aab46e74e59 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/03/ukraine-to-issue-non-fungible-tokens-to-fund-armed-forces https://techcrunch.com/2022/03/02/ukraine-deputy-minister-talks-it-army-and-deploying-25m-in-donated-crypto/ https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/24/bitcoin-donations-to-ukrainian-military-soar-as-russia-declares-war.html
![]() | This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add it into the subsection "United Nations" of the secction "Reactions" of the article:
The same Resolution confirmed the involvement of Belarus in unlawful use of force against Ukraine. [1] K8M8S8 ( talk) 12:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I’d like to edit the number of foreign students killed in the fighting. There was 4 Chinese students and 1 Indian student killed by Russian attack on Kharkiv college dorm, as reported by Taiwan News: https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4461836 Maximations ( talk) 13:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I think the last sentence of the subsection "Censorship and propaganda" should be amended to read:
" On 4 March, the Russian State Duma, controlled by Putin's United Russia party, passed a law, under which "fake information" about Russian Armed Forces and "discrediting" a use of the Russian Armed Forces including calls for obstruction of the use of the Russian Armed Forces punishable by up to 15 years in prison. On the same day, Russian Federation Council approved this law and Putin signed it. "
There's information about the content of new law (in Russian). [1] Sources already used in the article contain the information about "discrediting a use of the Russian Armed Forces including calls for obstruction of the use of the Russian Armed Forces" too. I believe this is very important nuance because it criminalizes any anti-war protest and speech in Russia; so it should be included in the text of the article. K8M8S8 ( talk) 16:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
References
There's a few major events that should probably be added. For starters - there has been peace talks and while no major agreements, they did announce humanitarian corridors for civilians to evacutate. The nuclear plant that is reported as under siege in the article, has been captured by Russians.
Humanitarian corridors announced after peace talks: https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/60615310 "Russian and Ukrainian negotiators have agreed for the need to create humanitarian corridors for civilians. It's after a second round of peace talks between the two countries took place. Several Ukrainian cities are currently surrounded or almost surrounded by Russian forces, following the invasion of the country by Russia last week. It's hoped the humanitarian corridors will allow for the evacuation of civilians and the arrival of aid such as food and medicine, although at the moment no humanitarian corridor has actually been announced."
Russia seised the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, there were initial fires, but these are now put out: https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/russia-attacks-ukraine-nuclear-plant-invasion-advances-83245801
78.78.143.46 ( talk) 16:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Someone I think updated the map wrong. Siege of Enerhodar still shows the battle is ongoing, but the map shows it under Russian control. Can someone please fix which one is incorrect? Elijahandskip ( talk) 17:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I have updated the brief comment on the scuttling of the Ukraine flagship Hetman Sahaidachny in the Air and Naval subsection. Have removed "It was reported" as there now appears to be enough references, including from the Ukrainian Defence Minister. The photo of the scuttling is already on the Ukrainian frigate Hetman Sahaidachny page, worthwhile to include on this page? Ilenart626 ( talk) 23:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello,
https://www.sabre.com/insights/releases/sabre-terminates-distribution-agreement-with-aeroflot/
Please edit the article to mention that Sabre (the international code-sharing company), has removed the Russian state airline 'Aeroflot' from it's system as of 3-March-2022. Above is the link to the Sabre website. -- Post by someone
Article needs an update on this. News reports are being made at present showing that Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube have just been blocked by the Russian government. It's made me question something significant in relation to this - would the next thing Russia do be to block Wikipedia's Russian version next for refusing to shut down this article in Russian? 2A02:C7F:50C1:8300:D104:3771:2635:4B89 ( talk) 21:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Material losses have been included in the infobox. It has been suggested to put them into the body of the article instead because of autoexpand issues. What are everyone's thoughts with including this material in the infobox vs putting it into the body of the article. If it would go into the body of the article is this a table that is included or is this a paragraph summary of the each side's claims of material losses? For my part it does seem easier to include in the infobox though I understand it can make the infobox rather ungainly. Words in the Wind( talk) 15:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
It’s obviously a good thing that the article has been shortened a bit, as short as some of the replacing summaries may be, but since the timeline got moved to its own page wouldn’t it make sense to link it somewhere in the article? It’s a little odd that I only found out it exists by coming to the talk page and for those of us who have been following the war progress it would be nice to have an easy link to the timeline. 2601:802:8180:3790:89F1:EEE9:A3BC:24DD ( talk) 23:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
The section "Invasions" holds the timeline of main events. It is currently organized with cardinal subsections, this might be a byproduct of an early version of the article where there was no time-wise division of events because only a day had transpired. I don't think a geographical structure is sustainable across time, and even if it is, it's atypical for events not to be achronological.
The best path forward here would be to return to a chronological ordering of the invasion events, perhaps provide a less detailed summary of the events listed in the timeline article, and if needed the 4 cardinal divisions can remain as sub subsections (subsections being each day or time period) when necessary.
I say sub sub section, but I think it prudent to not use actual sub section or sub sub section headers, rather just consider it as an implicit internal structure to the paragraphs. Such that each paragraph corresponds to a day, and eventful days, like the first two, can be further subdivided into geographic zones, however it's better still to further subdivided them into narrower timeframes like 'night' 'morning' 'noon', but that might take more work, so keeping that structure is acceptable. -- TZubiri ( talk) 02:36, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
I propose to mention an article published on February 26, 2022 by RIA Novosti ( read about its realibility) that hailed Russian "victory" over Ukraine and the "beginning of new era". The article is now deleted. It was widely covered by western media. It worth adding it. Links
AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps a scour for other sources will turn up more?Let's hope so. For now though, I'm only proposing to briefly mention it. I can't do it by myself because I'm busy with consequences of the war. Just wanted to make sure that this irredentist piece is remembered. Thanks. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:33, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
It was in multiple Russian state sources, including also Sputnik. [30] This article, or perhaps Russo-Ukrainian War needs a section on the causes, rationales, and promotion of the war (as in Putin’s broad intentions, “ on historical unity,” etcetera, and not just a list of events leading up to it), and secondary sources’ discussion of this article would belong in this section. In the meantime, it should at least be mentioned. — Michael Z. 21:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
English translation:
— Michael Z. 23:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Add “Supported by” Wagner Group, Kardyovites in belligerents? 216.193.170.144 ( talk) 06:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Russian casualties according to Ukraine should say "disputed" in brackets beside it in the column list as this number is a bit far fetched. Magichands92 ( talk) 05:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please update the infobox with Ukraine's claimed inflicted losses: https://twitter.com/KyivPost/status/1500046086865661952 Other source: https://twitter.com/MFA_Ukraine/status/1500040899304333313 P4p5 ( talk) 10:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
If there's a possibility to authorize me to edit the page, I'll gladly make those updates myself. P4p5 ( talk) 17:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under section 8.3.1 Religious leaders, a citation is needed for Patriarch Kirill of Moscow's reaction. I am not familiar with this topic but perhaps this source is reliable: religionnews.com/2022/02/24/orthodox-patriarch-of-moscow-kirill-calls-on-all-parties-to-avoid-civilian-casualties-in-ukraine/ Clay Bahl ( talk) 22:35, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under Sanctions
Please change:
To:
It is important to explain the role of non-state economic actors and the suspension of their services in Russia during this conflict.
GeorgeHenryBorrow ( talk) 15:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, I just want to let you know here that I added the English subtitles to the Putin's speech on February, 21 used in this article ( File:Обращение_Президента_Российской_Федерации_2022-02-21.webm). I don't know if it's relevant for English Wikipedia, but I would like to suggest adding a notice in the article to the video's text like:
<small>(English subtitles available)</small>
.
Thanks for your attention! — Pacha Tchernof ( talk) 11:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change:
to:
In the current intro section, the Russo-Ukrainian crisis is linked but never mentioned by name (see MOS:SUBMARINE). This leaves it unclear to readers what "During the crisis, " refers to later in the paragraph. By my reckoning, it could be any of the 2014 revolution, the annexation of Crimea, the occupation of the Donbas, the "ongoing eight-year war", or the military buildup. -- Xarm Endris ( talk) 02:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please update the infobox with Ukraine's claimed inflicted losses: https://twitter.com/MFA_Ukraine/status/1500406475616927749
If there's a possibility to authorize me to edit the page, I'll gladly make those updates myself. P4p5 ( talk) 13:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Here's a Twitter thread explaining this in more detail: https://twitter.com/Calthalas/status/1498998318755680260
77.255.79.188 ( talk) 15:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
As per the Geneva convention and UN Charter, the zone described as "Ukrainian territories occupied by Russia and pro-Russian separatists" is incorrect. I highly recommend that we all read the article on | Military Occupation. My understanding is that the Donbass (area prior to Feb 24) is occupied by pro-Russian separatists. Most of the rest is an area of denial or - and I find this term more intuitive - a zone of control.
Additionally, we should probably have a third type of zone to indicate where the conflict is active, the zone of control is fluid or uncertain. P4p5 ( talk) 19:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
One solution would be to replace the current map with a screen capture picture of Template:Russo-Ukrainian War detailed map which does not have "shaded areas". Tradedia talk 05:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I strongly agree the map does not represent the situation on the ground, thin columns of vehicles along the axis of a road do not represent the zones of control of the Russian army, these are contested areas, I put it that the map that Nathan Ruser had linked [ [36]] is a much better representation of the situation. An analogy can be made to Napoleon invasion of Russia, Napoleon only controlled the areas just around his troops not the entire Oblasts his troops were passing through. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larsobrien ( talk • contribs) 09:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Crimea is internationally recognized as a part of Ukraine. The land was occupied by Russia in 2014 and not in 2022. It should be mentioned on the map. Ukraine lost control of the parts of Donetsk and Luhansk in 2014 as well and not in 2022. The map is about the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. M.K.Dan ( talk) 21:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
According to this CNN article, from a few minutes ago, "US is sharing intelligence with Ukraine about Russian force movements and locations, as well as intercepted communications about their military plans." Should US be added under support or Intelligence support under Ukraine in the infobox? Viewsridge ( talk) 12:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Alcibiades979 - Wikipedia is not a PR team. Write your additions to the article in encyclopedic tone. I'd edit it for you but I do not have a subscription to the Economist. Emmanuel Macron of France has walked a fine line, on the one hand he has striven to help create a unified EU response to Russia's invasion to help ease the concerns of EU members in the east but on the other hand he has also worked diligently to keep communication lines with Vladimir Putin open and to allow him off ramps to end the war without further escalation
. 'Walked a fine line', 'striven to help', 'worked diligently' - this is not encyclopedic language.
Mr rnddude (
talk)
01:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
01:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Emmanuel Macron helped create a unified EU response to Russia's invasion while maintaining an open line of communication with Vladimir Putin in an effort to bring an end to the war. I'd also have cut out:
... to help ease the concerns of EU members in the east ...because alone this statement conveys little information. What concerns? Whose concerns? How have his actions helped ease these concerns? I'd assume this is expounded upon further by your source, but again, I don't have access to it. But my main problem remains with the use of idiomatic expressions and opinion statements in Wikivoice. Nevermind all that now, as somebody has already done it and with better results. Mr rnddude ( talk) 13:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
I may have missed it in the article... but are there yet any known/reported cases of friendly fire... by either side in this conflict? 81.108.244.153 ( talk) 01:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Ukraine reports friendly fire among Russian forces: https://twitter.com/AVindman/status/1499753688478494721
Translation by @ChrisO_wiki: Just in the Kiev region, near Severinovka, the Russian occupation forces came into battle with ... the Russian occupation forces. As a result, thanks to "friendly fire", 9 tanks and 4 armored personnel carriers were destroyed. Accordingly, it saved us 13 Јavelin. We understand the manifestation of such suicidal tendencies in the occupiers and ask them to continue in this spirit. And mothers of the Russian Federation are recommended to find out where their offspring are now on the lists of captured occupiers or still alive. But this is only at will. It is possible not to find out. All the same - all of them will be in one list, but in different plastic bags. P4p5 ( talk) 10:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
I may have missed it in the article... but are there yet any known/reported cases of friendly fire... by either side in this conflict? 81.108.244.153 ( talk) 01:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Ukraine reports friendly fire among Russian forces: https://twitter.com/AVindman/status/1499753688478494721
Translation by @ChrisO_wiki: Just in the Kiev region, near Severinovka, the Russian occupation forces came into battle with ... the Russian occupation forces. As a result, thanks to "friendly fire", 9 tanks and 4 armored personnel carriers were destroyed. Accordingly, it saved us 13 Јavelin. We understand the manifestation of such suicidal tendencies in the occupiers and ask them to continue in this spirit. And mothers of the Russian Federation are recommended to find out where their offspring are now on the lists of captured occupiers or still alive. But this is only at will. It is possible not to find out. All the same - all of them will be in one list, but in different plastic bags. P4p5 ( talk) 10:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Should there be additional battles listed as the Ukrainians have re-taken some smaller towns outside of Kyiv, such as Bucha and Hostomel? (Those are some that come to mind but I believe they've also pushed into some other towns near Kharkov as well. The Bucha firefight involved several dead VDV soldiers and several destroyed vehicles. There's a few videos and official statements from the Ukrainians regarding all this. There's also some reports that the Ukrainians re-took the power plant as well. Just curious. LeukonTheBosporan ( talk) 11:27, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Please think of the reader who comes here looking for an overview of the topic. I am trimming or moving extraneous content. A crisp article that gets to the point, free of digressions should be the goal. Jehochman Talk 12:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
The map that shows countries should also show their teritorial waters (as seen here Airspace bans and unfriendly skies around Ukraine ), or in other words all the airspace that is closed to Russia
Justas.pingvinas ( talk) 13:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
From the intro:
>During the crisis, Russian president Vladimir Putin described the enlargement of NATO after 1997 as a threat to his country's security, a claim that NATO rejected,
The way this is written makes it look like NATO rejects the claim entirely (that they're enlarging, and that it's a threat), not that (if you read the source article) NATO rejects only the part of that claim that their enlargement would be viewed as a threat. It is true that NATO has been working together to include Ukraine and Georgia. Could this be rewritten as:
>During the crisis, Russian president Vladimir Putin described the enlargement of NATO after 1997 as a threat to his country's security, NATO rejects that this is a threat,
?
Fephisto ( talk) 14:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
NATO enlargement is Putin justification narrative, not sure why this statement is even in the lead.. Decades prior Putin also said that the collapse of the Soviet empire "was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century". Since then Russia has attempted to coerce post-Soviet states into a Russian led version of security and economic unions whether they like or not, and failing that use of force. There is always some excuse why the victim is to blame, currently its Ukraine grasp for NATO safe-line against Russian aggression, before the war it was Ukraine's reach for free trade agreement to balance Russian economic coercion (then Russia threatened with 'inevitable financial catastrophe and possibly the collapse of the state, and allowed for the possibility of separatist movements' [37] which soon after "spontaneously" manifested itself with Russian support). Since then we have had 8 years of politically frozen portracted conflict with recognizing Donetsk and Luhansk its last move. Not sure how you can linguistic dissect all of that, maybe its best to leave the various media narratives perception/interpretation of events to background and focus on Russian military invasion of Ukraine-- Nilsol2 ( talk) 22:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC).
I rewrote the summary for the southern offensives to, among other things, specify what direction the various forces were moving towards. I was reverted with the edit summary, "This was too badly worded to be in improvement." I figured I'd just drop a note here for posterity, in case anyone wonders why it's so hard to parse what is happening in the invasion section. - Featous ( talk) 16:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
It’s evident it’s moved past the “invasion” phase and into the “war” phase. 2607:9880:4218:142:FD3B:55EB:57E6:787A ( talk) 19:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Is Ukraine call for foreign volunteer fighters, and Zelensky's claim that 16,000 have answered, worth being somewhere in the main page? So far its just in the info box. Maybe in the "Foreign military support to Ukraine" section? ErieSwiftByrd ( talk) 22:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"The invasion was the largest military attack in Europe since World War II." Remove 'was' as invasion is still ongoing. Honestly I have no idea why someone would make this change. 2601:196:200:6380:C541:31C:793D:121 ( talk) 22:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
The site of Kremlin seems to be continually down due to active DDoS, but I managed to save a copy of the address by Kremlin that announced the invasion. Here's the PDF, in case it's of any use for the article: download link Might be retrieved from Web Archive as well if there's any working snapshot. PS: The original link was also mentioned by the Russian MFA on Twitter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreiSf ( talk • contribs) 00:35, 6 Mar 2022 (UTC)
Reintroducing this section, which was archived by a bot for further comment. Incidentally, it was deleted from this talk page but not added to the archives. Mozzie ( talk) 10:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
This section seems incredibly biased. We only see negative portrayals of Putin and positive portrayals of Zelenskyy. Could we maybe have some level of balance here, as the article is verging into propaganda. Ianbrettcooper ( talk) 11:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
"Putin was effectively in sole control of the country's policy and was the sole architect of the war with Ukraine"– who is this according to? Which experts of Russian politics say this? Or
"His leadership was characterised by his failures to anticipate the will of the Ukrainian people to oppose the invasion, the worldwide backlash, and the poor performance of his own forces"– again, who knows what Putin was expecting? This is the viewpoint/analysis of several journalists. These kind of analyses need in-text attribution, e.g. "According to the Economist..." Also, we should prefer subject experts/academics over columnists/journalists writing in magazines. I appreciate that a lot of effort has gone into the section, and there are some good ideas to work with, but it needs a careful rewrite before it's ready, especially given how highly trafficked the page is currently. Jr8825 • Talk 16:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
"Putin swiftly became a pariah, and was shunned by much of the global community". It takes the attention-grabbing headline and repeats it as fact, directly contravening WP:HEADLINES. The actual article itself says "Putin was facing ... the prospect of pariah status" – not the same as saying he already has it. Our sentence should reflect what the article actually says, and could go something like:
Putin faced international isolation after the invasion; in the global condemnation and outrage which followed, even long-term allies such as China and Hungarian president Viktor Orbán refused to support his actions.Jr8825 • Talk 17:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
If RS say it’s bad leadership, then it is neutral to say it is bad. — Michael Z. 05:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
In my view the question is not if this content is all supported by reliable sources, the question is does it fit in this article? This article is already bloated enough. I think it is better suited to other articles that discuss the media presentation of the conflict. I'd suggest Media portrayal of the Ukrainian crisis Hollth ( talk) 14:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
The leadership of the presidents of Russia and Ukraine was a prominent factor in the conflict. According to the portrayal in Western media, as the autocratic ruler of Russia, [1] Putin was effectively in sole control of the country's policy and was the sole architect of the war with Ukraine. His leadership was characterised by his failures to anticipate the will of the Ukrainian people to oppose the invasion, the worldwide backlash, and the poor performance of his own forces. [2] [3] [4] Putin swiftly became a pariah, and was shunned by much of the global community. [5] This contrasted with the leadership of Zelenskyy, who quickly became a national hero, [6] [7] uniting the Ukrainian people and rising from obscurity to become an international icon. [8] [9]
In the beginning of the conflict, Zelenskyy refused to leave the capital, pledging to stay and fight. [10] When the US offered to evacuate him, Zelenskyy replied that he needed ammunition and not a ride. [11] He used social media effectively, posting selfies of himself walking the streets of Kyiv as the city was under attack to prove that he was still alive. [12] [13] Zelenskyy was highly effective in lobbying his allies for support. He appeared before numerous gatherings of international leaders, telling a conference of European leaders that this might be the last time they would see him, [14] and appearing before the European Parliament where he earned a standing ovation. [15]
References
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Second War of Ukrainian Independence and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 6#Second War of Ukrainian Independence until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
There is clear consensus against adding countries that are supplying arms to the |belligerent=
section of the infobox without at least some form of separation from the countries that are combatants and are listed as "belligerents". Several editors directly opposed this, and combined with
the recent NATO RFC, the consensus against listing supporting countries along with active combatants together in one unseparated list is clear.
The consensus about listing countries in a separate list, e.g. "Supported by", which might be a collapsed list under the "belligerents" section, is less clear. This RFC, which asked the open-ended question, "Should the individual countries that are supplying arms be added to the infobox?", has probably done as much work as it can in terms of generating consensus for such a list. On the plus side, it asked a general question (not indicating exactly which countries should be listed, or where in the infobox and under what heading), which allowed for a general discussion in pursuit of consensus. On the minus side, because the question was very general, it is not exactly clear what editors were supporting or opposing, with many participants supporting some specific implementations and opposing other specific implementations, or supporting/opposing conditionally. As such, a new RFC, with a more narrowly-drawn question, may yield consensus about a "supported by" list, especially if it takes into account the discussion in this RFC about a "supported by" section. I see the relevant parts of that discussion as follows:
1. Editors pointed to a number of other articles about wars that included, or did not include, a "support by" section in the infobox. There is ample precedent for both approaches and no universally-consistent practice. Nobody pointed to any documented global consensus either requiring or prohibiting inclusion of a "supported by" section in the infobox. With the lack of a binding global consensus, editors are free to come to local consensus at this article about whether to include, or not include, a "supported by" section in the infobox.
2. A number of editors !voted to "support if" or "oppose unless" there was a consensus of reliable sources that verified listing a country in the infobox under a particular heading. This is already a requirement of global consensus, documented at MOS:INFOBOX (e.g., the section MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE), which documents the global consensus that infoboxes should summarize the body of articles. This means that no country can be listed as a "belligerent" or a "supporter" unless the body of the article says the country is a belligerent or supporter (and of course, per the Verification policy, the text in the body must be reliably sourced). In this case, the article does identify countries that are belligerents in this war, as well as countries that are providing support (see, e.g., the "Foreign military support to Ukraine" section of the article). Thus, global consensus such as WP:V, WP:RS, and MOS:INFOBOX, is or can be met, at least for some countries to be listed in the infobox as belligerents and for some countries to be listed as supporters, if the local consensus of editors here is to do so.
3. A number of editors who opposed did so on the basis that listing all the supporting countries in the infobox would make the infobox so long as to be unusable or disruptive, especially for mobile readers, for whom collapsed lists are automatically uncollapsed, and who have smaller screens, resulting in a lot of scrolling to get past a long infobox to the article content. I am going to note here that this is an example of an unnecessary technical limitation constraining editors' content decisions – there is no reason infoboxes can't collapse for mobile readers, and that's something we could change as a community if we wanted to. Putting aside my soapboxing on unnecessary technical limitations affecting content, this objection nevertheless leaves open the possibility that editors who oppose this RFC may support adding a "supported by" list if that list were not too long.
TLDR: While this RFC is not resulting in consensus, editors who wish to add supporting countries to the infobox may want to launch a new discussion (or even a full RFC) proposing the addition of (1) a specific list of countries (2) to be added under a specific heading (e.g. a nested list within a paramater, such as "supported by" under "belligerent"). The list of countries and their designation in the infobox must be in the body and properly sourced. The list should also be short (although I have no numerical cut-off for how long is too long), which might mean grouping the countries somehow (e.g. "NATO" instead of listing individual members), or listing the "major" countries with the last entry being something like "... and XX additional countries", or some other creative solution. This RFC close does not prevent anyone from launching such a new, more narrowly-focused, RFC at any time, although a pre-RFC discussion may help, and if that discussion leads to consensus on the talk page, a full RFC may not be required.
In sum, I believe this RFC has done as much as it can to hone consensus, and while it didn't achieve consensus, it did illuminate the issues, and hopefully paved the way for a consensus to be reached on this topic through further discussion going forward. ( non-admin closure) Levivich 21:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Should the individual countries that are supplying arms be added to the infobox? -
LouisAragon (
talk)
23:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
|combatant2a=
with {{
collapsible list}} (and I'd note that collapsed lists do not work on mobile, they auto-uncollapse, so this is going to extend the scroll length by several scrolls as well).
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk)
11:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
this is a significant part of the story, but that story is not simplisticly reducible to an infobox list. Pincrete ( talk) 00:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
See section Foreign military support to Ukraine for countries that have supplied material aid and arms to the Ukraine.Cinderella157 ( talk) 01:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
| combatants_header =
parameter should be used to change the section name to something broader than "belligerents". I oppose adding it if neither of these changes are made, as it'd be inaccurate.
Jr8825 •
Talk
11:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)would render the mobile infobox unusableNot just the mobile infobox, but the article in general. The infobox, which appears after the very first paragraph, goes on forever (on mobile devices) if it's too long, and it's a heck of a scroll to get further down to even the second paragraph of the lead, even though the actual summary of the events is contained in the lead and not in the infobox. So a lot of people might just not, and that means they're deprived of actually useful information. It's considered a given in web development at this point, to design for mobile devices first because that's how most people consume information these days; I feel like the same principle should be applied to editing Wikipedia articles. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 19:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
i think another way to satisfy this is maybe have a separate list to show supporters Bruvlad ( talk) 17:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
23:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)PROPOSED INFOBOX | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Part of the Russo-Ukrainian War | |||||||
| |||||||
Belligerents | |||||||
The following notelist & reflist consists of the notes & references of the proposed infobox:
Notes
References
CNN invasion routes
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Was it "in response to the military aid to Ukraine" that Putin announced high alert for Russian nuclear forces? -- Mhhossein talk 02:51, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
If we keep on having IP's add the same BLP violating rant I will be asking for page protection. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:33, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Why is it an "invasion" when Russia does it and an "intervention" when the USA ist doing it?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_Iraq_(2014%E2%80%932021)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_the_Syrian_civil_war
It's OK when we do it and bad when they do it?
This is hypocrasy.
Either we keep it neutral or we're not better than them. 161.142.205.248 ( talk) 02:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Materiel support for Ukraine should be in the infobox, similarly to how Belarus is shown as "supporting" Russian and the separatists. A NYT source below:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/04/us/politics/russia-ukraine-weapons.html
The source says that several American air shipments of javelins and stingers have been transported and landed in Ukraine already, as of Friday March 4. This would count as American support, so "United States" should be put under Ukraine in the infobox under the label "supporting." Notice I am do not think NATO as an organization should be put into the infobox yet, as I have found no source to support that conclusion. With the above source, only the US should be listed as "supporting." I think this is straightforward. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:3832:ECE5:4910:6709 ( talk) 02:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
According to the UNHCR chief, the refugee crisis caused by this invasion is the fastest growing refugee crisis since the Second World War. Should this comment be added to the lede? Viewsridge ( talk) 13:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
would it be possible for anyone to make animated map from this war? -- Persesus ( talk) 13:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
there has been reports of anti russian sentiments towards russian people who have absoluty nothing do with the conflict. does anyone think that should be mentioned? https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/03/03/anti-russian-sentiment-us/ -- Persesus ( talk) 13:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-Russian_sentiment does that help Slatersteven -- Persesus ( talk) 14:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6374377
https://dc.eater.com/2022/3/1/22954736/washington-dc-russian-harassment-boycott-vodka-russia-house
https://news.yahoo.com/russian-businesses-u-face-threats-183750909.html
https://wjla.com/amp/news/local/vandals-target-iconic-russia-house-restaurant-lounge-dupont-circle-ukraine-war-crisis-connecticut-avenue-northwest-dc-joe-biden-vladamir-putin-poland-romania-moldova-attack — Preceding unsigned comment added by Persesus ( talk • contribs) 14:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
https://www.gmfus.org/news/over-war-ukraine-do-not-conflate-russians-putin -- Persesus ( talk) 14:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/03/03/anti-russian-sentiment-us/
https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/03/02/the-dangerous-rise-of-russophobia/
https://eurasianet.org/tbilisis-russians-watch-their-countrys-war-with-shame-and-worry
https://thehockeynews.com/.amp/news/report-ohl-player-an-alleged-target-of-anti-russian-slur
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/a-wave-of-anti-russian-hysteria-is-sweeping-across-the-west
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/tom-tugendhat-and-the-worrying-rise-of-russophobia
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/2/25/russians-are-also-victims-of-putin
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bu6xUG9zoRg
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o_4I8Pr73zA
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/tom-tugendhat-and-the-worrying-rise-of-russophobia
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/2/25/russians-are-also-victims-of-putin
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/we-must-not-become-engulfed-by-russophobia-s5fk6cs5w
https://inews.co.uk/news/world/russophobia-leads-us-to-assume-the-worst-of-russians-and-assuming-theyre-demonic-could-be-dangerous-1478850 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Persesus ( talk • contribs) 14:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
It should be mentioned in this article & the article anti-Russian sentiment should be updated. Jim Michael ( talk) 16:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Any reason why the following has been removed from the Russian accusations and demands subsection? The Azov Battalion is constantly been raised as the basis of Putin's Neo Nazi claim and the deleted section below placed this in context. Ilenart626 ( talk) 11:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
I agree this adds necessary context and would be good to include. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 12:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
For further context, you might find this publication relevant which covers the evolution of Putin\Kremlin worldview and foreign policy, released in March 2019 hence untouched by current events. -- Nilsol2 ( talk) 13:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
References
I was just reading Timothy Snyder's, The Road to Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America (2018), which is eerily prescient of the current situation in Ukraine. In the book he discusses the 2014 Crimea annexation, and that Russian troops first penetrated the border of Ukraine on February 24, though the press did not pick up on it for days after. The same day of the 2022 invasion. It may be coincidence or not. Notably other events on February 24 are the invasion of Iraq by US forces in the first Gulf War. At this point it remains OR, but I think it bears watching as the histories are written what if any significance Putin placed on the 24th. -- Green C 14:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
I think we can also add the reaction of the Romanian Orthodox Church in the "Religious leaders" section. Patriarch Daniel of Romania called for the end of the war [40] and Patriarchy's spokesperson called Patriarch Kirill of Moscow "a cynical accomplice of a political assassin" [41]. -- Kotys ek Beos ( talk) 17:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Is there any way to find a fully exhaustive list of everything we know happened, with date and location of what happened?
as in: 28/02/22 5:37PM - This happened 28/02/22 6:57PM - Putin says this "..." 29/02 etc.. Esteban Outeiral Dias ( talk) 22:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
https://kp.ua/ua/politics/a644877-u-zsu-rozpovili-shcho-oznachajut-poznachennja-na-rosijskij-tekhnitsi https://kp.ua/img/forall/u/0/58/274002863_284248243807174_4865340587807057973_n1.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.111.52.9 ( talk • contribs) 22:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
It is possible that the invasion might cause World War III, rather than Germany being the main cause of it, but couldn't drag neutral counties like Switzerland and Belgium from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Takeshi Ishii ( talk • contribs) 02:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change title; Ukrainian Sunflower War (2022) —this is for the national flower of Ukraine, and the symbolism of many of the images we’ve seen. 100.40.220.142 ( talk) 12:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
We don’t just make up “cool” titles on Wikipedia, this documents what actually occurred. Unless this invasion is generally accepted as the flower war, this article won’t be named that. KD0710 ( talk) 12:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
At citation 198: was the person who wrote this reading the map upside down?
"Russian troops entered Ukraine from four main directions: north from Belarus, heading towards Kyiv; northeast from Russia, heading towards Kharkiv; east from the Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) and Luhansk People's Republic (LPR); and south from the annexed region of Crimea."
Going north from Belarus takes you into the Baltics, and going south from Crimea takes you for a swim in the Black Sea.
99.227.246.15 ( talk) 03:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
2607:FEA8:3160:5FC:C177:CCC6:4A41:83DA ( talk) 08:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
from the map, it should be military situation as of 24 February as the map was made I 24 February Yymmrt ( talk) 02:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is use of the past tense that doesn't really make sense in the northern front section. I propose to change "Russia had made the most advances along the Sumy axis on the east; Russians won the Battle of Konotop, while the Battle of Sumy was ongoing" to "Russia has made the most advances along the Sumy axis on the east; Russians won the Battle of Konotop, while the Battle of Sumy is ongoing".
The part that really irks me is "the battle of sumy was ongoing". That part of the sentence doesn't really make sense and leaves something to be desired; the part at the beginning of the sentence should be changed to agree with that. If the person implementing this request has a better idea, they are welcome to do so. 184.57.147.234 ( talk) 03:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
I suggest bringing Template:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox more in line with Order of battle for the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine ( like this). The commanders-in-chief of air forces and navy of both countries are omitted, instead there are prime ministers, Patrushev, Naryshkin and Internal Affairs Minister Monastyrsky who have little influence on military. Brandmeister talk 07:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Russia | Ukraine |
---|---|
|
|
Done. Cinderella157 ( talk) 09:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/aeroflot-cancels-international-flights/ -- 90.186.249.178 ( talk) 23:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please update the infobox with Ukraine's claimed inflicted losses: https://uacrisis.org/en/total-estimated-losses-of-the-enemy-as-of-march-7
If there's a possibility to authorize me to edit the page, I'll gladly make those updates myself. P4p5 ( talk) 14:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
The picture seems to be manufactured, because:
The girl front-right is needle sharp and has no shadows (studio like). That differs from the background what is lighted from behind-left and generally very shaky (smart phone quality).
How can a Canon EOS 5D Mark II photo shoot at exposure time of 1/500 sec be as shaky as the woman on the left is?
I also think, due to the light conditions, the father in the center and the person in blue being made up as well (always children).
Here is also no reason for the distortion on the picture. 141.35.40.20 ( talk) 16:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
It’s obviously shot through a chain link fence, dirty window, or something. All of the background flaws could be a result of the background’s soft focus and/or diffraction through the screen. As 1.5 million refugees have fled Ukraine, why would someone bother making a fake photo of such quality? — Michael Z. 16:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
How come these Wikipedia pages say "Intervention" for USA in wars and when Russia liberates the Ukrainians from their corrupt government you call it an "Invasion?" Truth is coming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.65.79 ( talk) 19:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- This is not a forum for your opinions. Do you have any proposal for changes to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:5C01:ED01:C4F9:88E7:B541:1BE2 ( talk) 19:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Explanatory note C: Regional capitals of Donetsk and Lugansk have been occupied by Russia and pro-Russian separatists prior to the 2022 invasion
Can we please change Lugansk to Luhansk? thanks Great Mercian ( talk) 20:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please update the infobox with Ukraine's claimed inflicted losses: https://twitter.com/KyivPost/status/1501110702865534977
If there's a possibility to authorize me to edit the page, I'll gladly make those updates myself. P4p5 ( talk) 09:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Under "Southern Front", there is a picture of a tank which the caption labels as a T-72. However, this is not a T-72; in fact, it isn't even a main battle tank but appears to be an IFV, if I am not mistaken a BMP-3. Regardless of what it is, it is certainly not a T-72, as even casual comparison with the pictures on either T-72 or T-72_operators_and_variants. The turret is too small and centered too far forward for it to be a T-72. There is also too much hull above the top of the tracks, and the "bow"/upper front hull is completely different. I propose that the caption be changed to identify it as a destroyed Russian armored fighting vehicle until positive identification is made, or otherwise to remove the erroneous "T-72" label. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parabellummatt ( talk • contribs) 04:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
To me, this seems like a classic case of overlinking a common everyday word, although I see Jim Michael disagrees, even adding "invasion" to the hidden note to instruct other editors not to remove it. Did I miss a discussion on this? What are others' thoughts on its appropriateness as a wikilink? Jr8825 • Talk 22:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I know Russia's intention was an invasion, but they hardly achieved that. Maybe "Incursion" or something. I know... we need to keep the language neutral, but it's really more like an "attempted invasion" at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabhala ( talk • contribs) 00:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Some sources for this event as an "invasion" (as in they call it as invasion somewhere).
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/2/russias-invasion-of-ukraine-list-of-key-events-from-day-seven https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-putin-news-03-06-22/index.html https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/07/ukraine-war-russia-what-we-know-so-far-day-12-russian-invasion https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56720589 https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-russia-latest-news-war-vladimir-putin-zelenskyy-ceasefire-only-50-uk-visas-live-updates-12541713 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-russia-war-putin-latest-kyiv-zelensky-b2029871.html
Do we need any more? Slatersteven ( talk) 14:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
invasion noun [ C or U ] UK /ɪnˈveɪ.ʒən/ US /ɪnˈveɪ.ʒən/
B2 an occasion when an army or country uses force to enter and take control of another country:
C2
an occasion when a large number of people or things come to a place in an annoying and unwanted way:
C2
an action or process that affects someone's life in an unpleasant and unwanted way:
All of those can be said to apply to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
According to https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-699355 , Russia accuses Ukraine of wanting to build a nuclear weapon. But I don't understand the complaint: Russians just have to bomb that facility and it is bye-bye Ukrainian nuclear weapon.
And a dirty bomb (nuclear waste) is not a threat to life, unless you choose to live there for another ten years. tgeorgescu ( talk) 09:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
a dirty bomb (nuclear waste) is not a threat to life, unless you choose to live there for another ten years– Are you fucking kidding? E Eng 19:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The claim is most likely based on that prior to the invasion, Zelensky said that Ukraine might abandon the budapest memorandum.
/info/en/?search=Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances 78.78.143.46 ( talk) 19:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
When I previously mentioned this, it was quietly drowned out. In his dedicated article several reliable sources are given for this senior Russian officer having been killed in action in the invasion of Ukraine: Andrey Sukhovetsky. It is notable, because officers at this level are very rarely killed in action in the modern era. The sources (see his dedicated article as given above) seem more than adequate for inclusion - RS are of the opinion that he has in fact been KIA. Please comment here on inclusion (or not), but don't simply quietly keep it out as happened last time. 82.176.221.176 ( talk) 10:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
What I’m mostly seeing about the significance of the death of the General is that he had to be near the frontlines due to the convoy being stalled. It’s not so much his individual significance. Therefore, I think it’s not necessary. KD0710 ( talk) 15:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
He just got joined by Major General Vitaly Gerasimov also from the 41st who got killed outside Kharkiv. 41st must be getting smoked. That said I do think it's kind of relevant, certainly more relevant than the opinions of the Archbishop of Cantebury. I mean we're 11 days in and two Russian Major Generals are already KIA, it fits a rising narrative of incompetence on the Russian side. Alcibiades979 ( talk) 00:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
The lead is describing Russia as facing a "financial crisis" as a result of the sanctions. Neither the source used in the lead, nor the ones used in the lead of the main article support such a claim [see this discussion please]. Are there solid sources explicitly making such an argument? -- Mhhossein talk 12:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
This news was shown in an article in BBC, and videos from Al jazeera and various other Indian and African sources. Some students were manhandled/beaten when trying to leave border. Is this worth mentioning in humanitarian impact section? SReader2101 ( talk) 14:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Russia has adopted such a list. Does anyone have an idea where we could put such statement? Russian government adopted a list of countries "taking unfriendly actions against Russia, Russian companies, and citizens". According to a decree published on the government's website, the list includes: Albania, Andorra, Australia, Great Britain, including Jersey, Anguilla, British Virgin Islands, Gibraltar, EU member states, Iceland, Canada, Liechtenstein, Micronesia, Monaco, New Zealand, Norway, South Korea, San Marino, North Macedonia, Singapore, US, Taiwan, Ukraine, Montenegro, Switzerland, and Japan.
[1]
Beshogur (
talk)
15:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Anyway, moved to reactions section. Not sure why @ ProcrastinatingReader: told the insignificance, considering it's everywhere on newspapers. Beshogur ( talk) 17:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
References
I see many instances of an anti-Russia bias in this article. Many claims that Putin would obviously make to justify this war are being emphasized too much and the threat of NATO and US towards Russia and Putin, not to mention it's very credible security threat if Ukraine were to join NATO, are not stressed enough. Russia is the clear aggressor here, I won't deny that, but that doesn't mean that we should be biased against Russia.
Also, There have been allegations of Russia that Ukraine is using Indian and Chinese students as hostages and human shields, mainly in Kharkiv and Sumy. Ukraine has denied this and said that the students are unable to leave because of Russian shelling. Both scenarios seem possible as this is a war and both sides are desperate. Here are a few articles I found [1] [2] [3] Dev-is-a-name ( talk) 17:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove claim of Finland being a neutral country, but keep claim of a major policy shift. Finland has long been in the EU and a NATO partner with a modern and NATO-compatible military. 46.173.225.164 ( talk) 19:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template.
Melmann
19:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)I think we should include a section on the Z symbol used in the invasion, or make a separate article on it. I added some content to the article on the letter but I think it needs to be better done Z#Usage_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine MaitreyaVaruna ( talk) 20:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
The whole thing is about 4-5 days out of date. Goggo2022 ( talk) 20:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Since Belarus is included as a supporter country on the Russian side, why shouldn’t we include US, EU countries that sent arms to Ukraine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:197:A7F:75E0:29B3:56BB:C584:79D4 ( talk) 01:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
International legion of territorial defense of Ukraine should be added to the belligerents on the Ukraine side. Not members of the armed forces of Ukraine. I think that change should be made. Cheers 174.97.35.179 ( talk) 01:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Looks like only Russia suffered great losses in aircrafts and helicopters. Ukraine not.-- 109.93.67.114 ( talk) 19:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Can we have a post about the new jets going over to ukriane along with the President wanting a no fly zone and the reaction to it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Persesus ( talk • contribs) 05:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
The article in the Ceasefire section currently states the wording below. I've seen a number of sources state that the Russians claim that Ukraine broke the ceasefire, for example. I think at this stage it would be very hard to determine who was at fault. Suggest we include Russia's claims as well. Ilenart626 ( talk) 00:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Moscow media outlet RIA Novosti carried a Russian defence ministry report that the firing came from inside both cities against Russian positions, a claim Ukraine's foreign ministry denied. We must summarize sources faithfully. More importantly, it does so without suggesting that the Russian claim is false. Mr rnddude ( talk) 08:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
References
Russia promised to stop the shelling of Mariupol, a port city of 430,000, and Volnovakha, a city in the east, but violated the cease-fire.
met 3 times — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.82.30.38 ( talk • contribs)
peace — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.82.30.38 ( talk) 02:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Map is so outdated like update it ,go and get the updated map from volgoda mapping 103.211.112.85 ( talk) 05:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
User:103.211.112.85, Wikipedia volunteer map makers are doing an impressive work on those maps, reviewing sources one by one for each village, town, road, before changing its status on the map. This process results in about 4 updates per day. There is a possibility your source isnt as careful with map making and gives you a different view. Yug (talk) 🐲 08:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
It would be helpful for this article to either include, or link to a source that includes a description of the Feb. 9, 1990 conference on German Reunification where Secy of State James Baker told Mikhail Gorbachev that Nato would not advance one inch east of the Elbe River. It would also be helpful to note the historic assessment of Russian leadership as being paranoid during the cold war. Together, these suggest that the Clinton and Bush administration neglect of the earlier informal commitment has led to the distrust that Yeltsin and later Putin have for US officials. Yes this was not a signed treaty or agreement, but it was revealed when records were declassified in 2017. Russia also views the color revolutions as being US CIA instigated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.6.23.214 ( talk) 22:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Secy of State James Baker told Mikhail Gorbachev that Nato would not advance one inch east of the Elbe River: not true. Baker suggested this as a possibility to Gorbachev, and George HW Bush shot it down. [46] – Muboshgu ( talk) 22:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
References
>Putin also began to float various purported casus belli; for example, he baselessly accused Ukraine of committing genocide against its Russian-speakers.
Isn't this a bit too informal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genabab ( talk • contribs) 16:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2600:1700:3F79:8050:70A1:693B:859E:B1B3 ( talk) 02:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
World War 2 is going to start
![]() | This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
For coherence and consistency purpose with all the previous and following pages:
/info/en/?search=2011_military_intervention_in_Libya /info/en/?search=American-led_intervention_in_Iraq_(2014%E2%80%932021) /info/en/?search=American-led_intervention_in_the_Syrian_civil_war
The title of the article should be inmediately changed. Failing to do so will unfortunately reveal the bias in presentation of information, and factual inaccuracy, misleading by the editors.
A suggestion based on the previous titles could be: - "2022 Military intervention in Ukraine" - "Russian-led intervention in Ukraine"
On the contrary, if felt more appropiate, the previous titles should be changed accordingly, as for example: - "American invasion of Libya" - "American invasion of Iraq" - "American invasion of Syria" 188.26.214.116 ( talk) 02:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add "1 frigate scuttled" and "1 patrol boat sunk" under the Equipment losses according to Ukraine in infobox. The frigate in question is
Ukrainian frigate Hetman Sahaidachny and the patrol boat is
Ukrainian patrol vessel Sloviansk.
Source for frigate:
The Independent,
Interfax,
The Times.
Source for patrol boat:
The Maritime Executive
The proposed change should be something like this:
Equipment losses:
Acc. to Ukraine:
1
frigate scuttled
1
patrol boat sunk
Thanks in advance. AlphaTangoIndia ( talk) 10:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
No mention of Russias Nazi claims & others.
Since 2014, global and European news outlets have identified the legal & now government-supported Neo-Nazi force Azov, which act as a division of the National guard.
The Neo-Nazi group Azov fall under the control of the Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs, funded by the Ukrainian Government.
The Neo-Nazi group, also called the far-right group has been directly involved in the conflicts leading up to the invasion of Russia.
News outlets have reported this group have been oppressing, fighting and engaging within conflicts in eastern Ukraine before the invasion, self-proclaimed anti-communists.
Putin used this as an example based on the key points the Neo-Nazi national guard group are part of Ukraine's government payroll, parade legally within Ukraine's capital and have the president's consent.
Therefore it should be identified as all are reasons that escalated the conflict into a war. 2A02:C7F:C7A:4A00:FF:4837:FC68:18AC ( talk) 13:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Sd
I note that the casualty figures have been changed from "acc to" to "per". This is confusing. Per is not a common English word. It could be misinterpreted to mean "caused by". The clearest way to state these uncertain casualty figures would be to prefix them with "according to".
Would someone with more editing experience please make this suggested change? Thank you. Dom.uk.1 ( talk) 06:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Per UN (5 March): 1.7 million+ refugees, for example, could not reasonably be misinterpreted by anyone to mean that the UN has created 1.7 million+ refugees. The meaning is clearly 'according to', not 'caused by'. Mr rnddude ( talk) 09:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello the team. There could be interesting to add content about prisoners of war. Ukraine is doing some public relations, and has a hotline for Russians families to enquire about possible family members held by Ukrainian forces.
Please forgive me if that content is already in this article. I searched via mobile phone so i may have missed the relevant section. Yug (talk) 🐲 08:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Russia take not one of the 22 regional capitals (as of March 8)but whole 3, these are Donetsk and Luhansk, although they have long been part of the separatist republics, but according to the constitution of Ukraine the country claims these cities, although it has not controlled since 2014 , and should be counted as another regional capital taked 176.59.56.90 ( talk) 12:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
1 of the 22 regional capitals of Ukrainewe are implying that Donetsk and Luhansk are not part of Ukraine. They are, they were just occupied prior to the invasion. The footnote doesn't help to clarify this, as one could interpret it to mean that 3 of the 22 administrative capitals have been occupied, 2 prior to invasion. In which case, we're just straight up missing two oblasts. Mr rnddude ( talk) 12:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
I think the running count of regional capitals is kind of strange, I probably wouldn't include. Alcibiades979 ( talk) 13:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Here are a few events listed on the List of military engagements, but are not linked into the invasion section:
So, could someone go through and add them into the invasion section? Elijahandskip ( talk) 05:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
For maps, charts, etc. of events-in-progess, should a clear ‘last updated’ or ‘end’ date appear on the image itself?
These images are likely to be shared and re-used around the world, quite likely stripped of some/all metadata.
Would a simple (and unobtrusive) date in the corner or legend stating when the image was last updated (or the newest date’s data on which it was based) be warranted?
(posting this here, as image files don’t have ‘talk’ pages) Jim Grisham ( talk) 15:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
posting this here, as image files don’t have ‘talk’ pagesYou're in luck, as they do! BSMRD ( talk) 15:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi.
Why aren't the Russian 2 million reserves added into this article as well? They used to be part of the /info/en/?search=Russo-Ukrainian_War article. I don't have a source, but, it's probably in the history of that article.
Russia's army is much larger than just the ~175,000–190,000[10][11] numbers displayed.
There are reserves mentioned for Ukraine, but not also for Russia, why?
People need to know how large the russian army is.
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.
All three of the sources claiming that Russia has enacted a ceasefire on 7 March are Indian sources. In light of India's position on all of this suffering in Ukraine, I would argue that these are not necessarily credible sources. Either include sources from more varying and trustful sources if they exist, or remove this claim from the article until it is otherwise confirmed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanos100 ( talk • contribs) 08:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
THis may be relevant [ [49]] [ [50]]. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
22:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
![]() | This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change:
Escalation (21–23 February) In the evening of the 21st of February, at 22:35 (UTC−5),[147] Putin announced the recognition of the Donetsk and Luhansk people's republics.
To:
Escalation (21–23 February) In the evening of the 21st of February, at 22:35 (UTC−5),[147] Putin announced the recognition of the Donetsk and Luhansk people's republics. In the same presidential address Putin also claimed that Ukraine never had "real statehood" [1] and was part of Russia. Historian Timothy Snyder argues that is a myth that Putin used to justify the invasion [2] [3]. Similarly, according to Ukranian correspondent Olga Tokariuk, the speech "was perceived as a declaration of war on Ukraine" by Ukranians [4]. 213.31.111.73 ( talk) 21:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Not done: This is giving
undue weight to Putin's justification of the war in a section about escalation. The article already mentions that Putin believes that Russians and Ukrainians were "one people" and that he expressed Russian irredentist views.
Pabsoluterince (
talk)
22:59, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
References
Double redirect (Southern Front Offensive -> Southern Front offensive)-- 2600:1700:4579:B80:AC93:64D2:7D79:C19E ( talk) 20:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Ukraine has announced that 9,000+ Russian soldiers have been killed, Please do not change this into casualties or losses without a reference. @ EkoGraf: Confirmed Twitter accounts of NBC News correspondents should not be considered unreliable, just because Twitter is being used as an intermediary of nbcnews.com. Viewsridge ( talk) 17:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
1st report - 2,800 "lost"
[3];
2nd report - 3,500 killed
[4];
3rd report - 4,300 "lost"
[5];
4th report - 5,300 losses/killed and wounded
[6];
5th report - 5,710 lost/killed and wounded
[7];
6th report - 5,840 lost
[8];
7th report - 6,000 killed
[9];
8th report - 7,000 killed
[10];
9th report - 9,000 killed
[11].
The figures are consistent during their rise, but the 4th, 5th and 6th reports stand out that they do not refer to them as killed, but actually killed and wounded or lost. I also find it interesting that whenever its reported exclusively "killed" it comes from the President's office, but when they say it refers to killed and wounded it comes from the Ukrainian General Staff. In the same day that the General Staff reported 5,840 Russian soldiers were lost (which they previously showed to mean killed and wounded) Zelensky claims nearly 6,000 killed. Due to this uncertainty we should use neutral language until the situation becomes more clear so to not let any potential propaganda information be presented as factual information. I think the best course of action would be a compromise solution that was found for the War in Donbass back in 2014. We agreed then to not include potentially unreliable figures in the infobox, only self-admitted casualty figures or figures presented by a 3rd neutral party. We still included the potentially propaganda claimed figures in the article, but in its main body in the casualties section. EkoGraf ( talk) 21:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
@ EkoGraf: Ok, that makes sense. Thanks. Viewsridge ( talk) 07:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Judging by the "detailed map of the Russo-Ukrainian War" which is referred to under the main map shown at the top of the main Wikipedia page here, the main map seems to be quite a bit out of date. For example, in the detailed map of the Russo-Ukrainian War, this morning it was showing Russians encircling about 3/4ths of Kiev, but the map on the main page shows Russian presence in only about 1/3rd of Kiev's outskirts. Does anyone know the reason for this apparent issue? Ianbrettcooper ( talk) 14:39, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
look I'm a stinky american could we get links to the oblasts when they are mentioned same with the cities. Yes it's me being lazy not wanting to spend an extra 45 seconds to look up where they are on the map. I would be bold and do it my self however this article is under reasonable protection, if its done thank you if not... oi Bruvlad ( talk) 16:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Russian police detained 7-11 years old children who wanted to lay flowers at the Ukrainian Embassy in Moscow. Police juvenile inspectors threatened their parents with deprivation of parental rights. [1]
It's fucked-up! I feel like a character of dystopia. K8M8S8 ( talk) 12:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template.
Pabsoluterince (
talk)
22:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)References
Please change the map or its provider. The Russian army does not control the rear and much of the territory in which they advanced. Example of a correct map at the link: https://t.me/ssternenko/3990 Block Baby ( talk) 19:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the Feb 25 section should be removed. It was most likely included because it was seemingly a case of friendly fire... but friendly fire is bound to happen in all wars. However, if one reads the third (and final) source it can be seen that it is hardly mentioned amidst all the other reporting done by CNN. If the press does not see it as a major incident then we should not either. If it is not agreed that it should be removed, at least change the first sentence to read that there were many blasts heard, not just two. Sectionworker ( talk) 21:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
I want to ask all of you: Who the fuxk made this map? Russians are not occupying whole territories, they are just moving through Ukraine. 195.205.75.1 ( talk) 06:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Board of directors decided to liquidate Echo of Moscow. [1]
References
Does anybody know how to archive all references to Echo of Moscow contained in Wikipedia's articles in automatic mode? Otherwise all these links will become dead. K8M8S8 ( talk) 12:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
According to President Zelensky, 16,000 foreign volunteers have arrived in Ukraine to fight in its defense. Should this number be added to the infobox? Viewsridge ( talk) 11:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
I have removed the section below as I believe it contains trivial information that do not belong to this overview article. It was also weirdly placed in the ramifications, at the level of 'sanctions' and 'economic impact'. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Following Russia's annexation of Crimea, Ukraine blocked the North Crimean Canal, [2] which provided 85% of Crimea's drinking water. [3] On 24 February, the first day of the invasion, Russian troops advancing from Crimea established control over the North Crimean Canal. [4] Sergey Aksyonov, the head of the Republic of Crimea, told local authorities to prepare the canal to receive water from the Dnieper river and resume the supply of water, which was planned for the following day. [5] On 26 February, the concrete dam was reportedly destroyed by an explosion and the water supply was resumed. [6] Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
References
What about the "russian tank" (not a tank, nor russian, nor a "military column") that crushes the vehicle? It has been debunked by analysts, but is still being shown in the article. Some example by the press and fact checkers: [13] , [14] , [15], Even those who see the complete videos, the place, the facts and the moment in time it happened, realize it and comment about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.55.154.178 ( talk) 15:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
to include photographs of Russian military equipment captured and destroyed, to include photo of Scuttled Ukrainian flagship in the harbour, to include more information on weapons being provided by the west, to provide more detailed timeline of events in areas within Ukraine. 81.2.177.196 ( talk) 20:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
In the introduction paragraph it says:
including new sanctions imposed on Russia, triggering a financial crisis.
It isn't clear from the sentence that Russia is suffering a financial crisis. It could say ", triggering a financial crisis in Russia."
It could also say the sanctions are causing widewspread financial uncertainty to many countries, due to the sanctions, but that would likely need a lot of citations etc. to document then impact on imports, exports, etc.
MeekMark ( talk) 20:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Today's changes removed much of the material about the invasion itself, replacing it with unsourced summaries. While some structure other than a chronological one is indeed needed, could perhaps someone more capable do it? Thanks. WikiHannibal ( talk) 21:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Example : Snake Island Go Fuck Yourself Shirts
Not sure if this should be added to the press template at the top of this page (and/or others?):
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 20:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Just to put some balance to the investment withdrawals, heres qatar. Oddly al jazeera has been markedly different from the govt itself, but this is off al jazeera, which ive not seen there.
Also, "see also" can use a link to the Georgia war since this is eerily parralel in the build up, entrance and sakkazhvili/zelensky reactions changing from agressive to defensive. 78.109.69.246 ( talk) 11:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Why is {{ cbignore}} being added to every ref? ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 11:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
An alternative approach may use {{bots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} at the top of the article, rather than a tag for each archive reference.Ah yes, i forgot about this. IAbot can't even run properly on this article anyway, so I can do this later today. Rlink2 ( talk) 17:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Saw that someone said they updated the Air and Naval section-they did but as with their comment the link to the frigate now links to a random sailing yacht. 2601:802:8180:3790:89F1:EEE9:A3BC:24DD ( talk) 23:24, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Source: https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/putin-personality-disorder/
This may have already been discussed... but is there any available & reliable information of any Ukrainian refugees that have travelled/fled to Belarus...? 81.108.244.153 ( talk) 01:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, did anyone ever hear anything of this??
Translation from Russian:
"The video message about the forced evacuation of residents of the occupied territories of Donbass, which was made public today, February 18, by the leaders of the terrorists, was recorded in advance. Public figure Sergei Sternenko announced this on Telegram."
""I discovered that, according to the metadata, the video about the 'evacuation' with the head of the occupation administration of the Russian Federation in the occupied part of the Luhansk region, Pasechnik, was recorded at least 2 days before publication, on February 16, 2022. That is, even before, according to the Russian version, February 17 "Ukraine launched an attack," Sternenko said and noted that this proves that this forced displacement of the population is a pre-planned operation of the Russian occupiers."
-- Whydoesitfeelsogood ( talk) 01:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
(1)Please add this information in "Foreign military support to Ukraine" section: On March 2, Ukrainian defense minister Oleksii Reznikov announced the arrival of additional TB2 drones. [1] The Gentle Daffodil ( talk) 07:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
References
Done-- TZubiri ( talk) 17:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
The conflict started less than 1 week and 1 day ago, but the infobox claims it's been going on for 1 week and 2 days. Sunkcaves ( talk) 00:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
What time would you claim the conflict started? I can find out what time the infobox is based off.-- TZubiri ( talk) 07:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I propose adding that Russia and Ukraine are making a deal to allow civilians to pass through humanitarian corridors to evacuate. They have both agreed on a need to create the corridors in their talks. It seems notable and has been reported in several independent media outlets. [1] [2] [3] Perhaps we could add a sentence about it under the "Humanitarian impact" section, perhaps under "Refugees." Perhaps we could say "On March 3, The Russian and Ukrainian governments agreed on the need to create humanitarian corridors for civilians to evacuate. [4] [5] [6]" I would welcome any suggestions of how better to word it, or general thoughts on whether we should even include it. JMM12345 ( talk) 06:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)JMM12345
References
I think my previous topic was not clear. So, I'll limit this to a specific case: if Belarus is listed as a supporting party, then the U.K. should as well.
![]() |
![]() | |
---|---|---|
Stationed Ukrainian/Russian troops in their territory | No | Yes |
Stationed their troops in Ukrainian/Russian territory w/a military function | Yes [1] [2] | Maybe |
Trained Ukrainian/Russian troops | Yes [1] | No |
Gave recon support | Yes [3] | Yes |
Arms Support | Yes [4] | Maybe |
Financial Support | Yes [4] | Maybe |
References
For these reasons, if we're going to list Belarus as a supporting party for Russia, then we should be listing the United Kingdom as a supporting party for Ukraine. Fephisto ( talk) 00:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
References
Country | UK | Belarus |
---|---|---|
Sent their own citizens to die in the war? | No | Yes |
Your table is missing this. Unless I am terribly mistaken Belarus is directly a belligerent, more than a supporter. UK is a supporter, although it may be contested.-- TZubiri ( talk) 07:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
In the intro of the article 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, update/change:
The invasion received widespread international condemnation, including new sanctions imposed on Russia, triggering a financial crisis.
to:
The invasion received widespread international condemnation, including new sanctions imposed on Russia, triggering a financial crisis in Russia and a massive international boycott of Russia and Belarus.
Thank you. S 0524 ( talk) 08:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I recently added a Dec. 3 2021 WaPo article [16] about an accusation by US intel that Russia was planning to invade [17]. This was reverted [18]. I think it's important to show that the accusations started by at least that date. Adoring nanny ( talk) 13:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I am talking about the page "2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine". I find that, from the first lines (description, introduction the point of view is clearly NOT neutral. And I understand, it is hard to make it neutral, when it is about war. Each country "knows who's right". The page is presented in a "Russophobic" point of view ("Indeed ... frequently engage in strategies of manipulation through deception involving exaggeration, omission, and misdirection") The Wikipedia is written by people. Just volunteers. They write what they think. But I think it would be more neutral to say (in a visible place!) that this is the point of view of a country (US, in this case). Also I want to say that it is wrong to lock that page (or parts) as if 100% certain and known by all. Even proven facts in neutral articles (f.e. blue is a colour, Tchaikovsky is a composer, the Sun is a star...) aren't locked. 2A00:1FA1:8262:30AA:0:60:51B8:1B01 ( talk) 07:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I have already reverted three times on this page, otherwise I would have reverted this already. I am interested if this sentence should remain in, be removed or edited. 2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Russian_military_build-ups:
'V' has been spotted as well. [1]
Pabsoluterince ( talk) 05:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Shouldn't we mention this in a way or another, despite nothing being official? Here are English and Romanian sources. I added it yesterday, but it got deleted despite one user at first accepting it and making some corrections.
https://news.yahoo.com/belarus-president-lukashenko-appears-stand-101548955.html
Lupishor ( talk) 15:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
EU just sanctioned 22 Belarusian officials and military for involvement in Russian invasion of Ukraine.which is relevant to an alleged future invasion of Moldova how...?
It is not good to tell 'germans' instead of 'nazi'. In the same way it is not good to tell 'russian invision' while it is just one president's army. Russians are in most keep anti-war side. But most scared to declare their position. Simple russians does not see ukraine enemy. Sory my bad english. PavelSI ( talk) 23:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Am sympathetic, and I would be in favour of making the title more specific: “2022 Russian Federation invasion of Ukraine,” making it clear that it is the Russian state, under its government, that is persecuting this war, and not the Russian citizenry, or the ethnic nation, or something else. However, the great majority of reliable sources use “Russia” for the name of the state, and our guidelines are to follow RS’s. — Michael Z. 06:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't think this would be a great change, per WP:COMMONNAME the most recognized name of the country should be used, not the 'official' name. I don't know about you, but I personally have never heard "Russian Federation" in a conversation, and the vast majority of news sites use "Russia" or "Russian Invasion", almost never saying "Russian Federation" MutantZebrea999 ( talk) 15:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Why? Naming it after the nation appears to be the usual practice, ie precedent. Example: /info/en/?search=German_invasion_of_Denmark_(1940) and /info/en/?search=United_States_invasion_of_Afghanistan A 'compromise' would be to do as here /info/en/?search=2003_invasion_of_Iraq and call it "2022 invasion of Ukraine". But is there a point to that change? It would seem that the invasion of Iraq was called "2003 invasion of Iraq" because it was done by a multi-national coalition (even though the US was the dominant party in it) And if anything, that article should really be called the 2003 US invasion of Iraq regardless because of how dominant the US was in the coaliation. Here however, there's only Russia and Ukraine. 78.78.143.46 ( talk) 20:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I've started cutting down some of the reactions section, but there's a ton of stuff with questionable relevance to the article. I propose that we whinny it down to the reaction of the US, EU, China, NATO, UN and India and get rid of the rest. It's wonderful that Transnistria believes in peace and that Kazakhstan has offered to mediate but I'm not sure if this is relevant to the article, especially as the article has gotten too long. Alcibiades979 ( talk) 16:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Add “Munitions support from NATO” please 130.184.252.76 ( talk) 18:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
There is no NATO request that Germany deliver anything. NATO is a defensive alliance. No NATO state was attacked. There were also no official NATO supplies delivered from Germany to Ukraine. Germany's deliveries are not NATO deliveries. Some of the weapons come from very old stocks.
The German government (as well as the opposition) distinguish between types of ammunition and types of weapons. Weapons are supplied that were optimized to destroy war equipment, but not weapons that were optimized to kill as many people as possible directly. A distinction is made also between Putin's war against civilians and military units. It is assumed that the delivery of small arms could lead to escalation in Russian army's dealings with civilians. It was decided to supply armor-piercing weapons and anti-aircraft weapons, but not small arms.
Already delivered (officially): Response of the 'German Ministry of Defense' to an inquiry from a public television station ('Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen', Public broadcasting TV; March 2, 2022, translated from German): Germany's announced arms deliveries for Ukraine have arrived. The material has been handed over to the Ukrainian side, a spokeswoman for the German Defense Ministry said Wednesday in response to a request. The German government had announced over the weekend that it would deliver 1,000 anti-tank weapons and 500 surface-to-air missiles. Source (German): https://web.archive.org/web/20220303034308/https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/cherson-kiew-russland-ukraine-krieg-100.html
And (current discussions, March 4, 2022); There are currently discussions about 2,700 "Strela" anti-aircraft missiles, which originate from old NVA stocks. : The Ministry of Economy has approved the delivery of 2700 "Strela" anti-aircraft missiles. However, these old weapon systems are said to have quality deficiencies. A Bundeswehr press release from January literally says: "The missiles of the type 'Strela' have been blocked for use since 2012." There is talk of micro-cracks in the propellant charge of the ammunition, of mold on the packaging boxes. Source (German; „Tagesschau“, Public broadcasting TV, March 4, 2022): https://web.archive.org/web/20220304093458/https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/europa/ukraine-deutschland-waffenlieferung-101.html
NATO; EU; Schengen; private people: To divide the world into NATO, Non-NATO or states in general is a far away from living in Europe. Switzerland (e.g.) is located in Europe, but is not part of the European Union, which was also founded to overcome nationalism. The borders between nation states are open. There are no border controls within the European Union and other states caused by Schengen Agreement. European Citizens are not locked up. You have to distinguish private citizens from state initiatives because the state cannot know what individual citizens are doing. (e.g. See: Mathias Rust) No government or NATO can control every private individual.
For example, the Ukrainian border is only 700 km away from Germany. There are currently a number of privately-organized convoys driving through Ukraine, consisting of a few vehicles, each taking a few dozen private Ukrainian women and children out of the country in private cars. At the wheel of the car is sometimes a German priest on a private mission, bringing refugees from Odessa to Germany. These private persons will probably not have informed the German government, nor have they probably "officially" approached the Ukrainian government, and they probably have not asked anyone, because the Ukrainian government certainly has quite different problems at the moment. (Where to register officially in southern Ukraine? Is the building where an office of the official 'Ukrainian tourist information' was located still standing?)
Another example: There are many millions of private handguns and rifles in the European Union. The state authorities will probably not be able to influence their whereabouts. Therefore, many rifles or pistols from the European Union will probably turn up in Ukraine sooner or later. If a European hunter tells you he lost his gun in some forest, no one can check the story anyway.
It is important to note, however, that so far no handguns from state stocks have been officially delivered from Germany to Ukraine, and no state-organized groups are operating in Ukraine. But of course: No European state is likely to be able to control small-arms shipments from private individuals to Ukrainians. (E.G.: Switzerland (NON-EU) or Austria are not part of NATO but accept of 'Schengen-agreement'. Anyone can drive from a 'Schengen country' to an Ukrainian border without beeing controlled) -- Eneliting ( talk) 10:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I see it exactly the same way. That is why I have given sources that quote "German ministries". In Germany, there are no statements available on NATO deliveries, only on arms deliveries explicitly provided by the Federal Republic of Germany. Regards (Sorry, but my post slipped because I didn't find a "reply button".) -- Eneliting ( talk) 13:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
One of the sources saying the city is occupied by the UAF is from a pro-Ukrainian news outlet whose source is a blogger? That doesn't seem very reliable. Nebakin ( talk) 01:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Belarus allowing foreign military access for the purposes of an invasion is an act of war on behalf of Belarus. As is allowing missiles to be launched from Belarusian territory. In addition, Ukraine reports Belarusian soldiers in Ukraine.
This point has been put forward numerous times on this talk page and there was consensus that Belarus was a belligerent. Please change Belarus from "supporter" back to "Belligerent" in the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lluq ( talk • contribs) 21:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
References
"On 3 March, three Personal Representatives of the OSCE Chairmanship: rabbi Andrew Baker, dr Regina Polak and ambassador Mehmet Paçacı condemned the Russian missile attack on Babi Yar.[442]" /info/en/?search=2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#International_organisations_2 The article seems to make no mention of the strike (was it cut?), then just drops this reaction. So the event isn't mentioned.. but the reaction to it, is?
I know this was earlier claimed to have been hit, bit this claim that it was hit seems to have been rather premature & it was actually a nearby communications tower that was targeted and hit: https://www.ynetnews.com/article/sk8byetx9 "Ynet reporter in Ukraine says Holocaust memorial is unscathed despite three missiles being launched toward nearby communications tower, which suffered great damage". "The damage was caused to nearby Kyiv's communications and television tower complex, some 300 meters (400 feet) away from the new memorial and a kilometer (3,000 feet) from the old one."
Unsure how to treat this, it seems most strange to include reactions to things that are not even mentioned in the article. Yet at the same time, the strike should not be added in if it didn't actually happen. Should the reaction be moved to the timeline article instead? (Where one could also then add that it was not hit, despite initial claims it was etc)
78.78.143.46 ( talk) 02:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
The casualty and loss section in the infobox is getting very long, especially via mobile view. Additionally, the massive amount of information makes it a bit convoluted, which I believe goes against WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Clearly much of the information is disputed between countries and organizations, perhaps we summarize the info. KD0710 ( talk) 09:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I suggest that 1.) Get rid of material losses. This is a war and each material items lost will likely be forgotten in relatively little amount of time unless it is something of major significance. 2.) Change the personnel losses to a range such as Russian deaths 498-10,000/Ukrainian deaths 110-2,800. Then change this to UN numbers once they announce them. KD0710 ( talk) 14:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I removed the materiel losses from the infobox. (reverted) Phiarc ( talk) 15:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Information from interfax a Russia controlled site is completely unreliable and cross fact checking leads to a lack of credibility support for information posted there. Many interfax post are clearly just Russia government propaganda stated as is with no additional information or statements and how much or how little is actually fact is completely questionable at best. 96.58.103.123 ( talk) 11:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Information from interfax a Russia controlled site is completely unreliable and cross fact checking leads to a lack of credibility support for information posted there. Many interfax post are clearly just Russia government propaganda stated as is with no additional information or statements and how much or how little is actually fact is completely questionable at best. 96.58.103.123 ( talk) 11:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I request that alongside the mention at the top that "Various states provided foreign aid to Ukraine both prior to and during the invasion, including arms and other materiel support.[71]" a quick sentence should be added that this war has triggered one of the first ever people-funded donations directly to a military, via crypto and bank transfers to the Ukrainian Armed Forces. This is a very important distinction to make, both since it is very unique in world history and because it is directly contributing to the war.
Donations are now running at a rate of $3 billion USD a year ($55m a week) which is one third of Ukraine's entire defence budget. This is a highly highly important distinction to make with lots of high-profile trusted sources reporting on this. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanponciano/2022/03/02/crypto-donations-to-ukraine-top-52-million-as-funds-pour-in-from-bitcoin-ether-polkadot-and-nfts/?sh=6aab46e74e59 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/03/ukraine-to-issue-non-fungible-tokens-to-fund-armed-forces https://techcrunch.com/2022/03/02/ukraine-deputy-minister-talks-it-army-and-deploying-25m-in-donated-crypto/ https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/24/bitcoin-donations-to-ukrainian-military-soar-as-russia-declares-war.html
![]() | This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add it into the subsection "United Nations" of the secction "Reactions" of the article:
The same Resolution confirmed the involvement of Belarus in unlawful use of force against Ukraine. [1] K8M8S8 ( talk) 12:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I’d like to edit the number of foreign students killed in the fighting. There was 4 Chinese students and 1 Indian student killed by Russian attack on Kharkiv college dorm, as reported by Taiwan News: https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4461836 Maximations ( talk) 13:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I think the last sentence of the subsection "Censorship and propaganda" should be amended to read:
" On 4 March, the Russian State Duma, controlled by Putin's United Russia party, passed a law, under which "fake information" about Russian Armed Forces and "discrediting" a use of the Russian Armed Forces including calls for obstruction of the use of the Russian Armed Forces punishable by up to 15 years in prison. On the same day, Russian Federation Council approved this law and Putin signed it. "
There's information about the content of new law (in Russian). [1] Sources already used in the article contain the information about "discrediting a use of the Russian Armed Forces including calls for obstruction of the use of the Russian Armed Forces" too. I believe this is very important nuance because it criminalizes any anti-war protest and speech in Russia; so it should be included in the text of the article. K8M8S8 ( talk) 16:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
References
There's a few major events that should probably be added. For starters - there has been peace talks and while no major agreements, they did announce humanitarian corridors for civilians to evacutate. The nuclear plant that is reported as under siege in the article, has been captured by Russians.
Humanitarian corridors announced after peace talks: https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/60615310 "Russian and Ukrainian negotiators have agreed for the need to create humanitarian corridors for civilians. It's after a second round of peace talks between the two countries took place. Several Ukrainian cities are currently surrounded or almost surrounded by Russian forces, following the invasion of the country by Russia last week. It's hoped the humanitarian corridors will allow for the evacuation of civilians and the arrival of aid such as food and medicine, although at the moment no humanitarian corridor has actually been announced."
Russia seised the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, there were initial fires, but these are now put out: https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/russia-attacks-ukraine-nuclear-plant-invasion-advances-83245801
78.78.143.46 ( talk) 16:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Someone I think updated the map wrong. Siege of Enerhodar still shows the battle is ongoing, but the map shows it under Russian control. Can someone please fix which one is incorrect? Elijahandskip ( talk) 17:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I have updated the brief comment on the scuttling of the Ukraine flagship Hetman Sahaidachny in the Air and Naval subsection. Have removed "It was reported" as there now appears to be enough references, including from the Ukrainian Defence Minister. The photo of the scuttling is already on the Ukrainian frigate Hetman Sahaidachny page, worthwhile to include on this page? Ilenart626 ( talk) 23:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello,
https://www.sabre.com/insights/releases/sabre-terminates-distribution-agreement-with-aeroflot/
Please edit the article to mention that Sabre (the international code-sharing company), has removed the Russian state airline 'Aeroflot' from it's system as of 3-March-2022. Above is the link to the Sabre website. -- Post by someone
Article needs an update on this. News reports are being made at present showing that Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube have just been blocked by the Russian government. It's made me question something significant in relation to this - would the next thing Russia do be to block Wikipedia's Russian version next for refusing to shut down this article in Russian? 2A02:C7F:50C1:8300:D104:3771:2635:4B89 ( talk) 21:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Material losses have been included in the infobox. It has been suggested to put them into the body of the article instead because of autoexpand issues. What are everyone's thoughts with including this material in the infobox vs putting it into the body of the article. If it would go into the body of the article is this a table that is included or is this a paragraph summary of the each side's claims of material losses? For my part it does seem easier to include in the infobox though I understand it can make the infobox rather ungainly. Words in the Wind( talk) 15:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
It’s obviously a good thing that the article has been shortened a bit, as short as some of the replacing summaries may be, but since the timeline got moved to its own page wouldn’t it make sense to link it somewhere in the article? It’s a little odd that I only found out it exists by coming to the talk page and for those of us who have been following the war progress it would be nice to have an easy link to the timeline. 2601:802:8180:3790:89F1:EEE9:A3BC:24DD ( talk) 23:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
The section "Invasions" holds the timeline of main events. It is currently organized with cardinal subsections, this might be a byproduct of an early version of the article where there was no time-wise division of events because only a day had transpired. I don't think a geographical structure is sustainable across time, and even if it is, it's atypical for events not to be achronological.
The best path forward here would be to return to a chronological ordering of the invasion events, perhaps provide a less detailed summary of the events listed in the timeline article, and if needed the 4 cardinal divisions can remain as sub subsections (subsections being each day or time period) when necessary.
I say sub sub section, but I think it prudent to not use actual sub section or sub sub section headers, rather just consider it as an implicit internal structure to the paragraphs. Such that each paragraph corresponds to a day, and eventful days, like the first two, can be further subdivided into geographic zones, however it's better still to further subdivided them into narrower timeframes like 'night' 'morning' 'noon', but that might take more work, so keeping that structure is acceptable. -- TZubiri ( talk) 02:36, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
I propose to mention an article published on February 26, 2022 by RIA Novosti ( read about its realibility) that hailed Russian "victory" over Ukraine and the "beginning of new era". The article is now deleted. It was widely covered by western media. It worth adding it. Links
AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps a scour for other sources will turn up more?Let's hope so. For now though, I'm only proposing to briefly mention it. I can't do it by myself because I'm busy with consequences of the war. Just wanted to make sure that this irredentist piece is remembered. Thanks. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:33, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
It was in multiple Russian state sources, including also Sputnik. [30] This article, or perhaps Russo-Ukrainian War needs a section on the causes, rationales, and promotion of the war (as in Putin’s broad intentions, “ on historical unity,” etcetera, and not just a list of events leading up to it), and secondary sources’ discussion of this article would belong in this section. In the meantime, it should at least be mentioned. — Michael Z. 21:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
English translation:
— Michael Z. 23:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Add “Supported by” Wagner Group, Kardyovites in belligerents? 216.193.170.144 ( talk) 06:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Russian casualties according to Ukraine should say "disputed" in brackets beside it in the column list as this number is a bit far fetched. Magichands92 ( talk) 05:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please update the infobox with Ukraine's claimed inflicted losses: https://twitter.com/KyivPost/status/1500046086865661952 Other source: https://twitter.com/MFA_Ukraine/status/1500040899304333313 P4p5 ( talk) 10:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
If there's a possibility to authorize me to edit the page, I'll gladly make those updates myself. P4p5 ( talk) 17:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under section 8.3.1 Religious leaders, a citation is needed for Patriarch Kirill of Moscow's reaction. I am not familiar with this topic but perhaps this source is reliable: religionnews.com/2022/02/24/orthodox-patriarch-of-moscow-kirill-calls-on-all-parties-to-avoid-civilian-casualties-in-ukraine/ Clay Bahl ( talk) 22:35, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under Sanctions
Please change:
To:
It is important to explain the role of non-state economic actors and the suspension of their services in Russia during this conflict.
GeorgeHenryBorrow ( talk) 15:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, I just want to let you know here that I added the English subtitles to the Putin's speech on February, 21 used in this article ( File:Обращение_Президента_Российской_Федерации_2022-02-21.webm). I don't know if it's relevant for English Wikipedia, but I would like to suggest adding a notice in the article to the video's text like:
<small>(English subtitles available)</small>
.
Thanks for your attention! — Pacha Tchernof ( talk) 11:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change:
to:
In the current intro section, the Russo-Ukrainian crisis is linked but never mentioned by name (see MOS:SUBMARINE). This leaves it unclear to readers what "During the crisis, " refers to later in the paragraph. By my reckoning, it could be any of the 2014 revolution, the annexation of Crimea, the occupation of the Donbas, the "ongoing eight-year war", or the military buildup. -- Xarm Endris ( talk) 02:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please update the infobox with Ukraine's claimed inflicted losses: https://twitter.com/MFA_Ukraine/status/1500406475616927749
If there's a possibility to authorize me to edit the page, I'll gladly make those updates myself. P4p5 ( talk) 13:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Here's a Twitter thread explaining this in more detail: https://twitter.com/Calthalas/status/1498998318755680260
77.255.79.188 ( talk) 15:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
As per the Geneva convention and UN Charter, the zone described as "Ukrainian territories occupied by Russia and pro-Russian separatists" is incorrect. I highly recommend that we all read the article on | Military Occupation. My understanding is that the Donbass (area prior to Feb 24) is occupied by pro-Russian separatists. Most of the rest is an area of denial or - and I find this term more intuitive - a zone of control.
Additionally, we should probably have a third type of zone to indicate where the conflict is active, the zone of control is fluid or uncertain. P4p5 ( talk) 19:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
One solution would be to replace the current map with a screen capture picture of Template:Russo-Ukrainian War detailed map which does not have "shaded areas". Tradedia talk 05:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I strongly agree the map does not represent the situation on the ground, thin columns of vehicles along the axis of a road do not represent the zones of control of the Russian army, these are contested areas, I put it that the map that Nathan Ruser had linked [ [36]] is a much better representation of the situation. An analogy can be made to Napoleon invasion of Russia, Napoleon only controlled the areas just around his troops not the entire Oblasts his troops were passing through. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larsobrien ( talk • contribs) 09:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Crimea is internationally recognized as a part of Ukraine. The land was occupied by Russia in 2014 and not in 2022. It should be mentioned on the map. Ukraine lost control of the parts of Donetsk and Luhansk in 2014 as well and not in 2022. The map is about the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. M.K.Dan ( talk) 21:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
According to this CNN article, from a few minutes ago, "US is sharing intelligence with Ukraine about Russian force movements and locations, as well as intercepted communications about their military plans." Should US be added under support or Intelligence support under Ukraine in the infobox? Viewsridge ( talk) 12:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Alcibiades979 - Wikipedia is not a PR team. Write your additions to the article in encyclopedic tone. I'd edit it for you but I do not have a subscription to the Economist. Emmanuel Macron of France has walked a fine line, on the one hand he has striven to help create a unified EU response to Russia's invasion to help ease the concerns of EU members in the east but on the other hand he has also worked diligently to keep communication lines with Vladimir Putin open and to allow him off ramps to end the war without further escalation
. 'Walked a fine line', 'striven to help', 'worked diligently' - this is not encyclopedic language.
Mr rnddude (
talk)
01:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
01:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Emmanuel Macron helped create a unified EU response to Russia's invasion while maintaining an open line of communication with Vladimir Putin in an effort to bring an end to the war. I'd also have cut out:
... to help ease the concerns of EU members in the east ...because alone this statement conveys little information. What concerns? Whose concerns? How have his actions helped ease these concerns? I'd assume this is expounded upon further by your source, but again, I don't have access to it. But my main problem remains with the use of idiomatic expressions and opinion statements in Wikivoice. Nevermind all that now, as somebody has already done it and with better results. Mr rnddude ( talk) 13:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
I may have missed it in the article... but are there yet any known/reported cases of friendly fire... by either side in this conflict? 81.108.244.153 ( talk) 01:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Ukraine reports friendly fire among Russian forces: https://twitter.com/AVindman/status/1499753688478494721
Translation by @ChrisO_wiki: Just in the Kiev region, near Severinovka, the Russian occupation forces came into battle with ... the Russian occupation forces. As a result, thanks to "friendly fire", 9 tanks and 4 armored personnel carriers were destroyed. Accordingly, it saved us 13 Јavelin. We understand the manifestation of such suicidal tendencies in the occupiers and ask them to continue in this spirit. And mothers of the Russian Federation are recommended to find out where their offspring are now on the lists of captured occupiers or still alive. But this is only at will. It is possible not to find out. All the same - all of them will be in one list, but in different plastic bags. P4p5 ( talk) 10:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
I may have missed it in the article... but are there yet any known/reported cases of friendly fire... by either side in this conflict? 81.108.244.153 ( talk) 01:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Ukraine reports friendly fire among Russian forces: https://twitter.com/AVindman/status/1499753688478494721
Translation by @ChrisO_wiki: Just in the Kiev region, near Severinovka, the Russian occupation forces came into battle with ... the Russian occupation forces. As a result, thanks to "friendly fire", 9 tanks and 4 armored personnel carriers were destroyed. Accordingly, it saved us 13 Јavelin. We understand the manifestation of such suicidal tendencies in the occupiers and ask them to continue in this spirit. And mothers of the Russian Federation are recommended to find out where their offspring are now on the lists of captured occupiers or still alive. But this is only at will. It is possible not to find out. All the same - all of them will be in one list, but in different plastic bags. P4p5 ( talk) 10:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Should there be additional battles listed as the Ukrainians have re-taken some smaller towns outside of Kyiv, such as Bucha and Hostomel? (Those are some that come to mind but I believe they've also pushed into some other towns near Kharkov as well. The Bucha firefight involved several dead VDV soldiers and several destroyed vehicles. There's a few videos and official statements from the Ukrainians regarding all this. There's also some reports that the Ukrainians re-took the power plant as well. Just curious. LeukonTheBosporan ( talk) 11:27, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Please think of the reader who comes here looking for an overview of the topic. I am trimming or moving extraneous content. A crisp article that gets to the point, free of digressions should be the goal. Jehochman Talk 12:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
The map that shows countries should also show their teritorial waters (as seen here Airspace bans and unfriendly skies around Ukraine ), or in other words all the airspace that is closed to Russia
Justas.pingvinas ( talk) 13:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
From the intro:
>During the crisis, Russian president Vladimir Putin described the enlargement of NATO after 1997 as a threat to his country's security, a claim that NATO rejected,
The way this is written makes it look like NATO rejects the claim entirely (that they're enlarging, and that it's a threat), not that (if you read the source article) NATO rejects only the part of that claim that their enlargement would be viewed as a threat. It is true that NATO has been working together to include Ukraine and Georgia. Could this be rewritten as:
>During the crisis, Russian president Vladimir Putin described the enlargement of NATO after 1997 as a threat to his country's security, NATO rejects that this is a threat,
?
Fephisto ( talk) 14:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
NATO enlargement is Putin justification narrative, not sure why this statement is even in the lead.. Decades prior Putin also said that the collapse of the Soviet empire "was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century". Since then Russia has attempted to coerce post-Soviet states into a Russian led version of security and economic unions whether they like or not, and failing that use of force. There is always some excuse why the victim is to blame, currently its Ukraine grasp for NATO safe-line against Russian aggression, before the war it was Ukraine's reach for free trade agreement to balance Russian economic coercion (then Russia threatened with 'inevitable financial catastrophe and possibly the collapse of the state, and allowed for the possibility of separatist movements' [37] which soon after "spontaneously" manifested itself with Russian support). Since then we have had 8 years of politically frozen portracted conflict with recognizing Donetsk and Luhansk its last move. Not sure how you can linguistic dissect all of that, maybe its best to leave the various media narratives perception/interpretation of events to background and focus on Russian military invasion of Ukraine-- Nilsol2 ( talk) 22:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC).
I rewrote the summary for the southern offensives to, among other things, specify what direction the various forces were moving towards. I was reverted with the edit summary, "This was too badly worded to be in improvement." I figured I'd just drop a note here for posterity, in case anyone wonders why it's so hard to parse what is happening in the invasion section. - Featous ( talk) 16:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
It’s evident it’s moved past the “invasion” phase and into the “war” phase. 2607:9880:4218:142:FD3B:55EB:57E6:787A ( talk) 19:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Is Ukraine call for foreign volunteer fighters, and Zelensky's claim that 16,000 have answered, worth being somewhere in the main page? So far its just in the info box. Maybe in the "Foreign military support to Ukraine" section? ErieSwiftByrd ( talk) 22:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"The invasion was the largest military attack in Europe since World War II." Remove 'was' as invasion is still ongoing. Honestly I have no idea why someone would make this change. 2601:196:200:6380:C541:31C:793D:121 ( talk) 22:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
The site of Kremlin seems to be continually down due to active DDoS, but I managed to save a copy of the address by Kremlin that announced the invasion. Here's the PDF, in case it's of any use for the article: download link Might be retrieved from Web Archive as well if there's any working snapshot. PS: The original link was also mentioned by the Russian MFA on Twitter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreiSf ( talk • contribs) 00:35, 6 Mar 2022 (UTC)
Reintroducing this section, which was archived by a bot for further comment. Incidentally, it was deleted from this talk page but not added to the archives. Mozzie ( talk) 10:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
This section seems incredibly biased. We only see negative portrayals of Putin and positive portrayals of Zelenskyy. Could we maybe have some level of balance here, as the article is verging into propaganda. Ianbrettcooper ( talk) 11:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
"Putin was effectively in sole control of the country's policy and was the sole architect of the war with Ukraine"– who is this according to? Which experts of Russian politics say this? Or
"His leadership was characterised by his failures to anticipate the will of the Ukrainian people to oppose the invasion, the worldwide backlash, and the poor performance of his own forces"– again, who knows what Putin was expecting? This is the viewpoint/analysis of several journalists. These kind of analyses need in-text attribution, e.g. "According to the Economist..." Also, we should prefer subject experts/academics over columnists/journalists writing in magazines. I appreciate that a lot of effort has gone into the section, and there are some good ideas to work with, but it needs a careful rewrite before it's ready, especially given how highly trafficked the page is currently. Jr8825 • Talk 16:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
"Putin swiftly became a pariah, and was shunned by much of the global community". It takes the attention-grabbing headline and repeats it as fact, directly contravening WP:HEADLINES. The actual article itself says "Putin was facing ... the prospect of pariah status" – not the same as saying he already has it. Our sentence should reflect what the article actually says, and could go something like:
Putin faced international isolation after the invasion; in the global condemnation and outrage which followed, even long-term allies such as China and Hungarian president Viktor Orbán refused to support his actions.Jr8825 • Talk 17:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
If RS say it’s bad leadership, then it is neutral to say it is bad. — Michael Z. 05:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
In my view the question is not if this content is all supported by reliable sources, the question is does it fit in this article? This article is already bloated enough. I think it is better suited to other articles that discuss the media presentation of the conflict. I'd suggest Media portrayal of the Ukrainian crisis Hollth ( talk) 14:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
The leadership of the presidents of Russia and Ukraine was a prominent factor in the conflict. According to the portrayal in Western media, as the autocratic ruler of Russia, [1] Putin was effectively in sole control of the country's policy and was the sole architect of the war with Ukraine. His leadership was characterised by his failures to anticipate the will of the Ukrainian people to oppose the invasion, the worldwide backlash, and the poor performance of his own forces. [2] [3] [4] Putin swiftly became a pariah, and was shunned by much of the global community. [5] This contrasted with the leadership of Zelenskyy, who quickly became a national hero, [6] [7] uniting the Ukrainian people and rising from obscurity to become an international icon. [8] [9]
In the beginning of the conflict, Zelenskyy refused to leave the capital, pledging to stay and fight. [10] When the US offered to evacuate him, Zelenskyy replied that he needed ammunition and not a ride. [11] He used social media effectively, posting selfies of himself walking the streets of Kyiv as the city was under attack to prove that he was still alive. [12] [13] Zelenskyy was highly effective in lobbying his allies for support. He appeared before numerous gatherings of international leaders, telling a conference of European leaders that this might be the last time they would see him, [14] and appearing before the European Parliament where he earned a standing ovation. [15]
References
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Second War of Ukrainian Independence and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 6#Second War of Ukrainian Independence until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
There is clear consensus against adding countries that are supplying arms to the |belligerent=
section of the infobox without at least some form of separation from the countries that are combatants and are listed as "belligerents". Several editors directly opposed this, and combined with
the recent NATO RFC, the consensus against listing supporting countries along with active combatants together in one unseparated list is clear.
The consensus about listing countries in a separate list, e.g. "Supported by", which might be a collapsed list under the "belligerents" section, is less clear. This RFC, which asked the open-ended question, "Should the individual countries that are supplying arms be added to the infobox?", has probably done as much work as it can in terms of generating consensus for such a list. On the plus side, it asked a general question (not indicating exactly which countries should be listed, or where in the infobox and under what heading), which allowed for a general discussion in pursuit of consensus. On the minus side, because the question was very general, it is not exactly clear what editors were supporting or opposing, with many participants supporting some specific implementations and opposing other specific implementations, or supporting/opposing conditionally. As such, a new RFC, with a more narrowly-drawn question, may yield consensus about a "supported by" list, especially if it takes into account the discussion in this RFC about a "supported by" section. I see the relevant parts of that discussion as follows:
1. Editors pointed to a number of other articles about wars that included, or did not include, a "support by" section in the infobox. There is ample precedent for both approaches and no universally-consistent practice. Nobody pointed to any documented global consensus either requiring or prohibiting inclusion of a "supported by" section in the infobox. With the lack of a binding global consensus, editors are free to come to local consensus at this article about whether to include, or not include, a "supported by" section in the infobox.
2. A number of editors !voted to "support if" or "oppose unless" there was a consensus of reliable sources that verified listing a country in the infobox under a particular heading. This is already a requirement of global consensus, documented at MOS:INFOBOX (e.g., the section MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE), which documents the global consensus that infoboxes should summarize the body of articles. This means that no country can be listed as a "belligerent" or a "supporter" unless the body of the article says the country is a belligerent or supporter (and of course, per the Verification policy, the text in the body must be reliably sourced). In this case, the article does identify countries that are belligerents in this war, as well as countries that are providing support (see, e.g., the "Foreign military support to Ukraine" section of the article). Thus, global consensus such as WP:V, WP:RS, and MOS:INFOBOX, is or can be met, at least for some countries to be listed in the infobox as belligerents and for some countries to be listed as supporters, if the local consensus of editors here is to do so.
3. A number of editors who opposed did so on the basis that listing all the supporting countries in the infobox would make the infobox so long as to be unusable or disruptive, especially for mobile readers, for whom collapsed lists are automatically uncollapsed, and who have smaller screens, resulting in a lot of scrolling to get past a long infobox to the article content. I am going to note here that this is an example of an unnecessary technical limitation constraining editors' content decisions – there is no reason infoboxes can't collapse for mobile readers, and that's something we could change as a community if we wanted to. Putting aside my soapboxing on unnecessary technical limitations affecting content, this objection nevertheless leaves open the possibility that editors who oppose this RFC may support adding a "supported by" list if that list were not too long.
TLDR: While this RFC is not resulting in consensus, editors who wish to add supporting countries to the infobox may want to launch a new discussion (or even a full RFC) proposing the addition of (1) a specific list of countries (2) to be added under a specific heading (e.g. a nested list within a paramater, such as "supported by" under "belligerent"). The list of countries and their designation in the infobox must be in the body and properly sourced. The list should also be short (although I have no numerical cut-off for how long is too long), which might mean grouping the countries somehow (e.g. "NATO" instead of listing individual members), or listing the "major" countries with the last entry being something like "... and XX additional countries", or some other creative solution. This RFC close does not prevent anyone from launching such a new, more narrowly-focused, RFC at any time, although a pre-RFC discussion may help, and if that discussion leads to consensus on the talk page, a full RFC may not be required.
In sum, I believe this RFC has done as much as it can to hone consensus, and while it didn't achieve consensus, it did illuminate the issues, and hopefully paved the way for a consensus to be reached on this topic through further discussion going forward. ( non-admin closure) Levivich 21:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Should the individual countries that are supplying arms be added to the infobox? -
LouisAragon (
talk)
23:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
|combatant2a=
with {{
collapsible list}} (and I'd note that collapsed lists do not work on mobile, they auto-uncollapse, so this is going to extend the scroll length by several scrolls as well).
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk)
11:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
this is a significant part of the story, but that story is not simplisticly reducible to an infobox list. Pincrete ( talk) 00:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
See section Foreign military support to Ukraine for countries that have supplied material aid and arms to the Ukraine.Cinderella157 ( talk) 01:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
| combatants_header =
parameter should be used to change the section name to something broader than "belligerents". I oppose adding it if neither of these changes are made, as it'd be inaccurate.
Jr8825 •
Talk
11:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)would render the mobile infobox unusableNot just the mobile infobox, but the article in general. The infobox, which appears after the very first paragraph, goes on forever (on mobile devices) if it's too long, and it's a heck of a scroll to get further down to even the second paragraph of the lead, even though the actual summary of the events is contained in the lead and not in the infobox. So a lot of people might just not, and that means they're deprived of actually useful information. It's considered a given in web development at this point, to design for mobile devices first because that's how most people consume information these days; I feel like the same principle should be applied to editing Wikipedia articles. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 19:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
i think another way to satisfy this is maybe have a separate list to show supporters Bruvlad ( talk) 17:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
23:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)PROPOSED INFOBOX | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Part of the Russo-Ukrainian War | |||||||
| |||||||
Belligerents | |||||||
The following notelist & reflist consists of the notes & references of the proposed infobox:
Notes
References
CNN invasion routes
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Was it "in response to the military aid to Ukraine" that Putin announced high alert for Russian nuclear forces? -- Mhhossein talk 02:51, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
If we keep on having IP's add the same BLP violating rant I will be asking for page protection. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:33, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Why is it an "invasion" when Russia does it and an "intervention" when the USA ist doing it?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_Iraq_(2014%E2%80%932021)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_the_Syrian_civil_war
It's OK when we do it and bad when they do it?
This is hypocrasy.
Either we keep it neutral or we're not better than them. 161.142.205.248 ( talk) 02:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Materiel support for Ukraine should be in the infobox, similarly to how Belarus is shown as "supporting" Russian and the separatists. A NYT source below:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/04/us/politics/russia-ukraine-weapons.html
The source says that several American air shipments of javelins and stingers have been transported and landed in Ukraine already, as of Friday March 4. This would count as American support, so "United States" should be put under Ukraine in the infobox under the label "supporting." Notice I am do not think NATO as an organization should be put into the infobox yet, as I have found no source to support that conclusion. With the above source, only the US should be listed as "supporting." I think this is straightforward. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:3832:ECE5:4910:6709 ( talk) 02:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
According to the UNHCR chief, the refugee crisis caused by this invasion is the fastest growing refugee crisis since the Second World War. Should this comment be added to the lede? Viewsridge ( talk) 13:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
would it be possible for anyone to make animated map from this war? -- Persesus ( talk) 13:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
there has been reports of anti russian sentiments towards russian people who have absoluty nothing do with the conflict. does anyone think that should be mentioned? https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/03/03/anti-russian-sentiment-us/ -- Persesus ( talk) 13:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-Russian_sentiment does that help Slatersteven -- Persesus ( talk) 14:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6374377
https://dc.eater.com/2022/3/1/22954736/washington-dc-russian-harassment-boycott-vodka-russia-house
https://news.yahoo.com/russian-businesses-u-face-threats-183750909.html
https://wjla.com/amp/news/local/vandals-target-iconic-russia-house-restaurant-lounge-dupont-circle-ukraine-war-crisis-connecticut-avenue-northwest-dc-joe-biden-vladamir-putin-poland-romania-moldova-attack — Preceding unsigned comment added by Persesus ( talk • contribs) 14:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
https://www.gmfus.org/news/over-war-ukraine-do-not-conflate-russians-putin -- Persesus ( talk) 14:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/03/03/anti-russian-sentiment-us/
https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/03/02/the-dangerous-rise-of-russophobia/
https://eurasianet.org/tbilisis-russians-watch-their-countrys-war-with-shame-and-worry
https://thehockeynews.com/.amp/news/report-ohl-player-an-alleged-target-of-anti-russian-slur
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/a-wave-of-anti-russian-hysteria-is-sweeping-across-the-west
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/tom-tugendhat-and-the-worrying-rise-of-russophobia
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/2/25/russians-are-also-victims-of-putin
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bu6xUG9zoRg
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o_4I8Pr73zA
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/tom-tugendhat-and-the-worrying-rise-of-russophobia
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/2/25/russians-are-also-victims-of-putin
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/we-must-not-become-engulfed-by-russophobia-s5fk6cs5w
https://inews.co.uk/news/world/russophobia-leads-us-to-assume-the-worst-of-russians-and-assuming-theyre-demonic-could-be-dangerous-1478850 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Persesus ( talk • contribs) 14:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
It should be mentioned in this article & the article anti-Russian sentiment should be updated. Jim Michael ( talk) 16:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Any reason why the following has been removed from the Russian accusations and demands subsection? The Azov Battalion is constantly been raised as the basis of Putin's Neo Nazi claim and the deleted section below placed this in context. Ilenart626 ( talk) 11:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
I agree this adds necessary context and would be good to include. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 12:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
For further context, you might find this publication relevant which covers the evolution of Putin\Kremlin worldview and foreign policy, released in March 2019 hence untouched by current events. -- Nilsol2 ( talk) 13:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
References
I was just reading Timothy Snyder's, The Road to Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America (2018), which is eerily prescient of the current situation in Ukraine. In the book he discusses the 2014 Crimea annexation, and that Russian troops first penetrated the border of Ukraine on February 24, though the press did not pick up on it for days after. The same day of the 2022 invasion. It may be coincidence or not. Notably other events on February 24 are the invasion of Iraq by US forces in the first Gulf War. At this point it remains OR, but I think it bears watching as the histories are written what if any significance Putin placed on the 24th. -- Green C 14:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
I think we can also add the reaction of the Romanian Orthodox Church in the "Religious leaders" section. Patriarch Daniel of Romania called for the end of the war [40] and Patriarchy's spokesperson called Patriarch Kirill of Moscow "a cynical accomplice of a political assassin" [41]. -- Kotys ek Beos ( talk) 17:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Is there any way to find a fully exhaustive list of everything we know happened, with date and location of what happened?
as in: 28/02/22 5:37PM - This happened 28/02/22 6:57PM - Putin says this "..." 29/02 etc.. Esteban Outeiral Dias ( talk) 22:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
https://kp.ua/ua/politics/a644877-u-zsu-rozpovili-shcho-oznachajut-poznachennja-na-rosijskij-tekhnitsi https://kp.ua/img/forall/u/0/58/274002863_284248243807174_4865340587807057973_n1.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.111.52.9 ( talk • contribs) 22:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
It is possible that the invasion might cause World War III, rather than Germany being the main cause of it, but couldn't drag neutral counties like Switzerland and Belgium from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Takeshi Ishii ( talk • contribs) 02:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change title; Ukrainian Sunflower War (2022) —this is for the national flower of Ukraine, and the symbolism of many of the images we’ve seen. 100.40.220.142 ( talk) 12:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
We don’t just make up “cool” titles on Wikipedia, this documents what actually occurred. Unless this invasion is generally accepted as the flower war, this article won’t be named that. KD0710 ( talk) 12:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
At citation 198: was the person who wrote this reading the map upside down?
"Russian troops entered Ukraine from four main directions: north from Belarus, heading towards Kyiv; northeast from Russia, heading towards Kharkiv; east from the Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) and Luhansk People's Republic (LPR); and south from the annexed region of Crimea."
Going north from Belarus takes you into the Baltics, and going south from Crimea takes you for a swim in the Black Sea.
99.227.246.15 ( talk) 03:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
2607:FEA8:3160:5FC:C177:CCC6:4A41:83DA ( talk) 08:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
from the map, it should be military situation as of 24 February as the map was made I 24 February Yymmrt ( talk) 02:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is use of the past tense that doesn't really make sense in the northern front section. I propose to change "Russia had made the most advances along the Sumy axis on the east; Russians won the Battle of Konotop, while the Battle of Sumy was ongoing" to "Russia has made the most advances along the Sumy axis on the east; Russians won the Battle of Konotop, while the Battle of Sumy is ongoing".
The part that really irks me is "the battle of sumy was ongoing". That part of the sentence doesn't really make sense and leaves something to be desired; the part at the beginning of the sentence should be changed to agree with that. If the person implementing this request has a better idea, they are welcome to do so. 184.57.147.234 ( talk) 03:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
I suggest bringing Template:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox more in line with Order of battle for the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine ( like this). The commanders-in-chief of air forces and navy of both countries are omitted, instead there are prime ministers, Patrushev, Naryshkin and Internal Affairs Minister Monastyrsky who have little influence on military. Brandmeister talk 07:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Russia | Ukraine |
---|---|
|
|
Done. Cinderella157 ( talk) 09:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/aeroflot-cancels-international-flights/ -- 90.186.249.178 ( talk) 23:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please update the infobox with Ukraine's claimed inflicted losses: https://uacrisis.org/en/total-estimated-losses-of-the-enemy-as-of-march-7
If there's a possibility to authorize me to edit the page, I'll gladly make those updates myself. P4p5 ( talk) 14:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
The picture seems to be manufactured, because:
The girl front-right is needle sharp and has no shadows (studio like). That differs from the background what is lighted from behind-left and generally very shaky (smart phone quality).
How can a Canon EOS 5D Mark II photo shoot at exposure time of 1/500 sec be as shaky as the woman on the left is?
I also think, due to the light conditions, the father in the center and the person in blue being made up as well (always children).
Here is also no reason for the distortion on the picture. 141.35.40.20 ( talk) 16:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
It’s obviously shot through a chain link fence, dirty window, or something. All of the background flaws could be a result of the background’s soft focus and/or diffraction through the screen. As 1.5 million refugees have fled Ukraine, why would someone bother making a fake photo of such quality? — Michael Z. 16:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
How come these Wikipedia pages say "Intervention" for USA in wars and when Russia liberates the Ukrainians from their corrupt government you call it an "Invasion?" Truth is coming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.65.79 ( talk) 19:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- This is not a forum for your opinions. Do you have any proposal for changes to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:5C01:ED01:C4F9:88E7:B541:1BE2 ( talk) 19:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Explanatory note C: Regional capitals of Donetsk and Lugansk have been occupied by Russia and pro-Russian separatists prior to the 2022 invasion
Can we please change Lugansk to Luhansk? thanks Great Mercian ( talk) 20:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please update the infobox with Ukraine's claimed inflicted losses: https://twitter.com/KyivPost/status/1501110702865534977
If there's a possibility to authorize me to edit the page, I'll gladly make those updates myself. P4p5 ( talk) 09:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Under "Southern Front", there is a picture of a tank which the caption labels as a T-72. However, this is not a T-72; in fact, it isn't even a main battle tank but appears to be an IFV, if I am not mistaken a BMP-3. Regardless of what it is, it is certainly not a T-72, as even casual comparison with the pictures on either T-72 or T-72_operators_and_variants. The turret is too small and centered too far forward for it to be a T-72. There is also too much hull above the top of the tracks, and the "bow"/upper front hull is completely different. I propose that the caption be changed to identify it as a destroyed Russian armored fighting vehicle until positive identification is made, or otherwise to remove the erroneous "T-72" label. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parabellummatt ( talk • contribs) 04:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
To me, this seems like a classic case of overlinking a common everyday word, although I see Jim Michael disagrees, even adding "invasion" to the hidden note to instruct other editors not to remove it. Did I miss a discussion on this? What are others' thoughts on its appropriateness as a wikilink? Jr8825 • Talk 22:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I know Russia's intention was an invasion, but they hardly achieved that. Maybe "Incursion" or something. I know... we need to keep the language neutral, but it's really more like an "attempted invasion" at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabhala ( talk • contribs) 00:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Some sources for this event as an "invasion" (as in they call it as invasion somewhere).
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/2/russias-invasion-of-ukraine-list-of-key-events-from-day-seven https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-putin-news-03-06-22/index.html https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/07/ukraine-war-russia-what-we-know-so-far-day-12-russian-invasion https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56720589 https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-russia-latest-news-war-vladimir-putin-zelenskyy-ceasefire-only-50-uk-visas-live-updates-12541713 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-russia-war-putin-latest-kyiv-zelensky-b2029871.html
Do we need any more? Slatersteven ( talk) 14:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
invasion noun [ C or U ] UK /ɪnˈveɪ.ʒən/ US /ɪnˈveɪ.ʒən/
B2 an occasion when an army or country uses force to enter and take control of another country:
C2
an occasion when a large number of people or things come to a place in an annoying and unwanted way:
C2
an action or process that affects someone's life in an unpleasant and unwanted way:
All of those can be said to apply to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
According to https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-699355 , Russia accuses Ukraine of wanting to build a nuclear weapon. But I don't understand the complaint: Russians just have to bomb that facility and it is bye-bye Ukrainian nuclear weapon.
And a dirty bomb (nuclear waste) is not a threat to life, unless you choose to live there for another ten years. tgeorgescu ( talk) 09:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
a dirty bomb (nuclear waste) is not a threat to life, unless you choose to live there for another ten years– Are you fucking kidding? E Eng 19:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The claim is most likely based on that prior to the invasion, Zelensky said that Ukraine might abandon the budapest memorandum.
/info/en/?search=Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances 78.78.143.46 ( talk) 19:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
When I previously mentioned this, it was quietly drowned out. In his dedicated article several reliable sources are given for this senior Russian officer having been killed in action in the invasion of Ukraine: Andrey Sukhovetsky. It is notable, because officers at this level are very rarely killed in action in the modern era. The sources (see his dedicated article as given above) seem more than adequate for inclusion - RS are of the opinion that he has in fact been KIA. Please comment here on inclusion (or not), but don't simply quietly keep it out as happened last time. 82.176.221.176 ( talk) 10:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
What I’m mostly seeing about the significance of the death of the General is that he had to be near the frontlines due to the convoy being stalled. It’s not so much his individual significance. Therefore, I think it’s not necessary. KD0710 ( talk) 15:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
He just got joined by Major General Vitaly Gerasimov also from the 41st who got killed outside Kharkiv. 41st must be getting smoked. That said I do think it's kind of relevant, certainly more relevant than the opinions of the Archbishop of Cantebury. I mean we're 11 days in and two Russian Major Generals are already KIA, it fits a rising narrative of incompetence on the Russian side. Alcibiades979 ( talk) 00:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
The lead is describing Russia as facing a "financial crisis" as a result of the sanctions. Neither the source used in the lead, nor the ones used in the lead of the main article support such a claim [see this discussion please]. Are there solid sources explicitly making such an argument? -- Mhhossein talk 12:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
This news was shown in an article in BBC, and videos from Al jazeera and various other Indian and African sources. Some students were manhandled/beaten when trying to leave border. Is this worth mentioning in humanitarian impact section? SReader2101 ( talk) 14:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Russia has adopted such a list. Does anyone have an idea where we could put such statement? Russian government adopted a list of countries "taking unfriendly actions against Russia, Russian companies, and citizens". According to a decree published on the government's website, the list includes: Albania, Andorra, Australia, Great Britain, including Jersey, Anguilla, British Virgin Islands, Gibraltar, EU member states, Iceland, Canada, Liechtenstein, Micronesia, Monaco, New Zealand, Norway, South Korea, San Marino, North Macedonia, Singapore, US, Taiwan, Ukraine, Montenegro, Switzerland, and Japan.
[1]
Beshogur (
talk)
15:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Anyway, moved to reactions section. Not sure why @ ProcrastinatingReader: told the insignificance, considering it's everywhere on newspapers. Beshogur ( talk) 17:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
References
I see many instances of an anti-Russia bias in this article. Many claims that Putin would obviously make to justify this war are being emphasized too much and the threat of NATO and US towards Russia and Putin, not to mention it's very credible security threat if Ukraine were to join NATO, are not stressed enough. Russia is the clear aggressor here, I won't deny that, but that doesn't mean that we should be biased against Russia.
Also, There have been allegations of Russia that Ukraine is using Indian and Chinese students as hostages and human shields, mainly in Kharkiv and Sumy. Ukraine has denied this and said that the students are unable to leave because of Russian shelling. Both scenarios seem possible as this is a war and both sides are desperate. Here are a few articles I found [1] [2] [3] Dev-is-a-name ( talk) 17:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove claim of Finland being a neutral country, but keep claim of a major policy shift. Finland has long been in the EU and a NATO partner with a modern and NATO-compatible military. 46.173.225.164 ( talk) 19:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template.
Melmann
19:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)I think we should include a section on the Z symbol used in the invasion, or make a separate article on it. I added some content to the article on the letter but I think it needs to be better done Z#Usage_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine MaitreyaVaruna ( talk) 20:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
The whole thing is about 4-5 days out of date. Goggo2022 ( talk) 20:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Since Belarus is included as a supporter country on the Russian side, why shouldn’t we include US, EU countries that sent arms to Ukraine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:197:A7F:75E0:29B3:56BB:C584:79D4 ( talk) 01:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
International legion of territorial defense of Ukraine should be added to the belligerents on the Ukraine side. Not members of the armed forces of Ukraine. I think that change should be made. Cheers 174.97.35.179 ( talk) 01:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Looks like only Russia suffered great losses in aircrafts and helicopters. Ukraine not.-- 109.93.67.114 ( talk) 19:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Can we have a post about the new jets going over to ukriane along with the President wanting a no fly zone and the reaction to it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Persesus ( talk • contribs) 05:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
The article in the Ceasefire section currently states the wording below. I've seen a number of sources state that the Russians claim that Ukraine broke the ceasefire, for example. I think at this stage it would be very hard to determine who was at fault. Suggest we include Russia's claims as well. Ilenart626 ( talk) 00:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Moscow media outlet RIA Novosti carried a Russian defence ministry report that the firing came from inside both cities against Russian positions, a claim Ukraine's foreign ministry denied. We must summarize sources faithfully. More importantly, it does so without suggesting that the Russian claim is false. Mr rnddude ( talk) 08:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
References
Russia promised to stop the shelling of Mariupol, a port city of 430,000, and Volnovakha, a city in the east, but violated the cease-fire.
met 3 times — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.82.30.38 ( talk • contribs)
peace — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.82.30.38 ( talk) 02:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Map is so outdated like update it ,go and get the updated map from volgoda mapping 103.211.112.85 ( talk) 05:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
User:103.211.112.85, Wikipedia volunteer map makers are doing an impressive work on those maps, reviewing sources one by one for each village, town, road, before changing its status on the map. This process results in about 4 updates per day. There is a possibility your source isnt as careful with map making and gives you a different view. Yug (talk) 🐲 08:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
It would be helpful for this article to either include, or link to a source that includes a description of the Feb. 9, 1990 conference on German Reunification where Secy of State James Baker told Mikhail Gorbachev that Nato would not advance one inch east of the Elbe River. It would also be helpful to note the historic assessment of Russian leadership as being paranoid during the cold war. Together, these suggest that the Clinton and Bush administration neglect of the earlier informal commitment has led to the distrust that Yeltsin and later Putin have for US officials. Yes this was not a signed treaty or agreement, but it was revealed when records were declassified in 2017. Russia also views the color revolutions as being US CIA instigated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.6.23.214 ( talk) 22:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Secy of State James Baker told Mikhail Gorbachev that Nato would not advance one inch east of the Elbe River: not true. Baker suggested this as a possibility to Gorbachev, and George HW Bush shot it down. [46] – Muboshgu ( talk) 22:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
References
>Putin also began to float various purported casus belli; for example, he baselessly accused Ukraine of committing genocide against its Russian-speakers.
Isn't this a bit too informal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genabab ( talk • contribs) 16:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2600:1700:3F79:8050:70A1:693B:859E:B1B3 ( talk) 02:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
World War 2 is going to start
![]() | This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
For coherence and consistency purpose with all the previous and following pages:
/info/en/?search=2011_military_intervention_in_Libya /info/en/?search=American-led_intervention_in_Iraq_(2014%E2%80%932021) /info/en/?search=American-led_intervention_in_the_Syrian_civil_war
The title of the article should be inmediately changed. Failing to do so will unfortunately reveal the bias in presentation of information, and factual inaccuracy, misleading by the editors.
A suggestion based on the previous titles could be: - "2022 Military intervention in Ukraine" - "Russian-led intervention in Ukraine"
On the contrary, if felt more appropiate, the previous titles should be changed accordingly, as for example: - "American invasion of Libya" - "American invasion of Iraq" - "American invasion of Syria" 188.26.214.116 ( talk) 02:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add "1 frigate scuttled" and "1 patrol boat sunk" under the Equipment losses according to Ukraine in infobox. The frigate in question is
Ukrainian frigate Hetman Sahaidachny and the patrol boat is
Ukrainian patrol vessel Sloviansk.
Source for frigate:
The Independent,
Interfax,
The Times.
Source for patrol boat:
The Maritime Executive
The proposed change should be something like this:
Equipment losses:
Acc. to Ukraine:
1
frigate scuttled
1
patrol boat sunk
Thanks in advance. AlphaTangoIndia ( talk) 10:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
No mention of Russias Nazi claims & others.
Since 2014, global and European news outlets have identified the legal & now government-supported Neo-Nazi force Azov, which act as a division of the National guard.
The Neo-Nazi group Azov fall under the control of the Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs, funded by the Ukrainian Government.
The Neo-Nazi group, also called the far-right group has been directly involved in the conflicts leading up to the invasion of Russia.
News outlets have reported this group have been oppressing, fighting and engaging within conflicts in eastern Ukraine before the invasion, self-proclaimed anti-communists.
Putin used this as an example based on the key points the Neo-Nazi national guard group are part of Ukraine's government payroll, parade legally within Ukraine's capital and have the president's consent.
Therefore it should be identified as all are reasons that escalated the conflict into a war. 2A02:C7F:C7A:4A00:FF:4837:FC68:18AC ( talk) 13:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Sd
I note that the casualty figures have been changed from "acc to" to "per". This is confusing. Per is not a common English word. It could be misinterpreted to mean "caused by". The clearest way to state these uncertain casualty figures would be to prefix them with "according to".
Would someone with more editing experience please make this suggested change? Thank you. Dom.uk.1 ( talk) 06:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Per UN (5 March): 1.7 million+ refugees, for example, could not reasonably be misinterpreted by anyone to mean that the UN has created 1.7 million+ refugees. The meaning is clearly 'according to', not 'caused by'. Mr rnddude ( talk) 09:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello the team. There could be interesting to add content about prisoners of war. Ukraine is doing some public relations, and has a hotline for Russians families to enquire about possible family members held by Ukrainian forces.
Please forgive me if that content is already in this article. I searched via mobile phone so i may have missed the relevant section. Yug (talk) 🐲 08:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Russia take not one of the 22 regional capitals (as of March 8)but whole 3, these are Donetsk and Luhansk, although they have long been part of the separatist republics, but according to the constitution of Ukraine the country claims these cities, although it has not controlled since 2014 , and should be counted as another regional capital taked 176.59.56.90 ( talk) 12:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
1 of the 22 regional capitals of Ukrainewe are implying that Donetsk and Luhansk are not part of Ukraine. They are, they were just occupied prior to the invasion. The footnote doesn't help to clarify this, as one could interpret it to mean that 3 of the 22 administrative capitals have been occupied, 2 prior to invasion. In which case, we're just straight up missing two oblasts. Mr rnddude ( talk) 12:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
I think the running count of regional capitals is kind of strange, I probably wouldn't include. Alcibiades979 ( talk) 13:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Here are a few events listed on the List of military engagements, but are not linked into the invasion section:
So, could someone go through and add them into the invasion section? Elijahandskip ( talk) 05:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
For maps, charts, etc. of events-in-progess, should a clear ‘last updated’ or ‘end’ date appear on the image itself?
These images are likely to be shared and re-used around the world, quite likely stripped of some/all metadata.
Would a simple (and unobtrusive) date in the corner or legend stating when the image was last updated (or the newest date’s data on which it was based) be warranted?
(posting this here, as image files don’t have ‘talk’ pages) Jim Grisham ( talk) 15:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
posting this here, as image files don’t have ‘talk’ pagesYou're in luck, as they do! BSMRD ( talk) 15:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi.
Why aren't the Russian 2 million reserves added into this article as well? They used to be part of the /info/en/?search=Russo-Ukrainian_War article. I don't have a source, but, it's probably in the history of that article.
Russia's army is much larger than just the ~175,000–190,000[10][11] numbers displayed.
There are reserves mentioned for Ukraine, but not also for Russia, why?
People need to know how large the russian army is.
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.
All three of the sources claiming that Russia has enacted a ceasefire on 7 March are Indian sources. In light of India's position on all of this suffering in Ukraine, I would argue that these are not necessarily credible sources. Either include sources from more varying and trustful sources if they exist, or remove this claim from the article until it is otherwise confirmed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanos100 ( talk • contribs) 08:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
THis may be relevant [ [49]] [ [50]]. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
22:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)