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 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
I am not watching this page and not going to edit it, just came across an inconsistensy. The paragraph which starts "During the third day of the..." first says that on 27 July between 20 and 30 civilians were killed in Horlivka, and later on the same paragraph states that by July 29 (in my understanding, this is equivalent to before July 30, which means in also includes July 27), 17 civilians were killed. No opinion on what actually happened, it is just not consistent: 20> 17.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 17:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2014/08/19/7035256/ 12 policemen and 65 military and border guards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.123.161.253 ( talk) 14:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The German news website Spiegel-Online published a good article about what happened – or didn't happen – at this incident: Wenn Hysterie brandgefährlich wird (If hysteria becomes a loose cannon). A short summarize:
All this is not reflected in the article. -- EPsi ( talk) 23:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Considering that the infobox is getting out of hand in terms of clear, common sense usage, I'm proposing to remove the 'Foreign volunteers' sections appended to both sides of the 'Units involved' section.
Every single volunteer from any country outside of the main nationalities of combatants does not need to be accounted for. There are literally thousands of combatants, yet these lists are comprised of the identification of one American national, two Spanish nationals, a Swede, etc. While that is fine for the body of the article (i.e., the Azov battalion incorporates most for the Ukrainian government already), it is WP:UNDUE for the infobox... in fact, it's downright disproportionate and misleading.
If anyone has any reasonable objections to the removal of this sub-subsection, please discuss it here ASAP as I'm about to go bold and remove them. If the sourced information is considered valuable in the body of the article, please consider using it in the relevant section of the article when it's removed from the infobox. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 03:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
There is a source of over 1,000 insurgents dead, but the source states that those are Goverment Claims and that numbers only include dead by air attacks. Another point kyievpost report a Goverment Official showing 1,000 Ukranian Service men captured by separatist. 200.48.214.19 ( talk) 18:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Lately Russian sources stated that, according to a Hungarian website, Hungary transports armoured vehicles (including T-72 tanks) to Ukraine on rail. Hungary says the claim is false, and the operation is a normal logistic operation to transport vehicles from one military base to another one.
Even if the allegation is likely false, I think this deserves a mention somewhere in the article. One of the sources related to this: GlobalPost -- Rev L. Snowfox ( talk) 22:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Reliable-looking sources both talk about a) an allegation which carries a significant importance if it would be true, and b) official refusal of the allegation. The original website making the allegation is probably not reliable and biased, true, but Russian media did use the allegation. I don't think that mentioning the fact that an allegation was made against Hungary (a NATO member suposedly breaking international law with arms export) and that it was officially refuted by the government, in say, two or three sentences would constitute "undue weight" in a complex article several paragraphs long already with minute details, including daily casualty data and minuscule named villages being sieged/occupied on a day or another. I believe that the sole fact that this allegation and its refutation were covered by both reliable-looking Russian and Western sources and the inherent political implications makes it notable to mention it in the article. And by the way, Hungary wouldn't attack Ukraine to gain back territory as a member of NATO and EU. Let's not kid ourselves with this silly idea. -- Rev L. Snowfox ( talk) 22:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I would feel honored if you would stop linking me WP policy pages assuming I'm dumb and don't know how WP works as a cohesive and coherent "encyclopaedia". I am well aware that this piece of "silly thing said" does not matter much at large, but I see way more minuscule things mentioned in this and the related articles for supposedly being "encyclopaedic" knowledge, such as telling everyone there is a sole Swedish sniper out there just because he felt like going there. Which doesn't really add much content or essence to the article in my opinion. Also, I'd say accusing someone of "pushing POV" implies a somewhat malicious intent or a need to gain something. On the contrary, it's not my view that it's worth mentioning, and I won't gain anything if it gets mentioned, this "silly" allegation (or was it just an allegation...? who knows) was the thing here in the media. Here, as in Hungary. I know that in general, this doesn't really look like something important from a Russian or American viewpoint, but we are actually a neighboring country to Ukraine, a country which is developing a war of sorts with Russia, as it seems. And naturally we are one of the two closest NATO members of Ukraine. You sounded like I'm actually want to insert some bias in the article (POV pushing) for one side of the conflict, when in fact, I just mentioned a media happening. And yet, you bombard me with policy links, instead of just saying you think it isn't worth mentioning. Well, as you wish, cheers. -- Rev L. Snowfox ( talk) 20:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Just to make one thing clear, I did not intend to imply you are siding with any viewpoint, I meant I understood that this allegation isn't really important from the viewpoints of the key actors in this conflict, meaning the separatist, pro-Russian side (i.e. Russian side) and the Western-backed, NATO and EU friendly side (i.e. American side), although this would needed more precise terminology from me, my bad. Good luck with the article. -- Rev L. Snowfox ( talk) 23:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/victims-of-war-infographic-360259.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 ( talk) 14:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Who claims (except of Russia) that the conflict in Donbas is of ethnic nature? There is no traces of prosecution of Russian or Russophone population by the government forces of Ukraine. Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 13:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC) Actually there are many Russians fighting for Ukraine and some Ukrainians fighting for Novorossya. For example Semen Semenchenko This means that the conflict is not ethnic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.123.161.253 ( talk) 13:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
According to this source among others there is a third side in the conflict fighting against both the Ukrainian government and the pro Russian rebels. Catlemur ( talk) 16:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
FYI, Getsko's threats are the only rumblings I've heard from that camp. ("3,000 armed men under his control who have “Kalashnikovs, grenade launchers and sniper rifles.”) -- LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ) 17:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Yesterday the Ukrainian ATO centre released a map in which it showed attack from the sea in Novoazovsk. Does anyone know anything more about this and what happened? [4]-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 13:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Donetsk rebels have announced that they are opening up a new front, and are "fighting (their) way to the Azov Sea" according to RIA Novosti. [5] There's also various evidence on Twitter to suggest that rebel offensives are under way, especially near Amvrosiivka and Telmanove, south of Donetsk city, and north of Lugansk city in NovoaidarRaion. -- Tocino 15:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Looks like the rebels are in full counter-offensive, videos from Azov Sea [6], [7], [8]. There are other reports claiming collapse of Ukrainian forces in the southern front and mutiny by NG in Mariupol, I guess we will have to wait and see for confirmation.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 20:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Methinks, since the ATO only started on April 12, the war started later than the currently stated date of April 6. 192.252.168.208 — ☎ 22:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
http://en.itar-tass.com/world/746532 The rebels say they have recaptured several cities and have tarpped at least 2000 Ukrainian troops \self-defense fighters are also cutting off Ukrainian troops from Ilovaisk along the line of the populated areas of Agronomicheskoye, Kuteinikovo, Voikovo and Osykovo according to the Militia
militia headquarters have also switched from military action by small units to full-scale operations by full-fledged formations and army units which escalates the war even further and the rebels are now using artillery giving the rebels an enormous boost
112.135.43.254 ( talk) 11:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
This is the last update from a week ago. Do we know what happened since then? Has Luhansk been captured completely already, or are Ukrainian forces still clearing the last remnants of rebels? Is Illovaisk now clear of any remaining rebel forces? Just asking, since a week has passed, perhaps an update is recommended.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 14:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
There is a serious problem on this article of editors, many with a pro-Kiev slant, inserting material into this article that treats the reports coming out of Kiev as though they are fact rather than allegations. Most egregious are statements that treat direct Russian military involvement in the conflict as fact. Reliable sources are generally consistent (outside the usual propaganda outlets) in noting these as allegations for which there is no definitive evidence, but insertion of material into this article tends to simply restate what Kiev stated as though it were a proven reality. Kiev is not a reliable source for what is going on in the conflict as their statements regularly conflict with reality and even found to be purely fabrications. U.S. and NATO supporting these allegations does not inherently verify them as they have backed allegations that later proved to be completely false. The most notorious example was a few months ago when Kiev put out several photos it claimed proved Russian soldiers were taking part in the early seizures and the U.S. backed them wholeheartedly until many were found to have false or misleading captions, implying they were taken in Russia when they were taken in Ukraine or the most blatant example of claiming a guy with an auburn beard and one with a black and gray beard were the same person. Reliable sources reported on that fabrication as well. Suffice to say anything coming out of Kiev should be treated with the same skepticism as anything coming from the rebels of Russia.
I should not that these claims are also being used as the basis for inserting several named living individuals into the infobox as "commanders" in the conflict and thus falls under BLP as well.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Words such as supposed, apparent, alleged and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate, although alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial; when these are used, ensure the source of the accusation is clear.
I agree, just see above for false propaganda claims that Kiev forces are clearing Donetsk and Lugansk "block by block" which were presented as fact in the article. I also remember that early in the war, security services claimed such absurd accusations as rebels are trying to build a dirty bomb-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 19:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
This article 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine is "nice" too, i think Cathry ( talk) 02:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
The listing of the pro-government paramilitaries in this article seems not complete... Next to politician's Oleh Lyashko battalion (fellow Ukrainian politician) Yulia Tymoshenko's Batkivshchyna party also claims to have its own fighting Battalion (I had a problem finding a source not from her website that confirmed that). So it would be logic if the party Svoboda would also have its own para-military force now fighting in Donbass too (even if this only did so to not loose voters to Lyashko and Tymoshenko).... (The same would go for the political parties People's Movement of Ukraine & Our Ukraine; probably not UDAR since they usually act not very militant....) Has any source got a complete list off all pro-government paramilitaries forces now fighting in Eastern-Ukraine? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 12:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Here is about Sich http://nbnews.com.ua/ua/news/124111/ Nobody writes about it because it is PR and it doesn't really exist :)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.123.161.253 ( talk) 07:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
This Sich Batallion seems to be ready now to go to battle (I saw on twitter. Although this Twitter account is probably also not a great source....
PS I found the Twitter account via http://liveuamap.com/. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 13:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Let's be more cautious with our words. A "belligerent" is an armed group or sovereign state engaged in war or conflict as recognized by international law. Since no formal Russian military operations have occurred, and since no state of war exists between the Russian Federation and Ukraine, the phrase "supported by" is crucial. Even in cases where a direct combat role has been played, i.e. the United States in the Northern Iraq offensive (June 2014), "supported by" is the preferred phrasing. Albrecht ( talk) 01:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
"Supported by United States" should not be included in the infobox. The two sources do not support this notion. Yes, the US has sent some 8 million $ worth of equipment to Ukraine. A few trucks and some night vision goggles. First, this is a pittance, especially compared to the amounts invested by Russia on the other side. 8m$ is about the size of the Indiana state lottery jackpot. It's about .000002 (yes, that's 5 zeros) of the federal outlays. It's much less than the statistical discrepancy in state government expenditures. It's basically less than the spare change one can find in the White House couch. Given prices of US military hardware that it usually gets charged at, 8 million might get you a hammer and if you're lucky, a few nails to go with it. More seriously, this is an insignificant amount that doesn't even deserve to be called "token". The other source, likewise doesn't support including the above in the infobox - it talks about the *possibility* that US might support Ukraine. "Analysts expect that...", "US may want to bolster..." etc/.
I would genuinely *like* to be able to add "Supported by United States" in the infobox. If only it were true. But for now, like I said, it's just OR. And of course POV pushing. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 02:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh yeah, 8$ million is also about 1/10 of what a BUK missile system costs, of the kind that Russia gave to their proxies and which they used to kill almost 300 uninvolved civilians, at one go. And that's just one piece of equipment that Russia gave'em. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 02:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
In the section "Fighting worsens in southern Donetsk Oblast" there is a talk about Shakhtarsk Raion which is located in the east of Donetsk Oblast rather than the south. Southern Donetsk Oblast usually is considered to be an area around the city of Mariupol. Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 12:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
War in Donbass has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Per the above mention, please fix the subheading that reads "Fighting worsens in southern Donetsk Oblast" to "Fighting worsens in eastern Donetsk Oblast". It is a geographical error, presently. RGloucester — ☎ 14:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC) RGloucester — ☎ 14:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
There are some Spanish people in Vostok Battailon. -- 79.157.214.243 ( talk) 15:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
According to what I've read, those Spanish volunteers are there with the reported motivation of returning favors from the Russian (Soviet by that time) International Brigades fighting against Franco during the Spanish Civil War, between 1936 and 1939, on the behalf of the Spanish Republic. Many Spanish refugees were accepted in the UK, Soviet Union, Mexico and probably in other countries as well, but many of the refugees that fled to Russia or their descendants returned to Spain, when the economic crisis in Russia during the 90s hit them harshly. These could possibly be some of the descendants of those refugees from the Spanish Civil War. Mondolkiri1 ( talk) 20:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
SERBIAN VOLUNTEERS:
there is no confirmed report or information of any Serbian volunteers fighting for Ukrainian side. Statement from Serbian prime minister is not based on any intelligence data or confirmation. It's simply a political statement with purpose to reduce any kind of potential pressure on Serbia because of volunteers who are making it to Ukraine to support separatists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.155.56.91 ( talk) 19:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I would if i knew how to create a new talk subject. Anyway i do not know what happened with my revision. However, the statement that Serbian PM made was not confirmed even by Serbian intelligence or anybody else in the world for that matter, nor was a single individual identified fighting as volunteer on Ukrainian side. Hence, his statement is nothing but a missinformation for political and diplomatic purposes, intended to reduce pressure on his government for it's neglect of that subject, the subject of mercenaries and volunteers being allowed to go and fight on foreign soil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.222.18.94 ( talk) 17:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Tobby72 made changes adding the US as a "supporter" of Ukraine in the infobox, based on several mainstream sources talking about US sending advisers and military gear into Ukraine. RGloucester removed it, saying that this has been discussed tens of times and to "look at the talk page". I've looked, and I don't see much. There were these two discussions in early August, and this discussion in early July. A persistent theme in all three discussions was that they all ended with complaints that thinly disguised editorial bias was behind the decision to include Russia in the infobox as a supporter (despite the official denial by Russia, and a history of debunked claims), while NOT including the US as a supporter (despite the US's official, open announcements about at least a portion of their support - there's likely much more happening behind the scenes, if the past history of US involvement in civil wars is any guide).
I am not recommending removing Russia from the infobox. When in fog of war, the mainstream views of both sides should be included until the fog clears up.
But I want to ask, why is the US admitting to donating military equipment and advisors (Russia's foreign minister believes them to number about 100) not enough to put it as a supporter in the infobox? Of course, it's not a no-fly-zone or an invasion, but it doesn't have to be. That's not the established practice in other war infoboxes. See Template:Syrian_Civil_War_infobox, Nagorno-Karabakh War ("armament support"), War of Transnistria (where Romania is listed for providing volunteers and advisors), and Korean War ("combat support", "medical support", "other support").
Esn ( talk) 05:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Since yesterday it is well-known and well covered by several western media the first death of a US'volunteer.At the section 'Foreign volunteers' USA should be listed , just as it has already been included 'Albania,Azerbaijan etc...No big deal and no reason to hide this and be unbalanced. It is a well-established fact that there was an American volunteer fighting .
Here are the articles (from Toddy72's edit) that can be used to support inclusion of the US under "supporters":
Note the New York Times article in particular. Relevant quotes:
The Obama administration is already sharing with the Ukrainians satellite photographs and other evidence of the movement of troops and equipment along the Ukrainian-Russian border. But a senior administration official acknowledged late Friday that the data were “historical in nature,” hours or even days old, and not timely enough to use in carrying out airstrikes or other direct attacks.
“We’ve been cautious to date about things that could directly hit Russia — principally its territory,” but also its equipment, the official said. A proposal to give the Ukrainians real-time information “hasn’t gotten to the president yet,” the official said, in part because the White House has been focused on rallying support among European allies for more stringent economic sanctions against Moscow, and on gaining access for investigators to the Malaysia Airlines crash site.
The nature of the US involvement so far, according to public sources, is:
Esn ( talk) 08:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Certainly if the foreign backer of one side is mentioned, then the foreign backer of the other side should be mentioned as well. The US government has played a key role in these events through its support for the Ukrainian government. Everyking ( talk) 20:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
This is silly. The US sending some ready made meals counts as support? Canada sends non-lethal military equipment at least, as does Poland. Should we include every county that does trade with Ukraine as a "supporter"? Should we include the IMF? Anyone who has ever given Ukraine a loan? We can re-enter this discussion if there ever are American boots on the ground, at the moment, only Russian troops are in Ukraine and no other foreign country. -- LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ) 16:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
There are numerous independent reports of Russia providing weapons, training and soldiers to the Ukrainian separatist cause. So its fair to say its a participant. No one else is giving anything anywhere near the level of support. If any sort of minor support was included, you would have to add country's like France to the Pro-Russian side for selling military ships to Russia, etc. Daithicarr ( talk) 21:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Here is an article from the Council on Foreign Relations supporting the view that this conflict is a proxy war between the US and Russia: [13]. According to its wiki article, the CFR is the "most influential foreign-policy think tank" in the United States. Therefore, the view that the US is an important party to this conflict can be considered mainstream even in the West now, and not making any mention of it in the article is a form of unjustified editorial bias. Esn ( talk) 21:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Why was the US snuck into the infobox? Sending ready made meals and calling it "military aid" is a real stretch of the imagination and possible POV push. Canada has at least sent flak jackets and other non lethal aid, what has the US sent that makes it a party to the conflict at all? --
LeVivsky (
ಠ_ಠ) 22:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
According to USA Today, "The Pentagon is rushing new aid — including armored vehicles and increased training — to bolster Ukrainian forces fighting Russian-backed separatists, the Defense Department announced Friday. (...) The gear includes armored personnel carriers, cargo and patrol vehicles, binoculars, night vision goggles and small patrol boats, said Eileen Lainez, a Pentagon spokeswoman. The equipment is valued at $8 million and follows a similar $7 million package of equipment shipped in April." In my opinion, this indicates that USA is supporting Ukraine, not only now, but since April. And there is another source as well, from the Washington Times, corroborating this. This doesn't imply any pro-Russian POV from my side, since, as you might notice, I haven't been particularly benevolent towards the Russian actions these days. And this doesn't imply, anyway, a negative or positive judgement about the American support towards the Ukrainian forces. And I'm not equating or even comparing a supporting role by the USA to a leading role by Russia, by no means, at all! By the way, it wasn't me that included the American support there, in the first place, but I agreed with it. I didn't agree so much with the Canadian support, so I left it out, after it was deleted. Mondolkiri1 — talk 02:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Also please note that, apart from this one-sided capitalist USA Today propaganda, there's absolutely no proof that any US armoured vehicles crossed the Russian border :) Pawel Krawczyk ( talk) 09:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
MyMoloboaccount seems to forget that the this "democratic government" was responsible for the killing of its citizens... Also it was rapidly becoming very undemocratic right before it was toppled and even before its democratic value was questioned by Human Right groups. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 13:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
You're deviating from the question that I posed. Mondolkiri1 ( talk) 18:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Finally! I think that the sources I mentioned previously should've been enough to make this change, but I'm glad that this new support finally allows the change to be made. I agree with The Devil's Advocate's comment above: To me it seems rather lopsided that people are tentative about explicitly confirmed military support for one side, while emphasizing the vigorously denied and generally unproven military support for another side. Esn ( talk) 19:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh, yes, I understand, @ Soffredo:. Could it be replaced by "Backed by" ? Mondolkiri1 ( talk) 22:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I've checked 2 sources [14] [15] and Volunteer Marek is right about USA not having shared any intelligence with Ukraine, at least as of 26 July, though there were plans by the Pentagon and American intelligence agencies (CIA, I guess) to provide some informations to the Ukrainian government. So, as far as I know, sharing of intelligence (as of 26 July) doesn't count. I ignore if there were further developments. Mondolkiri1 ( talk) 01:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, I replaced now "Support" with "Military aid", since there is some aid, though it's not very substantial. Mondolkiri1 ( talk) 01:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
To say that the US is officially "supporting" since April I think is original research or syn or something along those lines. Non-lethal or financial aid is not support, if it was, then every country that has trade deals with Ukraine, including the IMF and its funds, would count as "support". Do APCs and other non lethal aid count? No, I'd say not. Unless they sent a significant amount of military hardware to count as a party to the conflict, I think this is just a false equivalency to even out the infobox (not necessarily intentional, but sometimes its fun to fill in blanks). --
LeVivsky (
ಠ_ಠ) 04:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
This video (with subtitles in English, French and German, translated by The Vineyard of the Saker) can be used in the article for sourcing the official positions of the rebel leaders on a number of issues, including future plans, conditions for peace, claims of Ukrainian casualties. The man on the right is Aleksandr Zakharchenko, and the man on the left is Vladimir Kononov.
I particularly recommend PM Zakharchenko's speech from 14:22 until 23:22, in which the whole "worldview" of the insurgents is summed up. Esn ( talk) 22:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Right now there is a source used to claim that Russians form 80% of resistance, but the actual source is just an interview with an Armenian fighter, so not an expert analysis. Furthermore the source DOESN'T say that 80% of fighters in Donbass are Russians, just in Donetsk, while in Horlivka they are 50% [16]. As this is just an opinion on low-level volunteer and not in regards to the whole area, and from July 15 I suggest to remove it.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 10:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I support including both low and high estimates, even from biased and fragmented sources, as this is an extremely sensitive political issue and neutral sources on this simply do not seem to exist right now. Perhaps this can be expanded to something like "Kievan authorities insist that most of the fighters are Russian paramilitaries, while the leaders of the insurgency strongly deny this, claiming that their forces consist of just 15-20% foreign fighters. Independent estimates have put the number at anywhere from 20%-80%." But I suspect that that would be far too long. As an aside, I notice that somebody has removed the source for the 15% number, which I think was unwarranted... Esn ( talk) 18:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
In the article those figures are mentioned as "reported", not as actual figures. And they're indeed reported. Mondolkiri1 ( talk) 18:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
If we can quote one rebel fighters like Girkin and Bes, why not footsoldiers? Seems like an all or none scenario, and one where we should use WP:RS -- LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ) 05:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I would like to add to this discussion, as this number is far more serious: "more than half of the combat-ready troops on the ground in Ukraine, based on multiple credible accounts, are regular Russian soldiers." -- LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ) 18:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
War in Donbass has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In "Units Involved" section we need to add Russia: 98th Guards Airborne Division. Russia admitted to this unit being in Ukraine. My sources the the following, use any of those
BBC http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28934213 This source is specifically referring to 98th Airborne Division
New York Post http://nypost.com/2014/08/26/russia-says-paratroopers-entered-ukraine-by-mistake/
24.183.30.74 ( talk) 15:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
"a light infantry force. This stands in contrast to the old National Guard, which was a mechanised infantry force." Not true. NGU has BTR-4, BTR-3, BTR-80 and even some T-64. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.123.161.253 ( talk) 14:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
They seem to have a very limited amount of these items, most light infantry units have some comparable equipment, for example US light infantry Division often have towed 155mm guns , HMMWV's and various helicopters. I think the low amount of heavier equipment the national guard seem to posses would classify it as a light infantry force. Daithicarr ( talk) 21:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
According to the Echo of Moscow, the command of Kostroma paratroopers announced about its losses in Ukraine. Information about the perished, injured, and detained soldiers was announced during the meeting with their relatives. ( Command of Kostroma paratroopers reported about losses in Ukraine. Echo of Moscow. August 27, 2014) Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 11:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
The BBC writes "The Committee of Soldiers' Mothers in Russia's northern Caucasus said it had a list of 400 soldiers who had been killed or wounded - but it did not know where the injuries and deaths had happened". Esn ( talk) 09:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Administration of the Dnipropetrovsk Oblast took under its control situation in Zaporizhia Oblast and region around the city of Mariupol, due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. ( Kolomoysky takes under own responsibility Zaporizhia Oblast and Mariupol. Left-Bank (LB). August 28, 2014) Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 13:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
War in Donbass has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Should this be added to the lede? "Ukrainian and Western military officials described on Wednesday as a stealth invasion" - seems the language has elevated to the point where it's described as a Russian invasion, albeit a "stealth" one. Thoughts? -- LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ) 17:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
also, "The American ambassador to Kiev, Geoffrey Pyatt, said a “Russian-directed counteroffensive may be underway.” -- LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ) 18:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
"These incursions indicate a Russian-directed counteroffensive is likely underway in Donetsk and Luhansk," State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters
Russian forces, she said, are being sent 30 miles inside Ukraine
-- LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ) 00:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
"The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Lithuania strongly condemns the obvious invasion of the territory of Ukraine by the armed forces of the Russian Federation.[...] Lithuania urges the UN Security Council to discuss this matter immediately."
-- Oscar-HaP ( talk) 11:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Support: Clearly a noteworthy development and should be added. In addition to government statements, reporters from The New York Times, Reuters, and the Associated Press, among others, report seeing Russian columns in Ukraine firsthand. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 15:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
NATO has just published DigitalGlobe satellite images showing Russian units in Ukrainian territory. Pawel Krawczyk ( talk) 16:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
A new fork of this article, titled Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014), was created. I've nominated it for deletion. Please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014). RGloucester — ☎ 16:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Russia has launched a full-scale invasion of the Ukraine, and their armoured units are currently occupying Novoazovsk, Krasnodor, Starobeshiv, and Amvrosiiv: [18] Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 17:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
These are two reposts from Ukrainian media: [19] [20] While the portal kresy.pl is not reliable these articles are simply translations from Ukrainian sources, unian.net. It shouldn't be difficult to find originals. I might add that the information about desertion of whole battalion in second link is supported by numerous youtube videos that are copy of report by Ukrainian television showing them fleeing combat area in buses.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 21:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the link to a spurious recent article entitled " Registered Cossacks of the Russian Federation" from the Pro-Russian insurgents section subtitled "Cossacks". In the first instance, the use of "cossack" in the reports is predominantly about extremist neo-cons who self-identify as being "cossacks". This makes them about as much cossacks as someone donning a 10 gallon hat and calling themselves a "cowboy". Very few of the population in the ethnic groups known as cossacks have anything to do with the modern-day registered troops. Again, saying that " Don Cossacks" (the traditional ethnic group) and other "cossacks" is the equivalent of stating that the Cherokee and other tribes are on the warpath again. This isn't WWI, and Putin isn't the Emperor and Autocrat of All the Russias. Presenting individual participants who've been identified as being Don Cossacks and neo-Cossacks as being "Cossacks" is ethnically offensive, misleading WP:SYNTH. The sources don't present their presence in this manner, or merely observe that in interviewing someone he's identified as being a "cossack"... therefore, I suggest that Wikipedia does the same. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 00:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
"The Cossack organizations see themselves as successors of the former Russian Cossacks of Tsarist Russia with the President of the Russian Federation as their new commander in the rank of a Cossack-General."I haven't read the Russian article properly as yet, but it also has links to the wrong Cossack organisations (that is, the genuine ethnic groups with news about their latest concert tours, ad infinitum). As far as I'm aware, they don't have the right to use the flags of the hosts they're named after (i.e., the flags belong to the genuine descendants). It's a tricky one as, by referencing the current registered units (such as with the flight 17 audio) and the Don Cossack flag in the infobox, we're conflating completely different realities. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 06:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Final note on the subject of Cossacks: after carefully checking over numerous articles regarding any legitimate information as to a Cossack presence, I discovered that the two identified 'leaders' who have joined as independents are Kuban Cossacks, not Don Cossacks. Further to that, they're simply using the Terek Wolves allusion in a WP:FRINGE manner: i.e., claiming that the renegade group continued to exist after their leader (a Kuban Cossack) was executed for war crimes based on high level Nazi collaboration. These 2 identified Cossacks are known for their involvement in the Terek Cossack community. What we have here is a mish-mash of presentation as 'Cossacks'; boasts about being able to just cross the border easily with Cossack passports; non-Slavic journalists trying to explain what is going on while they, themselves, report that they don't actually understand what Cossacks are, and are probably more confused than they were; etc. The majority of 'reports' contradict each other, are mirrors of other blogs, and are confusing issues by essentially mythologising the heroic image of the "Russian" Cossack-warrior. Honestly, it all reads like a Ripping Yarn plot for a video game. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 04:49, 18 August 2014 (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 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
I am not watching this page and not going to edit it, just came across an inconsistensy. The paragraph which starts "During the third day of the..." first says that on 27 July between 20 and 30 civilians were killed in Horlivka, and later on the same paragraph states that by July 29 (in my understanding, this is equivalent to before July 30, which means in also includes July 27), 17 civilians were killed. No opinion on what actually happened, it is just not consistent: 20> 17.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 17:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2014/08/19/7035256/ 12 policemen and 65 military and border guards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.123.161.253 ( talk) 14:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The German news website Spiegel-Online published a good article about what happened – or didn't happen – at this incident: Wenn Hysterie brandgefährlich wird (If hysteria becomes a loose cannon). A short summarize:
All this is not reflected in the article. -- EPsi ( talk) 23:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Considering that the infobox is getting out of hand in terms of clear, common sense usage, I'm proposing to remove the 'Foreign volunteers' sections appended to both sides of the 'Units involved' section.
Every single volunteer from any country outside of the main nationalities of combatants does not need to be accounted for. There are literally thousands of combatants, yet these lists are comprised of the identification of one American national, two Spanish nationals, a Swede, etc. While that is fine for the body of the article (i.e., the Azov battalion incorporates most for the Ukrainian government already), it is WP:UNDUE for the infobox... in fact, it's downright disproportionate and misleading.
If anyone has any reasonable objections to the removal of this sub-subsection, please discuss it here ASAP as I'm about to go bold and remove them. If the sourced information is considered valuable in the body of the article, please consider using it in the relevant section of the article when it's removed from the infobox. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 03:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
There is a source of over 1,000 insurgents dead, but the source states that those are Goverment Claims and that numbers only include dead by air attacks. Another point kyievpost report a Goverment Official showing 1,000 Ukranian Service men captured by separatist. 200.48.214.19 ( talk) 18:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Lately Russian sources stated that, according to a Hungarian website, Hungary transports armoured vehicles (including T-72 tanks) to Ukraine on rail. Hungary says the claim is false, and the operation is a normal logistic operation to transport vehicles from one military base to another one.
Even if the allegation is likely false, I think this deserves a mention somewhere in the article. One of the sources related to this: GlobalPost -- Rev L. Snowfox ( talk) 22:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Reliable-looking sources both talk about a) an allegation which carries a significant importance if it would be true, and b) official refusal of the allegation. The original website making the allegation is probably not reliable and biased, true, but Russian media did use the allegation. I don't think that mentioning the fact that an allegation was made against Hungary (a NATO member suposedly breaking international law with arms export) and that it was officially refuted by the government, in say, two or three sentences would constitute "undue weight" in a complex article several paragraphs long already with minute details, including daily casualty data and minuscule named villages being sieged/occupied on a day or another. I believe that the sole fact that this allegation and its refutation were covered by both reliable-looking Russian and Western sources and the inherent political implications makes it notable to mention it in the article. And by the way, Hungary wouldn't attack Ukraine to gain back territory as a member of NATO and EU. Let's not kid ourselves with this silly idea. -- Rev L. Snowfox ( talk) 22:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I would feel honored if you would stop linking me WP policy pages assuming I'm dumb and don't know how WP works as a cohesive and coherent "encyclopaedia". I am well aware that this piece of "silly thing said" does not matter much at large, but I see way more minuscule things mentioned in this and the related articles for supposedly being "encyclopaedic" knowledge, such as telling everyone there is a sole Swedish sniper out there just because he felt like going there. Which doesn't really add much content or essence to the article in my opinion. Also, I'd say accusing someone of "pushing POV" implies a somewhat malicious intent or a need to gain something. On the contrary, it's not my view that it's worth mentioning, and I won't gain anything if it gets mentioned, this "silly" allegation (or was it just an allegation...? who knows) was the thing here in the media. Here, as in Hungary. I know that in general, this doesn't really look like something important from a Russian or American viewpoint, but we are actually a neighboring country to Ukraine, a country which is developing a war of sorts with Russia, as it seems. And naturally we are one of the two closest NATO members of Ukraine. You sounded like I'm actually want to insert some bias in the article (POV pushing) for one side of the conflict, when in fact, I just mentioned a media happening. And yet, you bombard me with policy links, instead of just saying you think it isn't worth mentioning. Well, as you wish, cheers. -- Rev L. Snowfox ( talk) 20:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Just to make one thing clear, I did not intend to imply you are siding with any viewpoint, I meant I understood that this allegation isn't really important from the viewpoints of the key actors in this conflict, meaning the separatist, pro-Russian side (i.e. Russian side) and the Western-backed, NATO and EU friendly side (i.e. American side), although this would needed more precise terminology from me, my bad. Good luck with the article. -- Rev L. Snowfox ( talk) 23:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/victims-of-war-infographic-360259.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 ( talk) 14:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Who claims (except of Russia) that the conflict in Donbas is of ethnic nature? There is no traces of prosecution of Russian or Russophone population by the government forces of Ukraine. Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 13:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC) Actually there are many Russians fighting for Ukraine and some Ukrainians fighting for Novorossya. For example Semen Semenchenko This means that the conflict is not ethnic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.123.161.253 ( talk) 13:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
According to this source among others there is a third side in the conflict fighting against both the Ukrainian government and the pro Russian rebels. Catlemur ( talk) 16:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
FYI, Getsko's threats are the only rumblings I've heard from that camp. ("3,000 armed men under his control who have “Kalashnikovs, grenade launchers and sniper rifles.”) -- LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ) 17:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Yesterday the Ukrainian ATO centre released a map in which it showed attack from the sea in Novoazovsk. Does anyone know anything more about this and what happened? [4]-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 13:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Donetsk rebels have announced that they are opening up a new front, and are "fighting (their) way to the Azov Sea" according to RIA Novosti. [5] There's also various evidence on Twitter to suggest that rebel offensives are under way, especially near Amvrosiivka and Telmanove, south of Donetsk city, and north of Lugansk city in NovoaidarRaion. -- Tocino 15:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Looks like the rebels are in full counter-offensive, videos from Azov Sea [6], [7], [8]. There are other reports claiming collapse of Ukrainian forces in the southern front and mutiny by NG in Mariupol, I guess we will have to wait and see for confirmation.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 20:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Methinks, since the ATO only started on April 12, the war started later than the currently stated date of April 6. 192.252.168.208 — ☎ 22:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
http://en.itar-tass.com/world/746532 The rebels say they have recaptured several cities and have tarpped at least 2000 Ukrainian troops \self-defense fighters are also cutting off Ukrainian troops from Ilovaisk along the line of the populated areas of Agronomicheskoye, Kuteinikovo, Voikovo and Osykovo according to the Militia
militia headquarters have also switched from military action by small units to full-scale operations by full-fledged formations and army units which escalates the war even further and the rebels are now using artillery giving the rebels an enormous boost
112.135.43.254 ( talk) 11:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
This is the last update from a week ago. Do we know what happened since then? Has Luhansk been captured completely already, or are Ukrainian forces still clearing the last remnants of rebels? Is Illovaisk now clear of any remaining rebel forces? Just asking, since a week has passed, perhaps an update is recommended.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 14:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
There is a serious problem on this article of editors, many with a pro-Kiev slant, inserting material into this article that treats the reports coming out of Kiev as though they are fact rather than allegations. Most egregious are statements that treat direct Russian military involvement in the conflict as fact. Reliable sources are generally consistent (outside the usual propaganda outlets) in noting these as allegations for which there is no definitive evidence, but insertion of material into this article tends to simply restate what Kiev stated as though it were a proven reality. Kiev is not a reliable source for what is going on in the conflict as their statements regularly conflict with reality and even found to be purely fabrications. U.S. and NATO supporting these allegations does not inherently verify them as they have backed allegations that later proved to be completely false. The most notorious example was a few months ago when Kiev put out several photos it claimed proved Russian soldiers were taking part in the early seizures and the U.S. backed them wholeheartedly until many were found to have false or misleading captions, implying they were taken in Russia when they were taken in Ukraine or the most blatant example of claiming a guy with an auburn beard and one with a black and gray beard were the same person. Reliable sources reported on that fabrication as well. Suffice to say anything coming out of Kiev should be treated with the same skepticism as anything coming from the rebels of Russia.
I should not that these claims are also being used as the basis for inserting several named living individuals into the infobox as "commanders" in the conflict and thus falls under BLP as well.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Words such as supposed, apparent, alleged and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate, although alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial; when these are used, ensure the source of the accusation is clear.
I agree, just see above for false propaganda claims that Kiev forces are clearing Donetsk and Lugansk "block by block" which were presented as fact in the article. I also remember that early in the war, security services claimed such absurd accusations as rebels are trying to build a dirty bomb-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 19:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
This article 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine is "nice" too, i think Cathry ( talk) 02:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
The listing of the pro-government paramilitaries in this article seems not complete... Next to politician's Oleh Lyashko battalion (fellow Ukrainian politician) Yulia Tymoshenko's Batkivshchyna party also claims to have its own fighting Battalion (I had a problem finding a source not from her website that confirmed that). So it would be logic if the party Svoboda would also have its own para-military force now fighting in Donbass too (even if this only did so to not loose voters to Lyashko and Tymoshenko).... (The same would go for the political parties People's Movement of Ukraine & Our Ukraine; probably not UDAR since they usually act not very militant....) Has any source got a complete list off all pro-government paramilitaries forces now fighting in Eastern-Ukraine? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 12:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Here is about Sich http://nbnews.com.ua/ua/news/124111/ Nobody writes about it because it is PR and it doesn't really exist :)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.123.161.253 ( talk) 07:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
This Sich Batallion seems to be ready now to go to battle (I saw on twitter. Although this Twitter account is probably also not a great source....
PS I found the Twitter account via http://liveuamap.com/. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 13:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Let's be more cautious with our words. A "belligerent" is an armed group or sovereign state engaged in war or conflict as recognized by international law. Since no formal Russian military operations have occurred, and since no state of war exists between the Russian Federation and Ukraine, the phrase "supported by" is crucial. Even in cases where a direct combat role has been played, i.e. the United States in the Northern Iraq offensive (June 2014), "supported by" is the preferred phrasing. Albrecht ( talk) 01:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
"Supported by United States" should not be included in the infobox. The two sources do not support this notion. Yes, the US has sent some 8 million $ worth of equipment to Ukraine. A few trucks and some night vision goggles. First, this is a pittance, especially compared to the amounts invested by Russia on the other side. 8m$ is about the size of the Indiana state lottery jackpot. It's about .000002 (yes, that's 5 zeros) of the federal outlays. It's much less than the statistical discrepancy in state government expenditures. It's basically less than the spare change one can find in the White House couch. Given prices of US military hardware that it usually gets charged at, 8 million might get you a hammer and if you're lucky, a few nails to go with it. More seriously, this is an insignificant amount that doesn't even deserve to be called "token". The other source, likewise doesn't support including the above in the infobox - it talks about the *possibility* that US might support Ukraine. "Analysts expect that...", "US may want to bolster..." etc/.
I would genuinely *like* to be able to add "Supported by United States" in the infobox. If only it were true. But for now, like I said, it's just OR. And of course POV pushing. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 02:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh yeah, 8$ million is also about 1/10 of what a BUK missile system costs, of the kind that Russia gave to their proxies and which they used to kill almost 300 uninvolved civilians, at one go. And that's just one piece of equipment that Russia gave'em. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 02:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
In the section "Fighting worsens in southern Donetsk Oblast" there is a talk about Shakhtarsk Raion which is located in the east of Donetsk Oblast rather than the south. Southern Donetsk Oblast usually is considered to be an area around the city of Mariupol. Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 12:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
War in Donbass has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Per the above mention, please fix the subheading that reads "Fighting worsens in southern Donetsk Oblast" to "Fighting worsens in eastern Donetsk Oblast". It is a geographical error, presently. RGloucester — ☎ 14:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC) RGloucester — ☎ 14:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
There are some Spanish people in Vostok Battailon. -- 79.157.214.243 ( talk) 15:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
According to what I've read, those Spanish volunteers are there with the reported motivation of returning favors from the Russian (Soviet by that time) International Brigades fighting against Franco during the Spanish Civil War, between 1936 and 1939, on the behalf of the Spanish Republic. Many Spanish refugees were accepted in the UK, Soviet Union, Mexico and probably in other countries as well, but many of the refugees that fled to Russia or their descendants returned to Spain, when the economic crisis in Russia during the 90s hit them harshly. These could possibly be some of the descendants of those refugees from the Spanish Civil War. Mondolkiri1 ( talk) 20:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
SERBIAN VOLUNTEERS:
there is no confirmed report or information of any Serbian volunteers fighting for Ukrainian side. Statement from Serbian prime minister is not based on any intelligence data or confirmation. It's simply a political statement with purpose to reduce any kind of potential pressure on Serbia because of volunteers who are making it to Ukraine to support separatists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.155.56.91 ( talk) 19:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I would if i knew how to create a new talk subject. Anyway i do not know what happened with my revision. However, the statement that Serbian PM made was not confirmed even by Serbian intelligence or anybody else in the world for that matter, nor was a single individual identified fighting as volunteer on Ukrainian side. Hence, his statement is nothing but a missinformation for political and diplomatic purposes, intended to reduce pressure on his government for it's neglect of that subject, the subject of mercenaries and volunteers being allowed to go and fight on foreign soil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.222.18.94 ( talk) 17:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Tobby72 made changes adding the US as a "supporter" of Ukraine in the infobox, based on several mainstream sources talking about US sending advisers and military gear into Ukraine. RGloucester removed it, saying that this has been discussed tens of times and to "look at the talk page". I've looked, and I don't see much. There were these two discussions in early August, and this discussion in early July. A persistent theme in all three discussions was that they all ended with complaints that thinly disguised editorial bias was behind the decision to include Russia in the infobox as a supporter (despite the official denial by Russia, and a history of debunked claims), while NOT including the US as a supporter (despite the US's official, open announcements about at least a portion of their support - there's likely much more happening behind the scenes, if the past history of US involvement in civil wars is any guide).
I am not recommending removing Russia from the infobox. When in fog of war, the mainstream views of both sides should be included until the fog clears up.
But I want to ask, why is the US admitting to donating military equipment and advisors (Russia's foreign minister believes them to number about 100) not enough to put it as a supporter in the infobox? Of course, it's not a no-fly-zone or an invasion, but it doesn't have to be. That's not the established practice in other war infoboxes. See Template:Syrian_Civil_War_infobox, Nagorno-Karabakh War ("armament support"), War of Transnistria (where Romania is listed for providing volunteers and advisors), and Korean War ("combat support", "medical support", "other support").
Esn ( talk) 05:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Since yesterday it is well-known and well covered by several western media the first death of a US'volunteer.At the section 'Foreign volunteers' USA should be listed , just as it has already been included 'Albania,Azerbaijan etc...No big deal and no reason to hide this and be unbalanced. It is a well-established fact that there was an American volunteer fighting .
Here are the articles (from Toddy72's edit) that can be used to support inclusion of the US under "supporters":
Note the New York Times article in particular. Relevant quotes:
The Obama administration is already sharing with the Ukrainians satellite photographs and other evidence of the movement of troops and equipment along the Ukrainian-Russian border. But a senior administration official acknowledged late Friday that the data were “historical in nature,” hours or even days old, and not timely enough to use in carrying out airstrikes or other direct attacks.
“We’ve been cautious to date about things that could directly hit Russia — principally its territory,” but also its equipment, the official said. A proposal to give the Ukrainians real-time information “hasn’t gotten to the president yet,” the official said, in part because the White House has been focused on rallying support among European allies for more stringent economic sanctions against Moscow, and on gaining access for investigators to the Malaysia Airlines crash site.
The nature of the US involvement so far, according to public sources, is:
Esn ( talk) 08:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Certainly if the foreign backer of one side is mentioned, then the foreign backer of the other side should be mentioned as well. The US government has played a key role in these events through its support for the Ukrainian government. Everyking ( talk) 20:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
This is silly. The US sending some ready made meals counts as support? Canada sends non-lethal military equipment at least, as does Poland. Should we include every county that does trade with Ukraine as a "supporter"? Should we include the IMF? Anyone who has ever given Ukraine a loan? We can re-enter this discussion if there ever are American boots on the ground, at the moment, only Russian troops are in Ukraine and no other foreign country. -- LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ) 16:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
There are numerous independent reports of Russia providing weapons, training and soldiers to the Ukrainian separatist cause. So its fair to say its a participant. No one else is giving anything anywhere near the level of support. If any sort of minor support was included, you would have to add country's like France to the Pro-Russian side for selling military ships to Russia, etc. Daithicarr ( talk) 21:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Here is an article from the Council on Foreign Relations supporting the view that this conflict is a proxy war between the US and Russia: [13]. According to its wiki article, the CFR is the "most influential foreign-policy think tank" in the United States. Therefore, the view that the US is an important party to this conflict can be considered mainstream even in the West now, and not making any mention of it in the article is a form of unjustified editorial bias. Esn ( talk) 21:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Why was the US snuck into the infobox? Sending ready made meals and calling it "military aid" is a real stretch of the imagination and possible POV push. Canada has at least sent flak jackets and other non lethal aid, what has the US sent that makes it a party to the conflict at all? --
LeVivsky (
ಠ_ಠ) 22:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
According to USA Today, "The Pentagon is rushing new aid — including armored vehicles and increased training — to bolster Ukrainian forces fighting Russian-backed separatists, the Defense Department announced Friday. (...) The gear includes armored personnel carriers, cargo and patrol vehicles, binoculars, night vision goggles and small patrol boats, said Eileen Lainez, a Pentagon spokeswoman. The equipment is valued at $8 million and follows a similar $7 million package of equipment shipped in April." In my opinion, this indicates that USA is supporting Ukraine, not only now, but since April. And there is another source as well, from the Washington Times, corroborating this. This doesn't imply any pro-Russian POV from my side, since, as you might notice, I haven't been particularly benevolent towards the Russian actions these days. And this doesn't imply, anyway, a negative or positive judgement about the American support towards the Ukrainian forces. And I'm not equating or even comparing a supporting role by the USA to a leading role by Russia, by no means, at all! By the way, it wasn't me that included the American support there, in the first place, but I agreed with it. I didn't agree so much with the Canadian support, so I left it out, after it was deleted. Mondolkiri1 — talk 02:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Also please note that, apart from this one-sided capitalist USA Today propaganda, there's absolutely no proof that any US armoured vehicles crossed the Russian border :) Pawel Krawczyk ( talk) 09:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
MyMoloboaccount seems to forget that the this "democratic government" was responsible for the killing of its citizens... Also it was rapidly becoming very undemocratic right before it was toppled and even before its democratic value was questioned by Human Right groups. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 13:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
You're deviating from the question that I posed. Mondolkiri1 ( talk) 18:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Finally! I think that the sources I mentioned previously should've been enough to make this change, but I'm glad that this new support finally allows the change to be made. I agree with The Devil's Advocate's comment above: To me it seems rather lopsided that people are tentative about explicitly confirmed military support for one side, while emphasizing the vigorously denied and generally unproven military support for another side. Esn ( talk) 19:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh, yes, I understand, @ Soffredo:. Could it be replaced by "Backed by" ? Mondolkiri1 ( talk) 22:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I've checked 2 sources [14] [15] and Volunteer Marek is right about USA not having shared any intelligence with Ukraine, at least as of 26 July, though there were plans by the Pentagon and American intelligence agencies (CIA, I guess) to provide some informations to the Ukrainian government. So, as far as I know, sharing of intelligence (as of 26 July) doesn't count. I ignore if there were further developments. Mondolkiri1 ( talk) 01:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, I replaced now "Support" with "Military aid", since there is some aid, though it's not very substantial. Mondolkiri1 ( talk) 01:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
To say that the US is officially "supporting" since April I think is original research or syn or something along those lines. Non-lethal or financial aid is not support, if it was, then every country that has trade deals with Ukraine, including the IMF and its funds, would count as "support". Do APCs and other non lethal aid count? No, I'd say not. Unless they sent a significant amount of military hardware to count as a party to the conflict, I think this is just a false equivalency to even out the infobox (not necessarily intentional, but sometimes its fun to fill in blanks). --
LeVivsky (
ಠ_ಠ) 04:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
This video (with subtitles in English, French and German, translated by The Vineyard of the Saker) can be used in the article for sourcing the official positions of the rebel leaders on a number of issues, including future plans, conditions for peace, claims of Ukrainian casualties. The man on the right is Aleksandr Zakharchenko, and the man on the left is Vladimir Kononov.
I particularly recommend PM Zakharchenko's speech from 14:22 until 23:22, in which the whole "worldview" of the insurgents is summed up. Esn ( talk) 22:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Right now there is a source used to claim that Russians form 80% of resistance, but the actual source is just an interview with an Armenian fighter, so not an expert analysis. Furthermore the source DOESN'T say that 80% of fighters in Donbass are Russians, just in Donetsk, while in Horlivka they are 50% [16]. As this is just an opinion on low-level volunteer and not in regards to the whole area, and from July 15 I suggest to remove it.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 10:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I support including both low and high estimates, even from biased and fragmented sources, as this is an extremely sensitive political issue and neutral sources on this simply do not seem to exist right now. Perhaps this can be expanded to something like "Kievan authorities insist that most of the fighters are Russian paramilitaries, while the leaders of the insurgency strongly deny this, claiming that their forces consist of just 15-20% foreign fighters. Independent estimates have put the number at anywhere from 20%-80%." But I suspect that that would be far too long. As an aside, I notice that somebody has removed the source for the 15% number, which I think was unwarranted... Esn ( talk) 18:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
In the article those figures are mentioned as "reported", not as actual figures. And they're indeed reported. Mondolkiri1 ( talk) 18:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
If we can quote one rebel fighters like Girkin and Bes, why not footsoldiers? Seems like an all or none scenario, and one where we should use WP:RS -- LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ) 05:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I would like to add to this discussion, as this number is far more serious: "more than half of the combat-ready troops on the ground in Ukraine, based on multiple credible accounts, are regular Russian soldiers." -- LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ) 18:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
War in Donbass has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In "Units Involved" section we need to add Russia: 98th Guards Airborne Division. Russia admitted to this unit being in Ukraine. My sources the the following, use any of those
BBC http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28934213 This source is specifically referring to 98th Airborne Division
New York Post http://nypost.com/2014/08/26/russia-says-paratroopers-entered-ukraine-by-mistake/
24.183.30.74 ( talk) 15:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
"a light infantry force. This stands in contrast to the old National Guard, which was a mechanised infantry force." Not true. NGU has BTR-4, BTR-3, BTR-80 and even some T-64. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.123.161.253 ( talk) 14:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
They seem to have a very limited amount of these items, most light infantry units have some comparable equipment, for example US light infantry Division often have towed 155mm guns , HMMWV's and various helicopters. I think the low amount of heavier equipment the national guard seem to posses would classify it as a light infantry force. Daithicarr ( talk) 21:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
According to the Echo of Moscow, the command of Kostroma paratroopers announced about its losses in Ukraine. Information about the perished, injured, and detained soldiers was announced during the meeting with their relatives. ( Command of Kostroma paratroopers reported about losses in Ukraine. Echo of Moscow. August 27, 2014) Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 11:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
The BBC writes "The Committee of Soldiers' Mothers in Russia's northern Caucasus said it had a list of 400 soldiers who had been killed or wounded - but it did not know where the injuries and deaths had happened". Esn ( talk) 09:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Administration of the Dnipropetrovsk Oblast took under its control situation in Zaporizhia Oblast and region around the city of Mariupol, due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. ( Kolomoysky takes under own responsibility Zaporizhia Oblast and Mariupol. Left-Bank (LB). August 28, 2014) Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 13:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
War in Donbass has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Should this be added to the lede? "Ukrainian and Western military officials described on Wednesday as a stealth invasion" - seems the language has elevated to the point where it's described as a Russian invasion, albeit a "stealth" one. Thoughts? -- LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ) 17:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
also, "The American ambassador to Kiev, Geoffrey Pyatt, said a “Russian-directed counteroffensive may be underway.” -- LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ) 18:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
"These incursions indicate a Russian-directed counteroffensive is likely underway in Donetsk and Luhansk," State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters
Russian forces, she said, are being sent 30 miles inside Ukraine
-- LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ) 00:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
"The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Lithuania strongly condemns the obvious invasion of the territory of Ukraine by the armed forces of the Russian Federation.[...] Lithuania urges the UN Security Council to discuss this matter immediately."
-- Oscar-HaP ( talk) 11:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Support: Clearly a noteworthy development and should be added. In addition to government statements, reporters from The New York Times, Reuters, and the Associated Press, among others, report seeing Russian columns in Ukraine firsthand. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 15:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
NATO has just published DigitalGlobe satellite images showing Russian units in Ukrainian territory. Pawel Krawczyk ( talk) 16:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
A new fork of this article, titled Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014), was created. I've nominated it for deletion. Please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014). RGloucester — ☎ 16:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Russia has launched a full-scale invasion of the Ukraine, and their armoured units are currently occupying Novoazovsk, Krasnodor, Starobeshiv, and Amvrosiiv: [18] Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 17:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
These are two reposts from Ukrainian media: [19] [20] While the portal kresy.pl is not reliable these articles are simply translations from Ukrainian sources, unian.net. It shouldn't be difficult to find originals. I might add that the information about desertion of whole battalion in second link is supported by numerous youtube videos that are copy of report by Ukrainian television showing them fleeing combat area in buses.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 21:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the link to a spurious recent article entitled " Registered Cossacks of the Russian Federation" from the Pro-Russian insurgents section subtitled "Cossacks". In the first instance, the use of "cossack" in the reports is predominantly about extremist neo-cons who self-identify as being "cossacks". This makes them about as much cossacks as someone donning a 10 gallon hat and calling themselves a "cowboy". Very few of the population in the ethnic groups known as cossacks have anything to do with the modern-day registered troops. Again, saying that " Don Cossacks" (the traditional ethnic group) and other "cossacks" is the equivalent of stating that the Cherokee and other tribes are on the warpath again. This isn't WWI, and Putin isn't the Emperor and Autocrat of All the Russias. Presenting individual participants who've been identified as being Don Cossacks and neo-Cossacks as being "Cossacks" is ethnically offensive, misleading WP:SYNTH. The sources don't present their presence in this manner, or merely observe that in interviewing someone he's identified as being a "cossack"... therefore, I suggest that Wikipedia does the same. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 00:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
"The Cossack organizations see themselves as successors of the former Russian Cossacks of Tsarist Russia with the President of the Russian Federation as their new commander in the rank of a Cossack-General."I haven't read the Russian article properly as yet, but it also has links to the wrong Cossack organisations (that is, the genuine ethnic groups with news about their latest concert tours, ad infinitum). As far as I'm aware, they don't have the right to use the flags of the hosts they're named after (i.e., the flags belong to the genuine descendants). It's a tricky one as, by referencing the current registered units (such as with the flight 17 audio) and the Don Cossack flag in the infobox, we're conflating completely different realities. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 06:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Final note on the subject of Cossacks: after carefully checking over numerous articles regarding any legitimate information as to a Cossack presence, I discovered that the two identified 'leaders' who have joined as independents are Kuban Cossacks, not Don Cossacks. Further to that, they're simply using the Terek Wolves allusion in a WP:FRINGE manner: i.e., claiming that the renegade group continued to exist after their leader (a Kuban Cossack) was executed for war crimes based on high level Nazi collaboration. These 2 identified Cossacks are known for their involvement in the Terek Cossack community. What we have here is a mish-mash of presentation as 'Cossacks'; boasts about being able to just cross the border easily with Cossack passports; non-Slavic journalists trying to explain what is going on while they, themselves, report that they don't actually understand what Cossacks are, and are probably more confused than they were; etc. The majority of 'reports' contradict each other, are mirrors of other blogs, and are confusing issues by essentially mythologising the heroic image of the "Russian" Cossack-warrior. Honestly, it all reads like a Ripping Yarn plot for a video game. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 04:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)